Re: PRETEXT conversations as an investigative tool

[John M Price PhD <jmprice@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2001 Jschiff139@aol.com wrote:

> <<Some states include the tag, "one party knowledge", but I am not sure how 
> that
> works.>>
> 
> My guess is the one party rule is probably the case in most states.  The way 

I'd not go any where near that far.  Recall the old federal law of beeps
every 15 seconds?

Note, the original poster was from Australia, with considerably fewer
rights than the US.

> it works is that any party to a conversation may record the conversation 
> without disclosing that fact.  It's the third party interception of 
> communications that is objectionable.

That is an entirely different animal, let alone a different colored horse.

> However, this doesn't necessarily make it ethical for professionals (lawyers 
> for instance) to secretly record their conversations.  But that's a horse of 
> a different flavor.

Indeed.  I'd think this 'PRETEXT' stuff tainted evidence, myself, but I am
not a lawyer.


-- 
John M. Price, PhD                                     jmprice@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling!      |      PGP Key on request or FTP!
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated          Atheist# 683