Wait! What? I thought policing agencies are the only ones who need to acquire evidence legally. You know, a search warrant, blah, blah, blah. If a private citizen produces evidence they are not held to the same standard. Can anyone clarify? Thanks.
I think the court would be more concerned with the chain of possession of evidence in order to demonstrate its reliability. The police are hopefully holding to existing standards of evidence gathering that are meant to protect its reliability, especially from mixing in false positives or negatives, and thus their hard work. For private citizens holding evidence, you’re probably just facing a stiffer challenge from the other side’s lawyer.
Two party consent means that all parties must give consent to be audio recorded (does not apply to video)
The problem Maryland will have in prosecuting is that ACORN has been involved in this activity across state lines....and two party consent is not a federal law.
This ploy by Maryland may be to get ACORN off the hook...in Maryland. Wont help them in other states.
In some states it is illegal to record someone without their consent. Typically it deals with voice recording though and not video. So video is often fine but when you have the voice with it...it is illegal.
But don’t confuse that with the law that says it’s illegal to record someone else’s conversation. Like a wiretap listening to two other people’s conversation. Like what the Rats did to the Ohio congressman several years ago.