|
I work at a state college in West Virginia doing IT stuff. My boss setup a video camera at our main desk for security purposes and so we can monitor the front desk in case it gets busy. The camera also records AUDIO. The location of the camera allows one to hear not just conversations we might be having with a customer, but also conversations the employees may be having with each other. I know for a fact my boss spends a lot of time watching/listening to the audio feed. He's implied this in emails sent out. A few of us are questioning the legality of it. I found this:WV Law posted:Recording a wire, oral, or electronic communication, or disclosing its contents, is not a violation of West Virginia law when the person recording is a party to the communication or has obtained consent from one of the parties, so long as the recording is not accompanied by a criminal or tortious intent. W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3. Long story short, you can't record a conversation you aren't a part of. Does this sound right? I'm going to be calling our Risk Management tomorrow anonymously, but I thought I'd get some goon feedback.
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2011 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
Konstantin posted:Here is an interesting hypothetical question. In another thread, this was posted: Well, for starters the dog did not get a credit card. The dog's owner got a credit card when the dog's owner filled out a credit card application using a bunch of bogus information. The fact that he used his dog's correct information is irrelevant (and almost certainly untrue - what dog has a social security number?) since, again, the dog's owner is the one filling out the application for credit. So yes, the dog's owner could run into some civil or criminal sanctions for identity fraud just as if they had made up someone's identity or used a dead person's ID. Finally, even if a credit card company was stupid enough to issue a credit card in the dog's name with no social security number, jury lists are normally generated using a list of driver's licenses / voter registrations, NOT credit card users. Did the dog get a state issued ID as well (again, with no social security number)? The most likely answer is that the poster either engaged in some rather elaborate identity fraud or is full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
Joe Don Baker posted:Long story short, you can't record a conversation you aren't a part of. Does this sound right? I'm going to be calling our Risk Management tomorrow anonymously, but I thought I'd get some goon feedback. WV Law posted:Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. You're at work. Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy at your place of employment, where your boss has told you a recording device is recording?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2011 22:58
|
|
|
Loopyface posted:You're at work. Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy at your place of employment, where your boss has told you a recording device is recording? That's the big question and what I was sort of hoping to find out. Generally speaking, do I have an expectation of privacy when it comes to verbal communication?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2011 23:26
|
|
|
Never mind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 07:20
|
|
|
Joe Don Baker posted:My boss setup a video camera at our main desk for security purposes and so we can monitor the front desk in case it gets busy. The camera also records AUDIO. I'm not going to dig for case law or anything, but it seems likely that by continuing to work there after you know about the audio recording, you are consenting to being recorded.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 19:30
|
|
|
Talibananas posted:I'm not going to dig for case law or anything, but it seems likely that by continuing to work there after you know about the audio recording, you are consenting to being recorded. Isn't that like saying that if you're being sexually harassed at work and continue to work there you consent to it? To add some content: Here in Washington State we have a rather notorious serial killer by the name of Gary Ridgeway, aka the "Green River Killer". Basically he killed a bunch of prostitutes and the like. He's currently in prison for life, and according to his plea agreement, he is required to plead guilty to any future murders that authorities can tie to him. While I understand that he killed a whole lot of folks in this area and they we're most likely going to keep finding remains (some were found last December), can being required to enter in a specific plea really be constitutional? As crazy and dangerous as this particular individual is, I would really hate for such pleas to become more common place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 21:11
|
|
|
Joe Don Baker posted:That's the big question and what I was sort of hoping to find out. Generally speaking, do I have an expectation of privacy when it comes to verbal communication? There is no "generally speaking". If you're whispering in a secluded corner to someone in your house you certainly have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you're shouting in a crowded square you don't. It depends heavily on the facts of the case. Usually if recording is obvious or you're explicitly told about it (or both) you've got little to no expectation of privacy. John McCain fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Feb 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 21:23
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:He's currently in prison for life, and according to his plea agreement, he is required to plead guilty to any future murders that authorities can tie to him. I didn't find anything like what you're saying. As part of his plea agreement he confessed to 40-something murders that they suspected him of committing, but there's nothing about having to confess to any subsequent crimes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 21:35
