Is it legal to videotape counseling sessions?

[anotherone]

What is the name of your state? Oregon -- I'm wondering if it is legal to videotape counseling sessions without the counselor disclosing to the client that (s)he is doing so or obtaining any permission to do so. Ostensibly, the purpose is to protect each from false accusation. The camera sits on a shelf pointed toward the couch, so it isn't hidden. I'm told there is no light on, so it isn't certain whether it is on or not. The counselor has a criminal past (nothing that involved voyeurism or peeping). Any red flags or illegalities here?

 

[JETX]

Any red flags or illegalities here?

And what was the response when you asked him if he was recording your sessions?
If he said yes, you have option to terminate your patient relationship.
If he said no, you have the same option.
However, if he lied about either answer, that would NOT be a criminal act, but would likely be a violation of your state licensing ethics.

 

[anotherone]

There is no license required in Oregon, and this is an "unlicensed" counselor practicing under a pastoral ordination.

I know (s)he told a fellow professional with whom (s)he was pursuing a professional relationship (s)he was videotaping ALL sessions. (S)He specifically told a client (s)he was NOT videotaping her. Otherwise, (s)he has said nothing to clients about the videotaping, so far as I am aware. I ended my relationship with this counselor prior to his/her pursuit of the videotaping.

 

[OregonLawyer]

In Oregon, it is illegal to videotape (or audiotape) live conversations unless you have the consent of all parties to the conversation. If he told someone that he wasn't taping, and taped anyway, that is illegal. If you like, you can call the police and ask them to investigate whether he has any tapes of you on file.

 

[JETX]

If you like, you can call the police and ask them to investigate whether he has any tapes of you on file.

Yeah, right!!!
I am sure they would come running with lights a-flashin' and sirens a-soundin' on such a complaint. And of course, in order to do what you suggest, they would REQUIRE a search warrant.... which no judge would give.
What a stupid comment!!!

 

[OregonLawyer]

Yeah, right!!!
I am sure they would come running with lights a-flashin' and sirens a-soundin' on such a complaint. And of course, in order to do what you suggest, they would REQUIRE a search warrant.... which no judge would give.
What a stupid comment!!!

You have no idea what you are talking about. Surreptitious videotaping is investigated in Oregon. No warrant is required in order to commence an investigation. If and when they gather enough evidence from their investigation to constitute probable cause, then warrants for search and/or arrest can follow. Are they going to send in the SWAT team? No. If you can't be constructive in your comments, why don't you just leave the lawyering to the lawyers.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

You have no idea what you are talking about. Surreptitious videotaping is investigated in Oregon. No warrant is required in order to commence an investigation. If and when they gather enough evidence from their investigation to constitute probable cause, then warrants for search and/or arrest can follow. Are they going to send in the SWAT team? No. If you can't be constructive in your comments, why don't you just leave the lawyering to the lawyers.

Listen, did you actually READ the original post? Even if a warrant was issued for this 'fishing' expedition, take a wild-assed guess on what ground it would be quashed...

 

[JETX]

Surreptitious videotaping is investigated in Oregon.

Okay, crap-for-brains.... how about giving ONE cite to ANY Oregon case where a citizen filed a 'recording complaint' and criminal charges were filed???
How long would you like us to wait???

No warrant is required in order to commence an investigation.

And no one said a warrant was needed to COMMENCE an investigation. You're the idiot who said "call the police and ask them to investigate whether he has any tapes of you on file."
If you were a real attorney, you would realize that an investigation into a counselor, licensed or not, practicing under a pastoral ordination.... will get nowhere without a search warrant. And without an affidavit of probable cause by an officer.... no warrant.

If and when they gather enough evidence from their investigation to constitute probable cause

Gee... and how do you expect them to get ANY (much less sufficient) evidence without a warrant??
What a doofus.

If you can't be constructive in your comments, why don't you just leave the lawyering to the lawyers.

Since you are NOT an attorney (wanta' trade bar cards??), you will probably have to ask your parents for directions to the local courthouse... and see if they will let you ride your bike that far.

 

[OregonLawyer]

Okay, how about the Tillamook case where a business owner was arrested for putting a videotape in the ladies' bathroom air vent? It's now also a civil class action.

What is the counselor going to do? Claim the privilege? It's the patient's privilege to waive, not the counselor's. If a patient gives police permission to investigate whether there are any videotapes of him in that counselor's office, there's no privilege.

