Check carefully before you respond. I did not make the post you responded to here.
Anyway some more inconvenient facts. Source: 18 USC 2510 and the ACLU.
With respect to wiretap statutes, it seems that 38 states (and importantly DC) allow an individual to record a conversation to which the individual is a party (like Tripp) without the consent of the other party. The federal wiretap statute cited above also allows one party consent recording of telephone communications in most instances. Only 12 states prohibit the recording of private conversations without the consent of all parties (CA, DE, FL, IL, MD, MA, MI, MT, NH. OR, PA & WA). Federal (more permissive) wiretap law applies when the conversations occur between two states. As I recall, Monica lives in DC and Tripp in MD. It is unclear if a tougher state law such as MD would be pre-empted by the federal law in case of conflict. There have been amendments offered to require consent of all parties and to require beeps when recording to alert the other party when recording is taking place but as of the last session of Congress these had not been enacted.
I saw nothing in the statute which would keep the Tripp tapes from being admissible even if they were obtained illegally. The statute seems to prohibit the recording not the use (unless illegally obtained by the state for use in a criminal prosecution which implicates the 4th amendment).
Oops! Guess you were wrong (again). I'm sure you will never admit it. Of course I must have made it all up. By the way, is Tripp in jail? Anyway why don't you review the statute and law and explain to me how I'm wrong. Maybe you can argue some sort of telephone mistress privilege which would have as much chance of succeeding as Bubba's claims of protective privilege, executive privilege, etc.
JLA |
