Today, no one needs bulky devices for sound recordings. For some, it prompts people to make secret recordings. To summarize the Supreme Court`s opinion on the use of voice recording in criminal matters: « It is legally appropriate for a person to record his or her conversations with the other party in sudden situations where there is no way to recover evidence of an offence committed against him or her and there is no possibility of filing an application with the competent authorities. Otherwise, the evidence will be lost and can no longer be obtained. « From these words of the Supreme Court, we can understand the conditions of use of audio recording in criminal matters. All conditions must be met for the audio recording to be accepted as legal evidence. It is strongly recommended that laws on the use of audio surveillance systems be reviewed at the local, state, and federal levels before installing them. In doing so, it will allow the user to ensure that their methods do not make them guilty of violating federal wiretap laws. If you make sound or image recordings, for example with your mobile phone, of someone else without their consent, this act fulfills the criminal offence of § 201 or § 201a StGB. It is also punishable to use these unauthorized recordings or make them accessible to third parties.
This is the case, for example, if they share them via a messaging application or put them on the Internet. In such cases, the legislator provides for a fine or imprisonment of up to three years for sound recordings and up to two years for image recordings. When recording sound; means the recording of verbal and audible thoughts of the interlocutor or interlocutors using a device allowing them to be reproduced acoustically without the consent of the persons concerned. In 2020, anyone can buy a mobile phone, and he has reached the position that he can record the calls he makes on his mobile phone with the programs he uses. These people also want to use the audio recordings they make to prove their accuracy in court cases. We explained in the rest of our article in which cases and in which cases people can use their voice recordings as evidence. Vermont has no laws on this, but the highest court (18 U.S.C. 2511 (2) (d) says that the use of electronic surveillance of conversations in someone`s home is an illegal invasion of privacy. While an audio recording can be useful in an investigation or courtroom, most types of audio recordings are illegal. Using an audio recorder to record phone and phone conversations or conversations in a room or car is illegal.
Section 2510 of the United States Code, Title 18, states that verbal communication between two persons who believe that their conversation will not be intercepted is a legitimate reason to believe that it is not recorded. Clearly, this means that audio recordings are not legal unless both parties know that they are taking place. Can the audio recording be used as evidence for you? In which cases can the audio recording be used as evidence? In what situations does the sound recording count as evidence? We have answered questions such as whether audio recordings can be used in court in the most sincere, up-to-date and reliable way. Audio surveillance laws by state may differ from those of other states. When looking at audio surveillance laws by state, most states have specific laws that govern the use of electronic recording of conversations of any kind. Users should ensure that they comply with the laws of their state before using such devices. In principle, unauthorised recordings also fulfil the criminal offences of §§ 201, 201a StGB if they are intended to serve to preserve evidence of a (possible) criminal offence. Whether this is the case can be well understood if we consider that the State is also only allowed to investigate a crime under very specific and narrow conditions for sound recordings or secret images. And if it applies to the state, it must apply even more to the citizen. In addition, it should be noted that even sound or image recordings are not « ultimate proof », contrary to a widespread perception. They always only show part of an event, so they are by no means objective, but usually without context and therefore require a classification of what happened before or after, for example.
Therefore, it is necessary to carefully consider whether the introduction of unauthorised sound recordings or images seems appropriate in the present case and whether it is « useful » to take the risk of one`s own criminal prosecution. As mentioned above, sound recordings can be used as evidence as long as they are « legal ». In other words, if the voice recordings have been taken violently, threatened or under pressure or illegally, they will not be accepted as evidence. In addition, it should not be forgotten that the person who illegally records a voice recording has committed a crime and punished him in accordance with the Turkish Penal Code. According to the case-law, before resuming and exploiting evidence obtained illegally, a balance of interests must be carried out between the personal rights of the person concerned and the legal protection interests of the person responsible for the evidence. Only in justified exceptional situations, especially if no other evidence is available, can such tape recording be recorded and used as evidence by the court. The person who wishes to present this evidence, which may have been obtained illegally, must prove that he needs the sound recording in case of other inapplicability of his request and that his request and subjective interests have a higher value than the privacy of the opponent violated when taking the evidence. It is totally illegal for him to allow himself to be exploited as if he were in accordance with the law, to register the bee and to register it illegally. While it was necessary to take action and conduct the necessary investigation into our complaint, no investigation was conducted. Companies can avoid legal problems if the employer informs employees that a registration will take place upon hiring and using a contract signed by the employee.
Most states do not allow the use of secret audio in: The question of allowing audio recordings with cameras in public buses arose in 2009. The Maryland Transit Authority questioned the state`s attorney general on the matter, and it quickly became public. Efforts have been made to arrest him, and this has not yet happened, although cameras have been allowed for several years. Some say this is necessary for security reasons, but we have not yet seen how this could actually increase security. As a result; The situation in which the sound recording is often considered legal must be recorded at the time of the « sudden event » event. The design and recording of sound recordings, secret video recordings and wiretaps with spy programs are not used as evidence in legal proceedings and are considered a criminal offence. If you have an audio recording and want to use it in a court case, it is in your favor to amplify that recording with one or more witnesses. The Court of Cassation does not consider it appropriate to use voice recording alone as sufficient evidence.
In practical life, most spouses are afraid to file for divorce because they feel they cannot use this tape in the trial, even if they have a voice recording that proves serious conflicts. Of course, sound recordings produced for fictitious purposes cannot be used in divorce proceedings, but other types of sound recordings must certainly be evaluated by a lawyer. By the way, we want to point out that « social media recordings and photos » also serve as evidence in the event of divorce.