audiotaping neighbors' noise

[pseudonihilist]

What is the name of your state? NV

My neighbors in the adjacent apartment yell loudly so I am thinking of recording the noise I experience so that I may convince my landlord there is a real problem. I would set up a microphone within my apartment, not affixed to the wall or in any other way that might be construed as surveillance. I am interested in documenting the volume and frequently violent tone of the noise that passes through the wall from their apartment to mine, but otherwise not concerned with content. I am aware that Nevada is effectively a two-party consent state in regard to taping conversations, but I am thinking that does not apply in this case. Can I make such tapes without informing them? Or am I required to inform them of my intent and get their permission? In any case, I am considering telling them of my plan, in the presence of the landlord, in the hope that that alone will get them to tone it down. Thank you.What is the name of your state?

 

[DRTDEVL]

While NV is a 2 party consent state, the laws only protect communications with a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I would set up a microphone in the middle of a room in your apt. Place a videocamera on it (to prove location), and videotape the setup as well. Plug the mic into the camera, and tape away. You will then have the audio evidence, and the video evidence to protect the legality of the audio evidence.

Gotta think outside the box sometimes.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Which would be illegal.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

It is a criminal invasion of privacy to secretly listen to, record or disclose the contents of any private conversation "engaged in by other persons" through use of any mechanical or electronic device, "unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation.
Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.650.

This is the problem with people who don't know the answer to a quesiton answering.

 

[justalayman]

It is a criminal invasion of privacy to secretly listen to, record or disclose the contents of any private conversation "engaged in by other persons" through use of any mechanical or electronic device, "unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation.
Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.650.

This is the problem with people who don't know the answer to a quesiton answering.

So how about the guy records himself, bangs on the wall and says to the neighbors, "hey, I'm recording you guys making all of this noise". You know darn well the neighbor will say "Go ahead, see if I care"

Permission given?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

So how about the guy records himself, bangs on the wall and says to the neighbors, "hey, I'm recording you guys making all of this noise". You know darn well the neighbor will say "Go ahead, see if I care"

Permission given?

And how do you prove that the person actually answering was the one speaking and the subject of the video feed?

There are all kinds of things that we can play 'what if' with. The point is, how does a video pointed at a wall and a recording of any voice connect?

The advice was not only stupid and irrelevant but possibley will result in the poster being charged with a crime and liable to civil penalties.

 

[justalayman]

And how do you prove that the person actually answering was the one speaking and the subject of the video feed?

There are all kinds of things that we can play 'what if' with. The point is, how does a video pointed at a wall and a recording of any noice connect?

The advice was not only stupid and irrelevant but possibley will result in the poster being charged with a crime and liable to civil penalties.

First it was not advice. Do you see the little question mark at the end? It looks like this ? That means it is an interogative statement, which you being a legal minded person, I'm sure, are aware an interogative statement is a question, not an answer. Therefore, NOT ADVICE
Second, it was meant as a tongue-in-cheek comment. NOT ADVICE.

Now to your advice:
realize that this is the definition (per Nevada statute) for oral communication:

NRS 179.440 “Oral communication” defined. “Oral communication” means any verbal message uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception, under circumstances justifying such expectation.

Now one could argue that if it was loud enough for the neighbor to hear, then the person doing the uttering lost their expectation of privacy required to make the recording illegal.

The statute also refers to surreptitious means. Standing a microphone in the middle of the room could be argued as not being surreptitious. If they attached it to the wall, probably, but to record what is in the general area of the living area, I doubt it.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

First it was not advice. Do you see the little question mark at the end? It looks like this ? That means it is an interogative statement, which you being a legal minded person, I'm sure, are aware an interogative statement is a question, not an answer. Therefore, NOT ADVICE
Second, it was meant as a tongue-in-cheek comment. NOT ADVICE.

Now to your advice:
realize that this is the definition (per Nevada statute) for oral communication:

Now one could argue that if it was loud enough for the neighbor to hear, then the person doing the uttering lost their expectation of privacy required to make the recording illegal.

The statute also refers to surreptitious means. Standing a microphone in the middle of the room could be argued as not being surreptitious. If they attached it to the wall, probably, but to record what is in the general area of the living area, I doubt it.

I'm not going ot argue with you. The advice given this poster was not only wrong but dangerous and andy 'what-if' games are just that, and irrelevant.

The scenario, as stated, is not only illegal, but irrelevant in a court of law and opens the poster to civil and criminal penalties. PERIOD.

If you want to argue the point, go to nevada, take this advice of dirtdevil then go to law school and argue your own case.

