Adding audio to survelliance system

[donovanatee]

What is the name of your state? MASSACHUSETTS

We are engaged in a "he said, she said" battle of credibility with our next door neighbors.
Police have been called to the neighborhood dozens of times over the past 2 years.
These people have explosive fits and scream outrageous accusations and threats against my family. The wife is a particularly convincing pathological liar, and we are basically in a battle of credibility where the police department is concerned.

We have a decent survelliance system with cameras posted around our property and some angles view the street and abutting propertys in addition to our own. Police don't know who to believe, and the hostilities are escalating. I have sound on my system and have also looked into adding a high gain microphone, which would be placed in the middle of my yard, next to the infrared camera in one of my trees. This is a horrible way to live, but I can't sell the house, and I feel that if I could just prove what these people say to us on a regular basis, they would stop. The police chief told me there is no way I can use audio to record noise on my property.

The question: Would using sound on my survelliance system on my outdoor property
be against the law? What is "ambient noise", and how might it apply to the legality
of recording the noise heard from my property? Is there any legal way to record audio of
what can be easily heard in the middle of my yard? Thanks.

 

[lcannister]

The police chief told me there is no way I can use audio to record noise on my property.

Perhaps he meant you can record all you want but in your state it might be illegal to use the recording if you do not BEFOREHAND inform the individual/s they are being recorded.

I would think recording "nature" around the property might be appropriate but once you want to use the parts that are picked up of people you would not be allowed to use it.

 

[quincy]

In Massachusetts, it is illegal to willfully intercept (secretly hear, secretly record or aid anothe to secretly hear or record) any wire or oral communication. Consent of all parties is required. It is also illegal to willfully use or disclose any information concerning the identity of parties or the existence, contents, substance, purport or meaning of such communication if one knows that the information was obtained through such illegal interception. Your neighbors could sue to recover actual or statutory damages. You could face fines between $5,000 and $10,000 and/or 2 to 5 years in jail.
It would behoove you to find a different way to settle your dispute.

 

[Just Blue]

In Massachusetts, it is illegal to willfully intercept (secretly hear, secretly record or aid anothe to secretly hear or record) any wire or oral communication. Consent of all parties is required. It is also illegal to willfully use or disclose any information concerning the identity of parties or the existence, contents, substance, purport or meaning of such communication if one knows that the information was obtained through such illegal interception. Your neighbors could sue to recover actual or statutory damages. You could face fines between $5,000 and $10,000 and/or 2 to 5 years in jail.
It would behoove you to find a different way to settle your dispute.

And let me add to this by saying: They WILL prosecute! You will go to jail! Massachusetts takes this very seriously!

 

[looking4trth]

Hello:

I know nothing of your States' laws but here's an example of a police officer's advice about the "law" in AZ:
Two men trespassed onto my property to repair a fence they had taken out while parking 2 halves of a double wide mobile home. I called the police to have them charged with trespassing, the cop said to me, "Oh, I can't charge them with trespassing they were only doing what they were told." So, my reply was, "So, does that mean if my friend tells me to go rob my neighbors house I can, without getting into trouble, because I was doing what I was told?" We Think because they are cops they KNOW the law.

Look up your States' Revised Statutes about surveilllance and audio recording. Why can't you record audio on your own private property? I have a similar situation and the police told me that audio is the most important thing I can have, as long as one person in the conversation knows it's being recorded, i.e., your voice has to be on there too to be IN the conversation, then, you are the ONE person that knows it's being recorded, get it?

Sorry I couldn't tell you the answer but I would check out the surveillance laws for your State.

Looking4trth

 

[quincy]

Arizona's laws are different than Massachusett's laws. In Arizona, you need the consent of only one person, not all parties, to audio tape a conversation. It is illegal, however, for a person to possess or control such a device if he intends to use it illegally. The statute also says that, if an average reasonable person of average reasonable sensitivities has a reasonable expectation of privacy, the audio taping of a conversation may violate the provision.