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Isn't that like saying that if you're being sexually harassed at work and continue to work there you consent to it? No.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 21:46
|
|
|
Are there any Chicago lawyers familiar with rental and apartment laws who I could get some advice from? When I signed my lease I paid first and last months rent at that time and still have the receipts (did not pay a security deposit). Several months later I received notification from a court appointed receiver that my building was in foreclosure and I now make rent payments to them. I terminated my year-long lease for flexibility as I was allowed to due to lack proper notice from landlord . I said I would continue to rent on a month to month basis. At the time I told the receiver I was going to apply my last month rent payment, but they said I wasn't able to do so. Since I was still staying on a month to month basis I let it slide and continued to pay rent. Now several months later I am planning to move out and want to not pay my last month's rent as I already paid it, but I am guessing the receiver will say this is not acceptable again. Can I apply my last months rent payment even though landlord is in foreclosure and there is a court appointed receiver?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 22:25
|
|
|
Daeus posted:Are there any Chicago lawyers familiar with rental and apartment laws who I could get some advice from? Have you talked to the Chicago tenant's unions yet?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2011 23:59
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Have you talked to the Chicago tenant's unions yet? I had not. I actually have been to their website already, but didn't know it was a legitimate resource. It looked like a website used to funnel requests to a law firm so I did not use them. I will contact them and see what they say. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 00:23
|
|
|
Loopyface posted:I didn't find anything like what you're saying. As part of his plea agreement he confessed to 40-something murders that they suspected him of committing, but there's nothing about having to confess to any subsequent crimes. If that's the case, then the radio report I heard was mistaken. Sorry about that!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 00:39
|
|
|
If someone was arrested in New Jersey for a DWI with a Pennsylvania license, is it recommended that they hire a DWI lawyer to handle the case? As far as I can tell from researching online, New Jersey classifies it as a traffic violation rather than a criminal offense, and a PA license won't be suspended for a first offense. That isn't to say it's not an extremely serious charge with hefty fines, but the cost of most DWI lawyers is also pretty high. There isn't too much dispute in this particular case, except that the car was already parked legally when the officer chose to investigate. Obviously no one here can offer specific legal advice, but can anyone advise on potential courses of action? Is it likely that the prosecutor would be willing to go easy on the charges (there is also a refusal ticket) if they cooperate at the arraignment, or are they better off pleading not guilty and using a lawyer or public defender? The arraignment is on Wednesday, so any help is greatly appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 04:09
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:While I understand that he killed a whole lot of folks in this area and they we're most likely going to keep finding remains (some were found last December), can being required to enter in a specific plea really be constitutional? No, hence why when you read a plea agreement it typically says something like "I acknowledge that I am pleading guilty because I am in fact guilty...". I've never heard of forcing someone to take a plea for a future case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 04:30
|
|
|
jromano posted:If someone was arrested in New Jersey for a DWI with a Pennsylvania license, is it recommended that they hire a DWI lawyer to handle the case? As far as I can tell from researching online, New Jersey classifies it as a traffic violation rather than a criminal offense, and a PA license won't be suspended for a first offense. Get an attorney. An attorney can help someone keep this off his or her record. Even if it's 'only' a traffic ticket or doesn't mean a suspended license, it won't be the next time. (I know it will never happen again, and someone learned their lesson, but I'm also sure someone said it would never happen this time.) I don't know about NJ or PA, but around here, your first can get pled to a non-DUI; that helps your record, your insurance and your fines and costs. Get an attorney.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 04:49
|
|
|
