Thursday, July 15, 2010

The Mel Gibson Case ...

About 70% of the traffic for this site centers around my recording phone call laws reference ...

An item of interest to me has been the recent Mel Gibson case where his "Mistress" girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva has apparently recorded multiple phone conversations between herself and Gibson and given them to the media.

From what I'm able to see from research, Grigorieva is a naturalized American citizen residing in Los Angeles, while Gibson is an American born (but Australian raised) U.S. Citizen who has residences in multiple states and countries but claims Malibu California as his primary residence.

This is the California law regarding telephone conversation recording ...

California

Although California is a two-party state, it is legal to record a conversation if you include a beep on the recorder and for the parties to hear. This information is included with California telephone bills:

California prohibits telephone monitoring or recording, including the use of information obtained through interception unless all parties to the conversation consent (California Penal Code Sections 631 & 632). There is no statutory business telephone exception and the relevant case law all but excludes this possibility. California courts have recognized "implied" consent as being sufficient to satisfy the statute where one party has expressly agreed to the taping and the other continues the conversation after having been informed that the call is being recorded. Violation is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. A civil plaintiff may recover the greater of $3,000 or three times the amount of any actual damages sustained.



While I can't be certain that Gibson has been informed he was being recorded, the recordings by Grigorieva may be illegal.

I should note that in no way do I condone or in any way admire his outlandish uncontrollable temper, but he still has a right to a private conversation if he so wishes.

Just because he's a public figure does not make his private conversations public.

5 comments:

I am a lover of children's literature said...

I agree with you 100%.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
CA a two party consent state. If a person in AZ. a one party consent state records phone coversations from Ca. in AZ. without the ca. residences knowledge or consent, Then uses the recordings as evidence in a AZ small claims court. can suite be brought against this AZ person in Ca. for violation of Ca. rights
penal codes 631 & 632 ?

fixyourthinking said...

This was responded to on the main article.

Anonymous said...

Thank you I did read that,
Does it just pertain to both parties in Ca.? What if Grigorieva was out of state when she recorded and Mel was in Ca.
Could Mel still file a suite in Ca. against her for violating his Ca. rights?

I am asking for my own situation and what to be clear. Mel and Grigorieve situation my have a huge impact on the calling laws in the public's eye. I feel their high profile case will bring news to the ignorant and will make people think twice before recording conversations. So I ask for clarification of the scenario I give you.
Thank you

fixyourthinking said...

The law applies to the state where one claims legal full time residence 6 months or more a year.

Just because I go into NC from SC doesn't mean the law in my home state doesn't apply to me.