Ppo

[jci63]

Michigan

Question -

I had a close friend who just went to court here in Michigan for a PPO against his boss, signed by a Judge.

His boss filed a Motion to Terminate this PPO.

There were 2 incidents, one the boss came out waving a knife and the other, he was held against his will at work.

Two days after he was fired an old employee came to his house to visit, at this time he asked the ex-coworker if he could tape their conversation. He got on tape that the co-worker also witnessed this knife incident. This conversation was also witnessed by myself.

He asked the guy before he started "do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God" also at the end he idetified myself and asked "did you witness this conversation and do you agree we did not coerce the co-worker"

He filed an answer to this motion, including the tape, an affidavit verifying authenticity of the tape.

I went to court as a witness and the Judge said the tape was not admisable. "here say"

Is this the law and why was the tape not accepted?

The Judge removed the PPO

 

[quincy]

You may want to review the decision made in Sullivan v Gray.

In Michigan, it is legal to tape record a conversation if you are a participant in the conversation, however it is illegal to listen in on such a conversation as it is being taped, even when you have the consent of one or both of the parties involved in the conversation. Participant monitoring good, consensual monitoring bad.

So, a participant to the conversation can record and utilize a conversation he participates in, but permitting a third party to listen to a conversation as it unfolds, or through hearing the recording afterwards, makes the third party an "eavesdropper" under Michigan law. Criminal and civil penalties may result.

It has to do with the privacy of the individuals involved in the conversation. Had you participated in the conversation as it was being recorded, the tape may have been allowed into evidence.

 

[jci63]

He asked the guy before he started "do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God" also at the end he idetified myself and asked me "did you witness this conversation and do you agree we did not coerce the co-worker"

 

[quincy]

I understand that, jci.

But there is a legal difference in Michigan between a conversation that is participatory and a conversation that is consensual. It is a subtle difference, perhaps, but it is a difference.

The judge was right not to allow the tape into evidence.

It does not matter if what was said on the tape was sworn to on tape (especially if it was not sworn to in front of someone allowed to take sworn testimony). What matters is that the tape violated Michigan's laws regarding the taping of conversations. Michigan prohibits the use of taped conversations that are "consensual" - that have a third party listening to it but not participating in the conversation itself. Even if the participants in the conversation say it is okay to listen, even with this permission, it is not legal.

Civil and criminal penalties are possible with such a recording, under Michigan's eavesdropping laws.

Should you wish to prove the need for a PPO, you should consult with an attorney who can advise you on the laws regarding taped conversations - what is permissible and what is not, what can be allowed into evidence and what cannot. Or your friend could go to court with the witnesses and have them testify in person before the judge.

 

[jci63]

I will relay the message and understand now.

Thanks

 

[quincy]

You're welcome, jci.

And, as a note, the eavesdropping law in Michigan has been debated by the courts, as has the interpretation of the words "without the permission of all persons involved in the discourse." The problems seem to arise when there is a third party listening to a conversation without participating in the conversation, as to eavesdrop means (among other things) to "overhear."

There is also a problem when the contents of such a recording are divulged to or by a third party.

Basically, then, no one other than the persons involved in the conversation should be present during the taping, and there should be no listening by a third party (through any means) to the conversation as it is being taped. Consent by a participant is insufficient to make this "eavesdropping" permissible.

 

[>Charlotte<]

Plus, you can't cross examine a tape recording.

 

[quincy]

Well, you can. You just don't get much in the way of a response.