Home
Public Forum
Credit Reports
Apply For Cards
Credit Directory
Credit Overview
Credit Problems
Credit News
International
Credit Glossary
Purchase Books
Credit Laws
Business Credit
Merchant Accts
   

Ohio Taping Laws


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Credit Forum Index ]

Posted by Freedom Financial Flyer (24.26.132.55) on September 11, 2003 at 19:49:38:

I could use some more clarification on the taping laws. Below are the Ohio Statues regarding taping laws for reference.

Question 1: Am I to understand that I can tape as long as I have consent from the person on the other line?

Question 2: Can I tape without consent if I believe someone is about to break the law?

Question 3: If only one person needs consent in order to tape, could I be that one person?

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2933.52: Intercepting, recording or disclosing the contents of a wire, oral or electronic communication if a person is a participant, or has obtained the consent of at least one participant, is legal unless it is accompanied by a criminal or tortious intent.

Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of "oral communication," Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2933.51. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that prisoners do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their communications, for purposes of the wiretapping law. State v. Robb, 723 N.E.2d 1019 (Ohio 2000).

Illegal interceptions are felonies and also carry potential civil liability for the greater of actual damages, $200 per day of violation or $10,000, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation expenses. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2933.65.

The recording of cordless telephone conversations picked up, initially inadvertently, through a baby monitor without the consent of any party to the conversations was found to be an illegal interception of both an oral and wire communication by the state's highest court in 1994. Ohio v. Bidinost, 644 N.E.2d 318 (Ohio 1994).

Ohio has an anti-voyeurism law that prohibits surreptitiously invading a person's privacy for sexual purposes. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2907.08.




Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:


[ Follow Ups ]   [ Post Followup ]   [ Credit Forum Index ]

 

    Top Of Page

  

Copyright © 1999-2003 Enkephalos Web Design