First the bakckstory: My Grandfather passed away about 3-4 years ago. He wrote it out in his will that specifically my brothers and I were to sell his house and for the money to be split evenly between the three of us. I am a beneficiary on the will, and my brothers are co-executors. My oldest brother kept giving me the run around and kept saying he was trying to get the money to pay off my other brother and myself. Meanwhile, they were living in the house together with my one brother's wife and child. I was living there before my grandfather died, but I moved out because I was told I needed to move out to get the house ready for sale. At this point, my oldest brother has moved out, and my middle brother and his wife and child remain in the house. They have never executed the will, and the one time I tried to ask him about it he acted very immature and basically resorted to calling me names. I feel angry that the will was never executed and I feel that I have given them long enough and at this point I should take legal action. What are my options? Do I have any legal action I can take as I am a beneficiary and they are co-executors? Is this something worth pursuing? I should note that I do not want them to get kicked out of the house or anything, I just want them to act like adults and pay for the house they are living in... considering my grandfather did not will it to them for free. I also do not want to get them into serious trouble or anything like that. I live in Oregon currently. The house is in New Jersey and everything else has taken place in New Jersey.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 06:53
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Get an attorney. Lawyer up. Get a public defender or hire a lawyer if you don't qualify.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 07:04
|
|
|
Scenty posted:First the bakckstory: My Grandfather passed away about 3-4 years ago. He wrote it out in his will that specifically my brothers and I were to sell his house and for the money to be split evenly between the three of us. I am a beneficiary on the will, and my brothers are co-executors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 16:20
|
|
|
Scenty posted:First the bakckstory: My Grandfather passed away about 3-4 years ago. He wrote it out in his will that specifically my brothers and I were to sell his house and for the money to be split evenly between the three of us. I am a beneficiary on the will, and my brothers are co-executors. As gvibes said, you should really consult a probate lawyer in New Jersey. If you were in Virginia, I would say that you have a cause of action here. I would bet that you can go to court and force your brothers to produce the original will, and you can force probate - which would result in the court forcing them to sell, and you could probably sue them for their intentional failure to file the will and probate the estate. As a beneficiary, you have the right to stand before the court and seek redress. Did your grandfather have any debts at his will, that you are aware of? In New Jersey, it appears that heirs are liable for the debts of a decedent, so it's possible that creditors could come after you or your brothers. It's been several years, though, so I imagine that any creditors would have popped up out of the woodwork by now - unless your brothers have been paying off the bills in the meantime. If there are creditors, your brothers' failure to probate the will is a problem. Here's something fun: I assume the house was in your grandfather's name. I don't know how New Jersey law works, but title to the house probably stays in your grandfather's name until his will is probated and title is passed via the probate process. This means that when your brothers finally do get around to selling the house, no title company is going to approve the sale because the title search will come back with a gap in it - you and your brothers won't have good title to the house until someone probates the will.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 16:47
|
|
|
entris posted:In New Jersey, it appears that heirs are liable for the debts of a decedent, so it's possible that creditors could come after you or your brothers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 17:31
|
|
|
entris posted:In New Jersey, it appears that heirs are liable for the debts of a decedent, so it's possible that creditors could come after you or your brothers. Maybe in 19th century Jersey...
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 17:52
|
|
|
gvibes posted:I doubt that is the case. I could be wrong, but I'm looking at N.J.S.A. 3B:22-40: quote:Every creditor, whether by simple contract or specialty, and whether or not the heirs or devisees are mentioned therein, shall have and may maintain by virtue of this article an action against the heirs and devisees of his deceased debtor dying seized or possessed of any real or personal property. The heirs or devisees shall be liable to pay the debt by reason of the descent or devise of the real or personal property to them in the manner provided in this article. In all actions creditors shall be preferred as in actions against personal representatives. Ordinarily, the probate process would start the clock ticking for creditors to present their claims, but here we never had a probate. If the brothers are just sending in checks to pay a mortgage, or pay some other bills of the decedent, then the creditors could still present claims and come after the heirs. At least, that's how I'm reading the N.J. statutes for probate. We've got a decedent who died in possession of real property, and now the heirs are clearly the beneficial owners of that property - they've lived in it, one of the heirs continues to live in it, the will says that these three heirs should receive the proceeds from the sale of the property. It seems to me that a creditor could use the above statute to bring a claim against them. But I'm not a N.J. attorney so I'm basically just guessing, and I recognize that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 17:57
|
|
|
That's really an extension of the right to sue the deceased's estate for the debt rather than a hereditary transfer of debt. It just means you can't run off with the deceased's property without giving his creditor's first bite at anything valuable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 18:16
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:That's really an extension of the right to sue the deceased's estate for the debt rather than a hereditary transfer of debt. It just means you can't run off with the deceased's property without giving his creditor's first bite at anything valuable. That sounds like the fact pattern we've got here, doesn't it? edit: this discussion is a little tangential... we have no idea if there are any creditors, I was just suggesting that it's a possible issue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 18:33
