Cops: Man used transmitter to track w...

Cops: Man used transmitter to track wife's sex life

There are 35 comments on the KBCI CBS 2 story from Mar 8, 2012, titled Cops: Man used transmitter to track wife's sex life. In it, KBCI CBS 2 reports that:

Police have charged a Pennsylvania man with hiding a remote listening device under his estranged wife's bed that he said he used to avoid overhearing her sex life in the house they still shared.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KBCI CBS 2.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Christsharia Law

Wilmington, DE

#1 Mar 8, 2012
The transmitter was discovered when the estranged husband accidentally said out loud, "Oh c'mon, she _totally_ faked that orgasm!"

“Crude, Rude, and Lewd!”

Level 7

Since: Jun 08

Sayonara Falls.

#2 Mar 8, 2012
Why just listen? He should have put up a webcam.

“Jody”

Level 7

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#3 Mar 8, 2012
Tis only a matter of time till technology developed the "Kootchie" bug. Then we can wire the playgrounds while one's honey sleeps and track every waking grovement.

"Tick, tick, tick,... KA-STICK!"

Live, on hair in twenty seconds.

Would someone offer a logo please?[hee he]
Dr Stinko

Hampton, VA

#4 Mar 9, 2012
Guy loves pain...
She Was Busy

Medford, NY

#5 Mar 9, 2012
"Police say Cripe was tired of overhearing the lovemaking and tried to use the device, which he said didn't work, to determine whether "the coast was clear" before returning home."

Poor guy, hadn't been home in weeks.

“Slicing Through the B.S.”

Level 3

Since: Aug 09

Wanna touch my Katana?

#6 Mar 9, 2012
His saddest comment, "She never did that to me."

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#7 Mar 9, 2012
Christsharia Law wrote:
The transmitter was discovered when the estranged husband accidentally said out loud, "Oh c'mon, she _totally_ faked that orgasm!"
LOL
Neighbor

Medford, NY

#8 Mar 9, 2012
Last Tuesday I heard him screeching away when he heard his dog moaning.........

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

#9 Mar 9, 2012
interesting .. wonder what the state law is .... because ..........recording laws in most U.S. states require only one party to be aware of the recording, while 12 states require both parties to be aware.

you put there so you are the one party ..

“To contract new debts...”

Level 6

Since: Apr 08

is not the way to pay old ones

#10 Mar 9, 2012
MeanandNasty wrote:
Why just listen? He should have put up a webcam.
And streamed the video on his wife's facebook.

“The Spotted Girl News Network”

Level 8

Since: Apr 09

Spotted World

#11 Mar 9, 2012
tallyho wrote:
interesting .. wonder what the state law is .... because ..........recording laws in most U.S. states require only one party to be aware of the recording, while 12 states require both parties to be aware.
you put there so you are the one party ..
Well, most of those laws assume the telephone, if I am not mistaken. If a bedroom is bugged, then there may be more than one other party. Can privacy be waived for more than one other party by such an exemption in the law?

In some cases there may be civil laws too, like the one invoked in the case where the woman sued Radio Shack, because her ex-husband bought a listening device from them. That was how he became her ex. He suspected infidelity and bugged the family's phone. He harvested plenty of incriminating evidence to use in the divorce proceedings.

Anyway, you raise a very good question.

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

#12 Mar 9, 2012
Spotted Girl wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, most of those laws assume the telephone, if I am not mistaken. If a bedroom is bugged, then there may be more than one other party. Can privacy be waived for more than one other party by such an exemption in the law?
In some cases there may be civil laws too, like the one invoked in the case where the woman sued Radio Shack, because her ex-husband bought a listening device from them. That was how he became her ex. He suspected infidelity and bugged the family's phone. He harvested plenty of incriminating evidence to use in the divorce proceedings.
Anyway, you raise a very good question.
well no , a telephone requires a court order , as it is a FEDERAL ....

what I(refer to is the same as a dash cam), the officer knows you are being recorded even though you may not

in store CCTV is another example your ATM .. that is all state laws ..