Regarding the investigation, if the police were to talk to this "other professional" and he said that the counselor admitted videotaping the sessions, and/or the counselor themselves admitted the taping (there is no privilege attached to the process of taping, only to the content), and/or the OP waived the privilege with regard to his session tapes, etc. etc.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

QUOTE=OregonLawyer]Okay, how about the Tillamook case where a business owner was arrested for putting a videotape in the ladies' bathroom air vent? It's now also a civil class action.
[/quote]
are you so damn stupid to equate a voyeurism case with one which serves a legitimate theraputic purpose?

What is the counselor going to do? Claim the privilege?

That is part of it. As well as Ecumenical privilege and separation of church and state.

It's the patient's privilege to waive, not the counselor's.

Really? Do some more reading. since when can a third party waive the church's right to protection under the Constitution.

If a patient gives police permission to investigate whether there are any videotapes of him in that counselor's office, there's no privilege.

And there is no grounds to initiate an investigation (fishing expedition) without proof of such .

Regarding the investigation, if the police were to talk to this "other professional" and he said that the counselor admitted videotaping the sessions, and/or the counselor themselves admitted the taping (there is no privilege attached to the process of taping, only to the content), and/or the OP waived the privilege with regard to his session tapes, etc. etc.

 

[JETX]

Okay, how about the Tillamook case where a business owner was arrested for putting a videotape in the ladies' bathroom air vent? It's now also a civil class action.

Hmmm, since you don't even know what a legal cite is.... clear proof that you are NOT an attorney.

What is the counselor going to do? Claim the privilege? It's the patient's privilege to waive, not the counselor's. If a patient gives police permission to investigate whether there are any videotapes of him in that counselor's office, there's no privilege.

Do you really know how stupid you sound. The counselor doesn't have to say anything except, "I don't know what you are talking about. Goodbye".

Regarding the investigation, if the police were to talk to this "other professional" and he said that the counselor admitted videotaping the sessions, and/or the counselor themselves admitted the taping (there is no privilege attached to the process of taping, only to the content), and/or the OP waived the privilege with regard to his session tapes, etc. etc.

See above. A judge will NOT issue a search warrant on such a stupid complaint (even in the extremely unlikely chance it got to that), simply because another 'professional' said that the counselor admitted taping SOME conversations. Absent the counselors admission of taping THAT patients sessions, no warrant, ergo no case.

Oh, wait.... I forgot, you are NOT an attorney and are likely some high school dropout... so:

ergo: Latin for "therefore," often used in legal writings. Its most famous use was in Cogito, ergo sum: "I think, therefore I am" principle by French philosopher Rene Descartes

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Hillbilly Legal Cite(r)- (N) - three parts appricote extract, one part grain alcohol, cook for six days over slow flame (hide from revenuers) extract condensation into dirty mason jars.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Ostensibly, the purpose is to protect each from false accusation. The camera sits on a shelf pointed toward the couch, so it isn't hidden. I'm told there is no light on, so it isn't certain whether it is on or not. The counselor has a criminal past (nothing that involved voyeurism or peeping). Any red flags or illegalities here?... ...

There is no license required in Oregon, and this is an "unlicensed" counselor practicing under a pastoral ordination.

I know (s)he told a fellow professional with whom (s)he was pursuing a professional relationship (s)he was videotaping ALL sessions. (S)He specifically told a client (s)he was NOT videotaping her. Otherwise, (s)he has said nothing to clients about the videotaping, so far as I am aware. I ended my relationship with this counselor prior to his/her pursuit of the videotaping.

Then you have no case just a bunch of what if's, and if the cam is seen, it is not secretly taped is it? You're going on hearsay. Counselors often tape sessions, after giving informed consent, the tape is generally used either for supervision or to make notes if the session, and it may be subpoenaed. When I was an intern, we were required to tape all our sessions and our clients signed waivers or we couldn't tape/or treat them. in all the thousands of hours of tape, which I was required to store for 8 years, there was only one instance where the tapes were subpoenaed, exactly 6 hours of tape which the client was very glad to have at that point plus it saved me from having to sit for days of depos.

But YOU have no case even to make a complaint about your treatment because you terminated the therapeutic relationship. Since this is a pastoral counselor, you may have some avenue of complaint throrught the Church.