|
|
|
The heirs being personally liable is different than the creditors getting first crack at the estate. The former means heirs have to pay debts if the estate is insufficient. I don't know of any state which allows this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:The heirs being personally liable is different than the creditors getting first crack at the estate. The former means heirs have to pay debts if the estate is insufficient. I don't know of any state which allows this. I'm not talking about a broad principle in which creditors can go after heirs, I'm only saying that creditors can probably go after the heirs if no probate was done and yet the estate property was transferred to the heirs. (And, the creditors can only recover an amount equal to the value of the estate share that the heir received - the creditors can't just recover the entire debt from an heir if the heir only got a little bit.) I am fairly certain that the transfer of estate assets to heirs without formal probate will expose the heirs to clawbacks by creditors. Is that wrong where you are?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 19:45
|
|
|
The reason everyone (myself included) jumped on you is that what you said originally sounded more like Dickensian England than modern day America - "In New Jersey, it appears that heirs are liable for the debts of a decedent, so it's possible that creditors could come after you or your brothers." Glad we clarified that though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
eviljelly posted:The reason everyone (myself included) jumped on you is that what you said originally sounded more like Dickensian England than modern day America - "In New Jersey, it appears that heirs are liable for the debts of a decedent, so it's possible that creditors could come after you or your brothers." Yeah, I definitely could have phrased that original sentence better! ...the best part is that there are probably zero creditors involved in the actual fact pattern, so really we were all circlejerking for a bit there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 21:44
|
|
|
Is the legal profession anything other than a gigantic circle jerk?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 22:04
|
|
|
entris posted:Yeah, I definitely could have phrased that original sentence better! As far as I know there were no debts involved. The house had been fully paid off as long as I can remember, and I'm pretty sure there was nothing else. Anyway, if I decide to pursue this it looks like my next step would be to contact a NJ probate lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 22:25
|
|
|
Scenty posted:As far as I know there were no debts involved. The house had been fully paid off as long as I can remember, and I'm pretty sure there was nothing else. Well I think the real issue is the title issue. It will be hard to sell the house because there won't be clear title - someone will have to probate that will at some point, unless you and your brothers plan to keep the house forever and ever amen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 22:37
|
|
|
entris posted:Well I think the real issue is the title issue. It will be hard to sell the house because there won't be clear title - someone will have to probate that will at some point, unless you and your brothers plan to keep the house forever and ever amen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Title should be held by the dead guy, right? Then it's just a matter of forcing it through probate - a buyer from the estate would take clean title to the property. If the brothers want to buy it, they can go ahead. I completely agree! But the other brothers don't want to probate, apparently. Which is cutting the OP out of his inheritance. As we all said back in the beginning, sounds like a lawyer-up situation if the OP decides he wants his inheritance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 22:52
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:Is the legal profession anything other than a gigantic circle jerk? No.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 23:13
|
|
|
entris posted:I completely agree! But the other brothers don't want to probate, apparently. Which is cutting the OP out of his inheritance. Yeah, I have no problems if my brother wants to buy it, in face I would like for it to stay in my family, but I do think he should pay off the two of us that are not living there and using the house. I didn't even think of the title problem before. I just assume at this point he has been planning on living there for free for ever and ever or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 23:24
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:Is the legal profession anything other than a gigantic circle jerk? Otherwise the answers will be a golden shower of hits and missies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 23:39
|
|
|
Scenty posted:Yeah, I have no problems if my brother wants to buy it, in face I would like for it to stay in my family, but I do think he should pay off the two of us that are not living there and using the house. Well do you want money now or your name on the title? Is the house likely to appreciate in value?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
I was at a bar trivia last night and one of the questions was who famously answered "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." Everyone else at the bar chuckled but you know what? That was actually a pretty legitimate response to the question being asked. Non-lawyers 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 00:24
|
|