ACORN: Housing Assistance For Prostitutes

[Asher]

I look forward to the coming pimp-slap of Asher by people who actually know about the law.

I'm just asking the question. I don't pretend to know the law here.

If it indeed the case that you can simply record any conversation with anyone behind closed doors if you simply don't know them well ("member of the public"), then your country is very ****ed up.

There's a right to privacy that needs to be balanced with the right to free speech.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm just asking questions.

Unbelievable!

[Asher]

FWIW there is not a single person here who knows Maryland law. All we've got is a law student with obvious biases linking to a heavily biased politically-charged blog with what they admit is "15 minutes of research" and a HELL of a lot of assumptions that I'd consider egregious (that talking behind closed doors does not constitute a private conversation).

To me, it seems like when you seek counsel with someone working at a place of business or organization -- and you do it behind closed doors -- there is an implied right that it is a private conversation, and not public.

If that is not the case, then I am speechless and your country has more problems far larger than ACORN that you should be up in arms about.

Edit: A quick google about MD law shows that audio recordings require the consent of all of the people contained on them?

Unlawful acts. -- Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle it is unlawful for any person to: (1) Willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

(2) Willfully disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle; or

(3) Willfully use, or endeavor to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle. Cts. & Jud. Proc. §10-402(a)(1)-(a)(3).

[chequita guevara]

It would be illegal for them to have done what they did in Florida. You cannot surreptitiously tape anyone in Florida, unless you're the cops.

[Drake Tungsten]

What do your local TV stations do if they can't do hidden-camera exposes of local businesses?

[Darius871]

Are you guys being serious when you say a conversation between people in the privacy of a room at a place of business has no inherent right to privacy? And you guys are so serious you think any allegation to the contrary constitutes a "frivolous lawsuit"?

1) I think everyone here spoke not about personal belief, but the present state of the law. Only the latter determines what's "frivolous."

2) Neither I nor the prevailing law deny that such conversations have an "inherent right of privacy." That is why these videos would almost certainly be inadmissible as evidence in a prosecution for the criminal acts therein, as well they should be. However, we're not talking about the government intrusion into one's privacy, which is prohibited by the Constitution, but ordinary citizens invited in by the people recorded to engage in criminal conspiracy, which is prohibited by neither the Constitution nor applicable statute as interpreted.

Far more importantly then that issue of degree, there's a countervailing First Amendment right of the press to expose the truth regarding matters of public concern. By your reasoning, 48 Hours reporters couldn't talk an employee into wearing a hidden camera into restricted areas of a meatpacking plant peddling E. Coli-tainted beef, Primetime Live reporters couldn't file false job applications to a grocery store solely to get hidden camera footage of employees bleaching old pork and relabeling expired meats, etc., and yet in those real cases the undercover reporters won not only on First Amendment grounds but also because the "invasion of privacy," even if unethical or illegal, did not proximately cause the plaintiff's damages - the plaintiff's own bad acts did. Maybe it'd be simple enough not to break the law in front of strangers.

Some bedtime reading for you:

Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 194 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 1999)
CBS, Inc. v. Davis, 510 U.S. 1315 (1994)

[Drake Tungsten]

Pimp-slap

[Asher]

1) I think everyone here spoke not about personal belief, but the present state of the law. Only the latter determines what's "frivolous."

2) Neither I nor the prevailing law deny that such conversations have an "inherent right of privacy." That is why these videos would almost certainly be inadmissible as evidence in a prosecution for the criminal acts therein, as well they should be. However, we're not talking about the government intrusion into one's privacy, which is prohibited by the Constitution, but ordinary citizens invited in by the people recorded to engage in criminal conspiracy, which is prohibited by neither the Constitution nor applicable statute as interpreted.

Far more importantly then that issue of degree, there's a countervailing First Amendment right of the press to expose the truth regarding matters of public concern. By your reasoning, 48 Hours reporters couldn't talk an employee into wearing a hidden camera into restricted areas of a meatpacking plant peddling E. Coli-tainted beef, Primetime Live reporters couldn't file false job applications to a grocery store solely to get hidden camera footage of employees bleaching old pork and relabeling expired meats, etc., and yet in those real cases the undercover reporters won not only on First Amendment grounds but also because the "invasion of privacy," even if unethical or illegal, did not proximately cause the plaintiff's damages - the plaintiff's own bad acts did. Maybe it'd be simple enough not to break the law in front of strangers.

