Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Germany is a two-party consent jurisdiction—telephone recording without the consent of the two or, when applicable, more, parties is a criminal offence according to § 201 of the German Criminal Code [9] —violation of the confidentiality of the spoken word. Telephone tapping by authorities has to be approved by a judge.
Main Menu. News
Two appellate courts and six district courts participated in 1991–1994, and fourteen district courts participated in 2011–2015. As of 2023, the three district courts in the Ninth Circuit are continuing the pilot program. Recording requires the approval of the presiding judge and the consent of the parties. [16] [17]
The legality of recording by civilians refers to laws regarding the recording of other persons and property by civilians through the means of still photography, videography, and audio recording in various locations. Although it is common for the recording of public property, persons within the public domain, and of private property visible or ...
Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that a private citizen has the right to record video and audio of police carrying out their duties in a public place, and that the arrest of the citizen for a wiretapping violation violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights.
In certain states, a court reporter is a notary, by virtue of their state licensing, and a notary public is authorized to administer oaths to witnesses and certify that their transcript of the proceedings is a verbatim account of what was said—unlike a court recorder, whose job is to operate audio recording devices and send the recorded files for transcription over the internet.
A pregnant Texas woman whose fetus has a fatal condition left the state to get an abortion elsewhere before the state Supreme Court on Monday rejected her unprecedented challenge of one of the ...
Turner v. Driver, No. 16-10312 (5th Cir. 2017), is a 2017 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that affirmed the First Amendment right to record the police.