Massachusetts Wiretap Act Governs Out of State Telephone Recording Massachusetts Wiretap Act Governs Out of State Telephone Recording
03.19.10
A Massachusetts Superior Court judge
ruled in In Heffernan v. Hashampour that the state Wiretap Act
applies when a party outside of Massachusetts secretly records a
telephone call to a party in this state. Thus Massachusetts
continues to provide its citizens with protection (some say
over-protection) from secretive audio recordings. The flip side of
this protection can be seen in the case of Simon Glik, who was
arrested for video recording police officers making an arrest near
Boston Common in 2007. The criminal charges were dropped and Glik
has filed a civil rights lawsuit against the City of Boston and
three Boston police officers, arguing that public space is not
covered by the wiretap law (ie. there is no expectation of privacy
in a public place).
Privacy is dead and no one cares
11.22.09
Recently, we tracked down a number of
witnesses using the usual armada of investigative databases.
However, some witnesses had moved recently and did not appear to
have current addresses in the data. No problem: many witnesses
between the ages of 21 and 30 had conveniently plastered their
entire personal life on Facebook, Twitter, Bebo, etc. making follow
up relatively easy. One witness when called on her "private" cell
phone expressed dismay at the intrusion. Later, she realized that
she had provided the cell phone to a numer of retailers who, to her
surprise, resold her "private" cell number database firms.
The modern American: willing to give private contact information to grocery clerks in exchange for "special offers" on mustard.
The modern American: willing to give private contact information to grocery clerks in exchange for "special offers" on mustard.
Surveillance and privacy - Massachusetts private investigators
07.16.09
The Massachusetts Bar Association
hosts a good summary of privacy laws and surveillance in
Massachusetts. written by lawyers Joseph M. Desmond & David
Viens. One of the leading cases in Mass. is DiGirolamo v. D.P.
Anderson & Associates, Inc., The court wrote that
investigators may generally observe, or photograph a person in
public places. A gray area arises when a person enters the privacy
of their own home. The court looked at 4 scenarios as to whether a
private investigator violates a person's statutory right to
privacy:
~ the investigator looks through a window into an apartment with the naked eye;
~ the investigator looks with the naked eye when a person walks out onto a balcony;
~ the investigator photographs, or looks at the person on a balcony with enhanced vision
~ the investigator photographs or looks at a person inside the home with enhanced vision.
The Mass. court concluded that only the fourth scenario would constitute an unreasonable and substantial interference with the plaintiff’s right to privacy. The court adopted the United States Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment analysis from Oliver v. United States. It also quoted a Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ case United States v. Taborda: “Observation of objects and activities inside a person’s home by unenhanced vision from a location where the observer may properly be does not impair a legitimate expectation of privacy. However, any enhanced viewing of the interior of a home does impair a legitimate expectation of privacy.”
~ the investigator looks through a window into an apartment with the naked eye;
~ the investigator looks with the naked eye when a person walks out onto a balcony;
~ the investigator photographs, or looks at the person on a balcony with enhanced vision
~ the investigator photographs or looks at a person inside the home with enhanced vision.
The Mass. court concluded that only the fourth scenario would constitute an unreasonable and substantial interference with the plaintiff’s right to privacy. The court adopted the United States Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment analysis from Oliver v. United States. It also quoted a Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ case United States v. Taborda: “Observation of objects and activities inside a person’s home by unenhanced vision from a location where the observer may properly be does not impair a legitimate expectation of privacy. However, any enhanced viewing of the interior of a home does impair a legitimate expectation of privacy.”