Some bedtime reading for you:

Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 194 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 1999)
CBS, Inc. v. Davis, 510 U.S. 1315 (1994)

I am not a lawyer, but what the **** do these cases have anything to do with Maryland law? A quick google shows they don't have anything to do with it.

While I appreciate your post, which name-dropped irrelevant cases as a red herring, it's not addressing the subject matter. I'm not sure if 48 Hours has a right to do those kinds of hidden camera investigations in Maryland, and apparently you don't either as you dodged the point.

Please address the actual question and don't give me another post of red herrings, which are apparently effective for Drake but not for me.

According to Maryland law, a person in private conversation needs to have their consent given for it to be recorded. Correct?

The blog you linked to argued this doesn't apply because the people they talked to were "off the streets" and therefore it's akin to making the statement in a town hall? This sounds absurd to me. You quoted it, so I'm asking you to defend it.

Don't give me another post full of bull**** of irrelevant cases. I'm not impressed.

[chequita guevara]

What do your local TV stations do if they can't do hidden-camera exposes of local businesses?

Dunno, I don't watch local news.

[Asher]

Pimp-slap

How the hell is it a pimp slap? He dodged the question completely and cited (and didn't even ****ing link to, probably 'cause he didn't want anyone to actually look at them) cases that have nothing to do with the Maryland law in question.

Sorry Drake, you've just been had.

[Darius871]

FWIW there is not a single person here who knows Maryland law. All we've got is a law student with obvious biases linking to a heavily biased politically-charged blog

I am not a lawyer, but what the **** do these cases have anything to do with Maryland law? A quick google shows they don't have anything to do with it.

While I appreciate your post, which name-dropped irrelevant cases as a red herring, it's not addressing the subject matter. I'm not sure if 48 Hours has a right to do those kinds of hidden camera investigations in Maryland, and apparently you don't either as you dodged the point.

Please address the actual question and don't give me another post of red herrings, which are apparently effective for Drake but not for me.

OMFG, are you so ignorant of American law to not know that the Constitution pre-empts conflicting state law? The point of those "red herrings" was not what Maryand law says, but that Maryand law does not even govern the issue. Thus they are not red herrings at all.

[Asher]

OMFG, are you so ignorant of American law to not know that the Constitution pre-empts conflicting state law? The point of those "red herrings" was not what Maryand law says, but that Maryand law does not necessarily even govern the issue.

"does not necessarily"?

How the **** can this be a "frivilous lawsuit" if we're not even sure which laws govern what? How can this law be still valid and on the books if it's so obviously not enforceable?

And yes, Darius, I thought it made it clear I am not a lawyer. I'll repeat it again for you to hear -- I am not a lawyer. I also have zero interest in reading dozens of pages of legalese court summaries, which I'm sure you knew when you cited them without even linking them.

[Drake Tungsten]

Pimp-slap x 2

[Asher]

Just spent two minutes of my life that I'll never get back looking into the cited "Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc." case.

It doesn't even look like it has anything to do with wiretapping/recording laws, but instead "fraud, breach of the reporter/employees' duty of loyalty, and trespass".

Are you serious when you say this case is at all relevant?

[Darius871]

How can this law be still valid and on the books if it's so obviously not enforceable?

Do you even have to ask? The original purpose of the Maryland Wiretap Act, which is modeled after the federal one, was to invalidate certain practices by police, and the vast majority of cites to it are by criminal defense attorneys for that purpose. In fact, the very case the blog cited (Malpas v. State, 695 A.2d 588, 595 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997)) was a defendant's attempt to make some evidence inadmissible.

Why on earth would any legislature take an entire statute "off the books" merely because it wouldn't constitutionally apply to undercover reporters' recording of matters of public concern, which accounts for probably 0.00001% of cases brought under it and 0% of the cases for which it was intended? There thousands of statutes "on the books" that would technically be invalid if applied in certain circumstances. That's nothing new. FFS, it's "on the books" in many states that you can't engage in homosexual sodomy in the privacy of your own home, even though Lawrence v. Texas put the kibosh on those laws years ago.