 

[CdwJava]

I cannot imagine that setting a microphone in the middle of your own apartment is going to be considered a violation of anyone else's privacy. If so, that would mean I could not videotape my children in public as I MIGHT hear someone else's conversation ... and if I lived in an apartment I never should run my tape recorder at home because the neighbors might argue or fight and I might accidentally record their screaming from the middle of my apartment.

The point of the law is to prevent the secret recording of an otherwised priveleged (or believed to be private) communication. Once someone raises their voice to the point where the people around them can hear the conversation it loses it's expectation of privacy. And in this case it is not like anyone is suggesting the use of a parabolic microphone or even taping it to the wall ... the suggestion was to put it in the middle of one's own apartment to tape the disturbance to pass the info on to the landlord. I just don't see the crime.

The section cited reads:

Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, and 704.195, a person shall not intrude upon the privacy of other persons by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring or recording, or attempting to listen to, monitor or record, by means of any mechanical, electronic or other listening device, any private conversation engaged in by the other persons, or disclose the existence, content, substance, purport, effect or meaning of any conversation so listened to, monitored or recorded, unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation.

I would think it safe to say that a mic in one's own kitchen area, in an adjacent apartment to those yelling or making noise, is hardly "surreptitious". Similarly, when the yelling or noise carries over into another apartment it ceases to be a "private conversation".

CA is also a two party state, and a recording under the circumstances described here would be perfectly lawful here. There may well be case law in NV that DOES prohibit this ... but I am skeptical that it exists.

- Carl

 

[pseudonihilist]

edit: While I was composing the reply below, Carl's welcome post appeared. I certainly hope the local authorities agree with your interpretation, Carl. Great reply! I will be sure to post here to let everyone know how things proceed. Otherwise, I am leaving my original post intact, as follows:

Thank you very much for the detailed, and prompt, replies. Fear not: I am quite the cautious type and therefore tomorrow will be contacting the local district attorney's office for clarification. Further, if I do go forward with a confrontation accompanied by the landlord and do inform the neighbors of my intent, I will first have determined whether a witnessed, cavalier reply of "Go ahead, we've got nothing to hide" will suffice as permission by the second party (which in this case would mean by both of the neighbors). Frankly, my goal here is to devise legal tactics by which I can bring the outrageous disturbances to an end. Thank you again, and of course I welcome any further advice anyone my have.

p.s. I will address the concern of "And how do you prove that the person actually answering was the one speaking and the subject of the video feed?" with the DA. Thank you belize. It is frustrating that I am not entitled to intercept soundwaves within my own "castle", especially those of the uninvited, and it does seem reasonable to me that a demonstrably yelling person should be seen, under the law, to be sacrificing expectations of privacy.

 

[CdwJava]

If you can, please post back with the DA's reply. I'd be curious to know his/her interpretation.

- Carl

 

[pseudonihilist]

If you can, please post back with the DA's reply. I'd be curious to know his/her interpretation.

- Carl

Yes. And I will try to understand it accurately.

 

[HomeGuru]

It is a criminal invasion of privacy to secretly listen to, record or disclose the contents of any private conversation "engaged in by other persons" through use of any mechanical or electronic device, "unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation.
Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.650.

This is the problem with people who don't know the answer to a quesiton answering.

**A: I disagree. There is no consent needed to record anything from the interior of the writer's own domicile.

 

[pseudonihilist]

Well, the District Attorney's Office "cannot give legal advice", so they referred me to the county law library. Of course the law library also cannot give advice but they do invite me down to research it, with their assistance as needed. I haven't been there yet, and likely will not. I did post a question with AttorneyPages, which I think is affiliated with this site, but thusfar have received no reply. Since I indicated I was not likely to hire a lawyer, and was only looking to have my question answered, I might not get a reply.

Last week I had reported the matter to my landlord, who in turn talked to them. Since then the problem has escalated dramatically, to include taunting me through the wall. These people are over fifty years old and drink heavily. Pretty sad. Thanks for the help everybody.

 

[justalayman]

Well, the District Attorney's Office "cannot give legal advice", so they referred me to the county law library. Of course the law library also cannot give advice but they do invite me down to research it, with their assistance as needed. I haven't been there yet, and likely will not. I did post a question with AttorneyPages, which I think is affiliated with this site, but thusfar have received no reply. Since I indicated I was not likely to hire a lawyer, and was only looking to have my question answered, I might not get a reply.

Last week I had reported the matter to my landlord, who in turn talked to them. Since then the problem has escalated dramatically, to include taunting me through the wall. These people are over fifty years old and drink heavily. Pretty sad. Thanks for the help everybody.

Hang in there. Maybe one of the attorneys around here can give you some constructive advice as to where to go know without having to hire one.

If it gets bad enough, it may be worth the money to at least go and have a sitdown with an attorney to get the accurate specific answer.