Compliments of the Anonymous Reformatter... [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Major Variola ret) writes:
> >http://latimes.com/news/local/la-000018985mar15.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dcalifornia > > Privacy of Calls Affirmed > Ruling: Court defines confidential phone conversations broadly, making > lawsuits easier. > > By MAURA DOLAN, TIMES STAFF WRITER > > SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court strengthened privacy > protections Thursday by making it easier to successfully sue people > who secretly tape others' phone conversations. > > The court decided unanimously that a conversation is confidential > under state law if a party expects he or she is not being overheard or > recorded. Those who secretly tape others can be liable for at least > $5,000 in damages for each recording. > > Thursday's decision, which broadly defines what is confidential, was > a defeat for the media, in particular broadcasters who have been sued > for airing interviews with people who did not know they were being > recorded. Media lawyers had filed a brief in the case urging the > court to adopt a more narrow definition that would make it harder for > plaintiffs to argue that remarks had been confidential. The ruling > stemmed from a Los Angeles case involving recordings a woman made of > telephone calls between her now deceased husband and his son. The son, > who charged his stepmother had tried to hasten his father's death, > now stands to collect as much as $120,000 for 24 phone conversations > recorded by his stepmother. > > California has prohibited private parties from recording telephone > calls without consent from all participants--only if the calls > included a "confidential communication." Courts of appeal have > disagreed over what constituted a confidential conversation. > > In their brief to the court, lawyers for media outlets including the > three major television networks argued that a broad definition of > confidential communication would end the use of hidden microphone and > camera reporting in California. The ruling also could make it more > difficult for the print media to use material from recordings provided > by third parties. > > Jerry K. Staub, a lawyer who represented the son in Thursday's case, > said disputes over secret taping also arise frequently in the course > of litigation, when one side tapes another's damaging admissions > without the party's knowledge and consent. > > "I think that is going to stop now, and that is a good thing," Staub > said. > > If the court had ruled more narrowly, no conversation would be > considered confidential unless one of the parties at the time had > declared it to be so, Staub said. > > The state high court ruled in a dispute between J. Michael Flanagan > and his stepmother, Honorine T. Flanagan in Flanagan v. Flanagan, > S085594.
