What is your current state's Wiretapping laws? (For example if you live in Virginia, provide that law and statute). Do you agree with your state's wiretapping law on consent to record? What happens in a multi-state situation when you are in your state and the other party is in another state?

Note: current state - Ohio

 

Introduction

            Ohio's wiretapping laws are established based on one-party consent, which legalizes the recording of conversations. However, there is a constraint in terms of the person allowed to record. In Ohio, a person can record a conversation only when a contributor or has obtained prior consent. An involved party can issue consent to another person permitting them to commence recording. On the other hand, Ohio's law classifies wiretapping as a criminal offense when a person fails to meet the stipulated requirements. In this case, they use any device to record a conversation or share it with third parties.

            Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2933.52 was revised in 2006 and implemented in the state (JUSTIA, 2020). The law stipulates that an individual does not have the mandate to divulge the content of a communication and share it contrary to its intended recipient. However, the restrictions are not applicable when the communication is intended to reach the service provider and agent of the communicator. Secondly, the law outlines that an individual can divulge a communication with lawful consent from the originator or recipient. A person legally consents to wiretap when their resource is utilized as a tool to facilities to transmit the communication. Further, a law enforcement agency should wiretap when they provide evidence for investigation on criminal activity.

            The penalties regarding wiretapping in Ohio include; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2933.52 classifies the act of wiretapping as a felony (JUSTIA, 2020). Secondly, in the case of recording illegally when the Plaintiff is in a state of nudity, the wrongdoer will face imprisonment not exceeding 90 days (Johnson, 2018). The service provider should immediately report fraudulent cases, unlawful and abuse of the service to avoid facing charges.

Opinion on wiretapping law on consent to record

            Conversations between individuals should remain private without interruption from unauthorized third parties. The Ohio wiretapping laws successfully protect individuals from loss of information through wiretapping. I agree with the state's law that it is relevant to have consent before divulging into a communication. Conversations are private and should remain protected to prevent the loss of valuable information. The necessity for consent is therefore imperative to avoid the loss of data to unauthorized personnel. Protection of information require the enactment of the state laws and enforcement

            Also, it is relevant to provide consent to the proper personnel, such as communication service providers. They have to carry on with their duties and ensure that the communication channels are performing well. They also need to check on the connection to ensure that it reaches the right recipient. Individuals can lose valuable information to third parties who can use it against them or lob their finances. Usually, individuals are interested in protecting their information and avoid the loss of personal data.

            Law enforcement forces have the right to access a conversation in the incidence whereby they believe it involves criminal activities (Barrett and Liccardi, 2021). Criminals can carry on with their activities and communicate with each other easily. However, whenever the police have access to these conversations, they can track down the criminals and arrest them. In this case, it is imperative to have a law that limits wiretapping and provides consent on the incidence of criminal activities.

Multi-state situation

            Wiretapping can quickly occur across the state since the means of communication is limitless. In such instances, whenever an individual finds an infringement of privacy through indulgence, they can sue the unauthorized personnel. However, the laws vary between the different states in terms of consent and the presentation of the case. These differences cause challenges and dilemmas, even though wiretapping is illegal across all states in the United States.

            In the case, Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 137 P.3d 914 (Cal. 2006), there was a dilemma whereby the laws on consent differed in Pennsylvania and New York (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 11, 1995). Plaintiff, living in New York, filed for a lawsuit and was liable for compensation. In such an incidence, the state's laws where the tort occurred are applied to solve the case. It was not an issue in Pennsylvania since the federal law on wiretapping provides for two-party consent.

            Similarly, the Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 137 P.3d 914 (Cal. 2006) case found a conflicting incidence on California laws and Georgia. In California, it is all parties have legal consent to record a telephone conversation. In this situation, the ruling was towards the individual in California. It was relevant to protect the Georgia privacy concerns of their residence. However, in such a scenario, the federal law applies to ensure adherence to court orders and avoid rights infringement.

OUTLINE

Wiretapping Laws in Ohio

Thesis statement. This paper analyzes the current Ohio state’s wiretapping laws and provides an opinion on an argument to the law on consent to record. Further, the paper evaluates the scenario of multi-state, when an individual is in their state, and the other person is in another state.

1. Introduction
2. Opinion on wiretapping law on consent to record
3. Multi-state situation
4. References