 

[Just Blue]

Hello:

I know nothing of your States' laws but here's an example of a police officer's advice about the "law" in AZ:
Two men trespassed onto my property to repair a fence they had taken out while parking 2 halves of a double wide mobile home. I called the police to have them charged with trespassing, the cop said to me, "Oh, I can't charge them with trespassing they were only doing what they were told." So, my reply was, "So, does that mean if my friend tells me to go rob my neighbors house I can, without getting into trouble, because I was doing what I was told?" We Think because they are cops they KNOW the law.

Look up your States' Revised Statutes about surveilllance and audio recording. Why can't you record audio on your own private property? I have a similar situation and the police told me that audio is the most important thing I can have, as long as one person in the conversation knows it's being recorded, i.e., your voice has to be on there too to be IN the conversation, then, you are the ONE person that knows it's being recorded, get it?

Sorry I couldn't tell you the answer but I would check out the surveillance laws for your State.

Looking4trth

What an utter waste your post was. Don't respond unless you know the answer....Especially after the OP has already been properly advised by SEVERAL other members as to the state law.
And to answer your question: In Massachusetts it is against the law to record a conversation unless ALL parties agree. In this state people ACTUALLY have rights!

 

[looking4trth]

So much for the First Amendment!!

 

[Just Blue]

So much for the First Amendment!!

What the heck does the 1st Amendment have to do with you posting, at best, misleading information to the OP?

 

[mommyof4]

So much for the First Amendment!!

WTH does the first amemdment have to do with whether or not is legal to secretly record others in the state if Mass?

Try actually READING the first amendment so you can at least know when to refrain from spouting off. Here, I'll even post it for you.

Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

People invoking any of the assorted amendments when they truly have nothing to do with the topic at hand is one of my biggest pet peeves. It makes me wonder how many people slept through their history/government/civics classes. At this point, I'm estimating 98.72%.

 

[Just Blue]

WTH does the first amemdment have to do with whether or not is legal to secretly record others in the state if Mass?

Try actually READING the first amendment so you can at least know when to refrain from spouting off. Here, I'll even post it for you.



People invoking any of the assorted amendments when they truly have nothing to do with the topic at hand is one of my biggest pet peeves. It makes me wonder how many people slept through their history/government/civics classes. At this point, I'm estimating 98.72%.

Now I thought that "looking4trth" referenced the first amendment because I told he/she/it not to post if he/she/it didn't know what the heck he/she/it was talking about...

 

[mommyof4]

Oh....

Well, in that case...

Looking4trth....you STILL need to read the amendment and look for the truth. It has nothing to do with your "right" to spout incorrect information based on what somebody TOLD you in AZ.

Do you need me to post it again?

 

[msiron]

Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272 , § 99: It is a crime to record any conversation, whether oral or wire, without the consent of all parties in Massachusetts. The penalty for violating the law is a fine of up to $10,000 and a jail sentence of up to five years.

Disclosure of the contents of an illegally recorded conversation, when accompanied by the knowledge that it was obtained illegally, is a misdemeanor that can be punished with a fine of up to $5,000 and imprisonment for up to two years. Civil damages are expressly authorized for the greater of actual damages, $100 for each day of violation or $1,000. Punitive damages and attorney fees also are recoverable.

 

[tuckerm]

Baystategirl and Mommyof4:

What in the world got your ire up? Looking4trth was offering his/her personal experience, in an apparent attempt to help. It might not have pertained directly to the situation that the op was experiencing, but it may have been useful nontheless. I would suspect, baystategirl, that somewhere in your 5,864 posts you may have done the very same thing....

Just stating this, because as a new participator to this board, and one who enjoys reading many topics and posts, I was startled by the pompousness shown here.

Beth

 

[mommyof4]

I clearly stated what got "my ire" up. Reread my post.

Giving out blatantly incorrect infomormation based upon something one hears or "experiences" in another state is far from helpful, especially when what L4T was suggesting is a pretty serious crime in Mass.

Quite frankly, I am amazed at your gall to interject yourself into a conversation for no purpose other than to chastise other members...of course, it did come to my notice that you have yet to offer any valid legal advice to the poster (or any other, for that matter) as well.