> California requires consent from all present who have vibrated the air while you record the air vibrations
One-party recording laws enable us to catch bad actors. Otherwise, you can't do things like record Rob Ford smoking crack and being a racist piece of shit while the incumbent mayor. The fact that you don't have the right to record a conversation you are participating in is not a good thing.
I'll tell of an actual situation that is different, but with similar elements.
Guy A arranges for presumed friend (pf) to provide transport for post surgery where benzodiazepines are administered along with local anesthetics. Guy A is still hesitant after 1st dose of benzo, so another is given and surgery proceeds. Afterwards, pf transports intoxicated guy A home, but for whatever reason, they agree to go elsewhere. Along the way, pf insists on purchasing liquor, which guy A feebly objects to. Liquor is purchased. Guy A and pf arrive at some home and drink liquor. Guy A is now drinking hard liquor on a double dose of surgical grade benzodiazepine and is concealing the effects poorly. Guy A, whose personality includes jovially natured hyperbole on occasion, is now saying abnormally odd things. Throughout this occasion, pf fails to inform guy A of recordings taking place in the car, home and on pf's phone. The following day, pf takes Guy A to retrieve vehicle from medical facility and informs guy A of his obnoxious behavior and deranged rhetoric on previous night. Guy A is a bit alarmed and skeptical, but regretfully accepts that in such a state, dumb things were said. Pf, however, does not share recordings with guy A, but does with friends, without disclosing context.
That really sucks. Unfortunately some shitty behavior might not be able to be legislated away if the alternative is severely impactful to the state of civil liberty.
We won't find a perfect law which only allows good behavior, but we can find one that catches the most bad behavior with the least impact on those with good behavior.
> > California requires consent from all present who have vibrated the air while you record the air vibrations
> One-party recording laws enable us to catch bad actors. Otherwise, you can't do things like record Rob Ford smoking crack and being a racist piece of shit while the incumbent mayor. The fact that you don't have the right to record a conversation you are participating in is not a good thing.
That doesn't stop illegally obtained recordings from being presented as evidence, so long as the recording was not performed by law enforcement, at least in the United States.
Sure you might be open to civil liability but that's a different story.
> I'm not sure that's universally true. Even where it is, that doesn't mean the recording will be admissable as evidence in a legal proceeding.
Unless the recording was made by police, illegally-obtained evidence is often admissable if presented by non-law-enforcement.
> Evidence unlawfully obtained from the defendant by a private person is admissible. The exclusionary rule is designed to protect privacy rights, with the Fourth Amendment applying specifically to government officials.
One-party recording laws enable us to catch bad actors. Otherwise, you can't do things like record Rob Ford smoking crack and being a racist piece of shit while the incumbent mayor. The fact that you don't have the right to record a conversation you are participating in is not a good thing.