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

#13 Mar 9, 2012
uuuuuuuuuum FOOTNOTE , ever hear this call may be monitored , once they have notified you , it is your choice if you continue , and also once you do , you will hear a beep every 60secs.

the reason is now you both know ..

“Go To 2012dawning”

Level 2

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#14 Mar 9, 2012
Doesn't it matter that it's his house?

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

#15 Mar 9, 2012
does matter on that state's law , a one party or a two party

“The Spotted Girl News Network”

Level 8

Since: Apr 09

Spotted World

#16 Mar 9, 2012
tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>
well no , a telephone requires a court order , as it is a FEDERAL ....
what I(refer to is the same as a dash cam), the officer knows you are being recorded even though you may not
in store CCTV is another example your ATM .. that is all state laws ..
With the dash cam thing, that is covered under "reasonable expectation of privacy." I believe the courts ruled that you have no expectation of privacy when dealing with the police. That also includes what suspects may say to family members, accomplices, and friends while in the police department.

Similar with the other situations. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy while in the main part of a store. You do when using the restroom, but not immediately inside the door, since anyone can see in there when the door is open, and anyone changing clothes or whatever would know not to stand there.

At the ATM, your right to security takes a higher precedence than your privacy.

IIRC, with a telephone, it is legal for one party to tape the other if one party consents. The court order deal applies to third parties. The feds have relaxed that over the years. In the past, you either had to have a beeping sound throughout the call or expressed permission or at least awareness at the beginning of the conversation. "You know I am taping this, right?" Also, I don't think the phone law restricts listening to what is on the same property by the bona fide subscribers/owners. Unless I am mistaken, an employer can listen to what an employee tells customers. I don't know, but I'd imagine they would legally be considered the same entity in the case of a corporation.

At any rate, you probably know more about all of this than I do.

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

#17 Mar 9, 2012
Spotted Girl wrote:
<quoted text>
With the dash cam thing, that is covered under "reasonable expectation of privacy." I believe the courts ruled that you have no expectation of privacy when dealing with the police. That also includes what suspects may say to family members, accomplices, and friends while in the police department.
Similar with the other situations. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy while in the main part of a store. You do when using the restroom, but not immediately inside the door, since anyone can see in there when the door is open, and anyone changing clothes or whatever would know not to stand there.
At the ATM, your right to security takes a higher precedence than your privacy.
IIRC, with a telephone, it is legal for one party to tape the other if one party consents. The court order deal applies to third parties. The feds have relaxed that over the years. In the past, you either had to have a beeping sound throughout the call or expressed permission or at least awareness at the beginning of the conversation. "You know I am taping this, right?" Also, I don't think the phone law restricts listening to what is on the same property by the bona fide subscribers/owners. Unless I am mistaken, an employer can listen to what an employee tells customers. I don't know, but I'd imagine they would legally be considered the same entity in the case of a corporation.
At any rate, you probably know more about all of this than I do.
why are you arguing ..

WIRE TAP:
You'll need, motion for court order to approve phone tap...a phone tap represents an intrusion into the privacy of an individual and there are only a limited number of occasions when it can be done legally.

LEGAL STATUS: the Attorney General with a court order.

but have it your way not going to argue , don't get caught

pssssst using recording devices to record conversations can be a tricky area when it comes to the law. Both states and the federal government have criminal laws that apply in wiretapping cases. These laws impose serious penalties for anyone convicted of illegally wiretapping or recording conversations.

“Kiss Me You Fool!”

Level 4

Since: Jan 08

Atlanta via Brooklyn NY

#18 Mar 9, 2012
Can you say "Cuckold".

He obviously gets off on the thought of his ex with another guy.

