Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
Thanks Tree13Thanks

Thread: Even if Cohen recorded others illegaly....it's still permissible in court

  1. #1
    Veteran Member Devil505's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    62,731
    Thanks
    19731

    From
    Mass and Florida

    Even if Cohen recorded others illegaly....it's still admissible in court

    As long as the FBI acquired the tapes legally it doesn't matter if the tapes were recorded illegally.

    The 4th amendment only protects citizens against illegal government search and seizure.



    Any lawyers care to jump in?
    Last edited by Devil505; 15th April 2018 at 06:29 AM.
    Thanks from Friday13

  2. #2
    "Mr. Original". the watchman's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    79,726
    Thanks
    42252

    From
    becoming more and more
    they were't recorded illegally. New York is a one party consent state.
    Thanks from Friday13

  3. #3
    "Mr. Original". the watchman's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    79,726
    Thanks
    42252

    From
    becoming more and more
    that said.
    This is still a huge deal for Cohen and the so-called president. Today, I heard that Trump's name was actually on the warrants. Apparently, this is the first time. Let's face it. Nobody wants the FBI in procession of their private conversations. Even if they haven't done anything wrong.
    Thanks from Devil505 and Friday13

  4. #4
    Veteran Member Devil505's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    62,731
    Thanks
    19731

    From
    Mass and Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    they were't recorded illegally. New York is a one party consent state.
    I heard that some of the recordings were from California which is a 2 party consent state.
    Thanks from Friday13

  5. #5
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    14,215
    Thanks
    11755

    From
    Here
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    As long as the FBI acquired the tapes legally it doesn't matter if the tapes were recorded illegally.

    The 4th amendment only protects against illegal government search and seizure.



    Any lawyers care to jump in?
    If the FBI is/was not the one doing the recording, but Cohen and if Cohen were recording people illegally, why the hell wouldn't it be admissible in court? Not sure what "permissible" means in this context. If the taping was done legally by Cohen, then why wouldn't they be admissible or "permissable" in court?

    It is illegal for the government or agents of the government to illegally record OTHERS without a proper warrant OR being a consenting party to the conversation.

    If you are a consenting party to the conversation, (among other things) then you can record it. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d)

    (c) "It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception."

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511

    The issue may be whether conversations and their recordings the government was not a consenting participant of, might be admissible in court. There is also the client/attorney relationship and how far that goes if there is probable cause a crime has been committed by the attorney.
    Last edited by KnotaFrayed; 14th April 2018 at 06:48 PM.

  6. #6
    Veteran Member Devil505's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    62,731
    Thanks
    19731

    From
    Mass and Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by KnotaFrayed View Post
    If the FBI is not the one doing the recording, but Cohen and if Cohen were recording people illegally, why the hell wouldn't it be admissible in court? Not sure what "permissible" means in this context. If the taping was done legally by Cohen, then why wouldn't they be admissible or "permissable" in court?

    It is illegal for the government or agents of the government to illegally record OTHERS.

    There is a federal law called, the "one party consent" law. If you are a party to the conversation, then you can record it. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d)

    (c) "It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception."

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511
    You'd be surprised how many people don't understand that the COTUS only protects us against government excesses.

    Example: someones breaks into your house and steal your marijuana....and then turns it over to the cops.
    It can be used against you in court because the cops came buy the evidence legaly.
    Last edited by Devil505; 14th April 2018 at 06:47 PM.

  7. #7
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    36,060
    Thanks
    33450

    From
    United States
    I don't know. I've been told that in NY, only one person need be aware of a conversation being recorded. I wonder if it's legal to record an out of state call from NY, if the state on the receiving end of the call requires that all parties consent to being recorded.

    I also don't know the applicable evidentiary rules, so I'll just hang out and wait to hear from someone who does.
    Thanks from Friday13

  8. #8
    Franken-Stein DemoKKKrats excalibur's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    10,025
    Thanks
    3282

    From
    The Milky Way
    In New York Courts a recorded conversation is usually considered as hearsay, and thus inadmissible in court, but there are some exceptions.

    California SCt has ruled that recording from a one-party state of a person in California is subject to the stricter laws.

    Hearsay also applies in federal court, and again there are exceptions.

  9. #9
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    58,679
    Thanks
    28706

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    Example: someones breaks into your house and steal your marijuana....and then turns it over to the cops.
    It can be used against you in court because the cops came buy the evidence legaly.
    Maybe. But if the guy was in any way an agent of the police, then it would be inadmissible.

    Not to mention there would be no way to prove it was yours. Just because he said he broke in an stole it does not mean he did so.
    Thanks from Friday13 and Idiocracat

  10. #10
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    58,679
    Thanks
    28706

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
    In New York Courts a recorded conversation is usually considered as hearsay, and thus inadmissible in court, but there are some exceptions.
    Any out of court statement, offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein, is hearsay. This would include recordings - written as well as sound. However, there are many, many exceptions to the hearsay rule, including some things expressly defined as not being hearsay, and most of the time recordings of both types can be introduced as evidence if done properly (and I have done so).

    See FRE 801 et seq.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 12th April 2017, 10:57 AM
  2. Replies: 50
    Last Post: 12th January 2017, 10:10 PM
  3. Replies: 30
    Last Post: 11th November 2015, 04:50 AM
  4. Replies: 31
    Last Post: 14th January 2015, 07:48 AM
  5. Court rules: Illegal aliens not really 'illegal'
    By Robodoon in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 23rd August 2007, 05:41 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed