Whether a warrant is required is a federal Constitutional question. Requiring consent to record a conversation is a statutory creation (and state law at that). State law doesn't define what does or does not violate the Constitution.

It's also federal. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511

That would only apply if the jurisdictional predicate (effect on interstate commerce) were met, which I don't think would be the case here.

I spent far more time reading about this than a sane person ought to. I was all raring to make procedural arguments about obtaining warrants, and another crazy tangent about Katz.

But really, It's easy. Put the audio online. Make it all public. Obviously, there should be some time constraint, can't expose an ongoing investigation. Maybe a year after charges are filed? Perhaps a year after trial, to avoid messing with jury pools.

I think this is a pretty great general policy. Police record whatever they want. If the police overstep and record stuff that turns out was private, the people are free to sue. Seems like a nice self balancing amount of surveillance.

Secretly stepping on peoples privacy rights is pretty much consequence free. Publicly stepping on peoples privacy makes the line very bright, and easy to avoid crossing. It also plays neatly into the "honest man has nothing to fear" trope.

Presumably State law still applies to the activities of FBI employees in that state, unless the Federal government has passed a law specifically exempting them.

Interesting point. In regards to wiretaps https://www.privacyrights.org/content/wiretapping-and-eavesd... seems to imply that no, Federal Agents when investigating are not bound by State law but by federal law:

---

Courts have held that the California law does not apply to wiretaps by federal agents authorized by a valid federal warrant. For example, federal agents may go to federal court and obtain a warrant to place a wiretap in California, even though state officials may be barred by state law from obtaining a wiretap under similar circumstances.

---

In general I suspect they cannot be prevented by local state laws from doing their jobs.

That example is not precisely on point though, because it involves a federal warrant - there's no doubting that the US Government can pass laws overriding relevant State laws where it has jurisdiction, and Federal warrants are ultimately authorised by a Federal law.

Yeah this is not an exact case, the quote mentions the warrant part as well (that is why I pasted that part in), but thought it was similar because it is still Federal agents, in their line of duty, and court declared they get to disregard state laws.

The other interesting aspect is this is looked what Federal agents can do, not "How can we protect the privacy of our citizens? Let's see what we can do for them. Maybe they are entitled to more privacy because they live in California". This mirrors the attitude of the "expert" in the story, they just see the Constitution as an inconveniance you need to bypass in order to get your job done.

State law can be a factor in determining whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, which is a key factor in whether a warrant is required.

In California it's two-party consent.