Thursday, February 16, 2017

Now Recording


  • The Chairman of the Gaming Control Board surreptitiously recorded a phone call from AG Adam Laxalt who may have been asking the Board to intervene in lawsuit involving the Sands--one of Laxalt's biggest donors. [TNI]
  • One of our readers wants to know what is the best parking option for someone who has to go to the RJC an average of twice a week?

42 comments:

  1. Ohhh its getting interesting now! Also, why would I share my secret parking spots for someone to take? Go find your own spot bozo! ;)

    Lastly, BLOG IS DEAD

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why spend $10-20 to park when Uber will take you there and back for $10-12? And I can vent to the poor driver. "Did you know Judge so and so is a such and such, and let me tell you about the attorney! Hey, can I get a water, please?"

      Delete
    2. Yes, and Uber Pool makes it even more worth it. Vent to the driver, and fellow carpoolers.

      Delete
  2. So lets settle this once and for all.... "Burnett, sources say, decided to record the conversation — Nevada is a one-party consent state — because of the confluence of events, including the trial that could cost the Sands a fortune and possible fines coming from Washington D.C. and Carson City. Like most state government insiders, Burnett also knew of Laxalt’s close relationship with the Sands."

    Am I wrong? It is my understanding that Nevada is a All-Party Consent state (see Lane v. Allstate Insurance). I hear this argument all the time that its one-party consent. Who is right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NRS 200.650  Unauthorized, surreptitious intrusion of privacy by listening device prohibited.  Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, and 704.195, a person shall not intrude upon the privacy of other persons by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring or recording, or attempting to listen to, monitor or record, by means of any mechanical, electronic or other listening device, any private conversation engaged in by the other persons, or disclose the existence, content, substance, purport, effect or meaning of any conversation so listened to, monitored or recorded, unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation.

      Delete
    2. We're definitely a 1-party consent state for in-person conversations, and possible for over the phone conversations. But isn't there a federal law prohibiting secret recording of over-the-phone conversations?

      Delete
    3. Guys, its 1-party consent for in person. And 1-party over the phone IF both ends of the call were within NV boundary. If not, then federal law applies. BOOM SHAKALAKA

      Delete
    4. The Nevada Supreme Court has stated on at least 3 times that if you plan to tape record a telephone call in the State of Nevada that (1) you better have both parties' consent or (2) you better have an emergency and get court ratification within 72 hours. What Burnett did is likely a felony.

      Delete
    5. No, not a felony at all. It's fairly straightforward: 1-party for in-person, all-party for telephone.

      Delete
    6. The confusion is party due to Ralton's poor writing--the conversation that was recorded appears to have been in person, which can be recorded as long as one party consents.

      Delete
    7. NRS 200.650 we are a one party consent state

      Delete
    8. Am I the only one who thinks that is a really dumb statute? Shouldn't the one party who needs to consent to the recording be the one who is being recorded? Of course the person doing the recording consents! There's no real purpose to the law if you the person doing the recording is the only one who needs to consent, right? Am I the crackpot here?

      Delete
    9. Worked on a case many moons ago which involved an attorney secretly recording another lawyer in person at a settlement meeting/conference. Long story short, this resulted in a bar complaint against the attorney who had disputed what was said on the tape (the attorney did not know they were secretly recorded). The bottom line is that you can record without the other party's consent. As a result of that case, I will often ask if anyone is recording the conversation and that I do not give my permission. I want to speak without worrying about secretly recorded. It is usually like dropping a bomb and causes other counsel and parties to "clam up." Basically, we have gotten to the point where you should not say anything that will come back to bite you because if it is recorded it could hurt you. The flip side of this is that you can speak on the telephone without worrying about being recorded. If they record, they can't use it. Ask Bonaventura, the former Constable.

      Delete
    10. 12:22, the purpose of the statute is to make it illegal for third parties to record conversations. Private investigators, paparazzi, the NSA (well maybe not that last one).

      Delete
    11. @11:43-- We are not a one party consent state for telephone calls according to numerous Nevada Supreme Court cases. Shephardize that statute.

      Delete
    12. 11:43 and 3:29 are talking past each other. It's all party consent for wire communications (phone, etc.) and single party consent for in-person communications.

      Delete
    13. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Mog-vaBams

      Delete
    14. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    15. This is such the wrong thing to do when you have an active case.

      Delete
    16. I have read her case and the Judge made the correct evidenciary findings. You are making your many lawyers money with your ignorance.

      Delete
    17. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    18. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  3. This comes up in the area of law I practice in quite a bit. You have to have consent of all parties to record a phone call (regardless of whether it is inter or intra state), but only one to record an in person conversation (which some exceptions).

    Though the recording was probably legal, it's always astonishing to me when elected officials or other public figures secretly record in person conversations. Everyone in the future will wonder whether they are being recorded and whether they can trust this guy. Seems like a dumb, short-sighted move.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rob Graham's 341 hearing is set for March 10.

    Pull up a chair and pop some popcorn.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And will be continued. And does Rob get transported in chains or is LawyersWest sending another representative?

      Delete
  5. Consent seems like the wrong word when multiple parties are involved. Like, I consent to me having sex with Gisele B√ľndchen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. If someone is bringing a tape recorder and recording the conversation, obviously that guy consents. Great analogy 12:17.

      Delete
    2. 2:26PM--Although Ralston's article is not clear, we have to assume the recording was done secretly without the other party's knowledge--in this case the Attorney General. It was like he was wearing a wire without police intervention.

      Delete
    3. Except wearing a wire without police intervention/warrant is legal. Tape recording a phone conversation without a warrant is illegal (absent emergency and court ratification)

      Delete
  6. Can someone please explain the rationale behind the "Day Without Immigrants" protest. Every article I read has a different reasoning. Is it in support of the U.S.'s history as a nation of immigrants? Is it in support of all immigrants, legal or otherwise, in the country? Is it in support of immigrants not legally in this country?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From what I've seen it is to highlight the importance of immigrants in the workforce. All of them regardless of status. With the recent actions of the current administration, it probably would be unwise to have an event calling for undocumented workers to self-identify by skipping work.

      Delete
    2. While I generally support what they're doing, it's not the best idea. For a white male like me, this "protest" has had zero effect on me so far today. It looks like they closed the supermarkets that cater to immigrants. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has no impact from immigrants taking the day off... I know if they all did I would have some serious impacts.

      Delete
    3. My estates were not properly manicured today. Lovey and the people attending her Fundraiser for Yahtsmen in Need were most put out.

      Delete
    4. It hasn't had any effect on me either. The nice Mexican lady at Jack in the Box was still at the window taking my order.

      That said, I don't dispute that our country would be in a world of hurt if all immigrants got up and left the country. I guarantee there wouldn't be enough white people willing to take on the jobs that would open up.

      Delete
    5. That was today? I didn't notice. The morning Hispanic Starbucks lady was still there. The Hispanic bus boy at the restaurant at lunch was still there. Doesn't seem like it was a big protest.

      Delete
    6. These comments make me cringe.

      Delete
    7. The Starbucks lady was Indian. Of course she was still there.

      Delete
  7. Lets get back to this whole parking inquiry... :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do like some runner services (used to do?) and get a handicapped placard.

      Delete