“The Spotted Girl News Network”

Level 8

Since: Apr 09

Spotted World

#19 Mar 9, 2012
tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>
why are you arguing ..
WIRE TAP:
You'll need, motion for court order to approve phone tap...a phone tap represents an intrusion into the privacy of an individual and there are only a limited number of occasions when it can be done legally.
LEGAL STATUS: the Attorney General with a court order.
but have it your way not going to argue , don't get caught
pssssst using recording devices to record conversations can be a tricky area when it comes to the law. Both states and the federal government have criminal laws that apply in wiretapping cases. These laws impose serious penalties for anyone convicted of illegally wiretapping or recording conversations.
I am not arguing just sharing. It takes two to argue. Recording a call you make is not a "wire tap." That is only done by third parties. Wire-tapping and lawful recording of phone calls fall into two different categories and jurisdictions. Like I said, before the federal standards for calls were made, they were still legal if you had express consent or played a sound letting you know you were being recorded. In fact, if you call a police department, you might hear that sound in the background of the call. But they are probably not required to use the signal now since like I said, you have no expectation of privacy in police interactions or on police property. Anything you say to anyone in front of a police officer or in a police station can be used against you (and probably will be if they have a reason).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_record...

In Pennsylvania where the man in the story is, state law requires that BOTH parties consent to telephone recording. But in the capitol city and all but 12 states, it is lawful as long as one of the parties consents. However, where the states differ in laws on this, the state with the strictest law has precedence. So I can tape a friend without them knowing and be legal, but if I were to call someone in Pennsylvania and do it, I would be breaking their state's law. Eavesdropping laws normally apply only to conversations you would normally not be able to hear.

There are FCC laws on what is acceptable notification that someone is being recorded. That would include written or verbal consent, or an audible beep throughout the call.

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/recording-telephone...

The FCC also says, "The FCC currently has no rules regarding recording of telephone conversations by individuals, but federal and many state laws may prohibit this practice."

By individuals. That means not the police nor government

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

#20 Mar 9, 2012
Spotted Girl wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not arguing just sharing. It takes two to argue. Recording a call you make is not a "wire tap." That is only done by third parties. Wire-tapping and lawful recording of phone calls fall into two different categories and jurisdictions. Like I said, before the federal standards for calls were made, they were still legal if you had express consent or played a sound letting you know you were being recorded. In fact, if you call a police department, you might hear that sound in the background of the call. But they are probably not required to use the signal now since like I said, you have no expectation of privacy in police interactions or on police property. Anything you say to anyone in front of a police officer or in a police station can be used against you (and probably will be if they have a reason).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_record...
In Pennsylvania where the man in the story is, state law requires that BOTH parties consent to telephone recording. But in the capitol city and all but 12 states, it is lawful as long as one of the parties consents. However, where the states differ in laws on this, the state with the strictest law has precedence. So I can tape a friend without them knowing and be legal, but if I were to call someone in Pennsylvania and do it, I would be breaking their state's law. Eavesdropping laws normally apply only to conversations you would normally not be able to hear.
There are FCC laws on what is acceptable notification that someone is being recorded. That would include written or verbal consent, or an audible beep throughout the call.
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/recording-telephone...
The FCC also says, "The FCC currently has no rules regarding recording of telephone conversations by individuals, but federal and many state laws may prohibit this practice."
By individuals. That means not the police nor government
dear I said that right here ,,

"ever hear this call may be monitored , once they have notified you , it is your choice if you continue , and also once you do , you will hear a beep every 60secs. "

all recorded phones calls in every state must have consent ,, a telephone is Federal , period ,

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 1 min ImFree2Choose 34,542
Add a word and drop a word (Jan '14) 2 min Bezeer 5,611
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 2 min Dont_You_Dare 12,847
OFFBEAT.keepAword.DropAword.2011edition (Oct '11) 3 min Dont_You_Dare 20,472
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 7 min Impose fraudulently 34,692
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) 9 min TheJerseyDevil 5,324
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 9 min Dont_You_Dare 8,089
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 34 min Dont_You_Dare 144,111
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr honeymylove 189,229
Transgender bathrooms .... thoughts? 1 hr B B Eyes 66
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 4 hr Denny CranesPlace 55,681
More from around the web