> Cannot prove it unless the victim was in a state that allows one party consent audio recording and was recording audio. Although Florida is the only southern state that requires all party consent for recording audio, and I presume the previous poster was talking about Texas. Smartphones have solved the recording audio problem, so presumably it would have been possible.
Is this true even when gathering evidence of a crime?
Edit: the laws are the same, and you can't use an illegal recording in a court -- expressly. If you try to give an illegal recording to the news you'll likely get taken in civil court.
In California a recording without required consent is a crime when made. Intended use doesn't play into that. It is also separately prohibit from use as evidence in court except as evidence of violation of the law prohibiting such recording itself.
> If you wanted to play it on the news, however, you're still free to do that as far as I know.
Sure, if you want to advertise the crime you committed on the news you are permitted to do that.
There is no express prohibition on this in the California law, sure, but it probably is a good way to rack up civil liability as well as advertising your existing exposure to criminal liability. If Florida really has identical law in this area, I’d expect the same thing.
This article [0] states the contrary: the recording _can_ be used as evidence in a criminal trial, but it seems the actual act of recording it is still criminal as a separate matter.
> Posted: Dec 5, 2019 / 05:44 PM PST / Updated: Dec 5, 2019 / 05:44 PM PST
Secretly recording someone else’s conversation is illegal in California, but prosecutors can use the illicit recording as evidence in a criminal case, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
> In their unanimous ruling, the justices cited a 1982 ballot measure passed by voters that allows all “relevant evidence” to be introduced in any criminal trial or pretrial hearing, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
> The case at hand concerned a private phone call about the actions of an alleged child molester. While the conversation was confidential under state law, its contents were clearly relevant and were properly disclosed to the jury in the molesting case, the court said.
> The ruling follows a line of cases that narrowed criminal defendants’ rights after the 1982 ballot measure, which sponsors dubbed the Victims’ Bill of Rights, the Chronicle said. The measure included provisions that increased sentences, narrowed the insanity defense, allowed victims to testify at parole and sentencing hearings and let prosecutors introduce evidence that had been obtained in violation of state law.
> The court also rejected defense arguments that admission of secretly recorded evidence would violate the right to privacy in the California Constitution. Those who are harmed by the recordings can still sue for damages, the eavesdroppers can be prosecuted, and the evidence remains inadmissible in non-criminal cases, Cantil-Sakauye said.
Yeah, I don't have much concrete on the civil side, but it seems likely to be a case of public disclosure of private facts. Where everything contained is a matter of legitimate public interest, that might not apply.
Is this true even when gathering evidence of a crime?