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

“Y'all smell that sawdust?”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#21 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 ..
Then, there is Illinois.

To legally record conversations, Illinois law requires that all parties consent to the recording. This applies even to conversations that are not private. Illinois law does not require that one or more parties reasonably expect the conversation to be private, thus If a conversation is recorded without the consent of one of the participating parties, that party's right to privacy may have been violated and they may be able to sue, both criminally for eavesdropping, and civilly for invasion of privacy.

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

#22 Mar 9, 2012
Confederate Wood Worker wrote:
<quoted text>
Then, there is Illinois.
To legally record conversations, Illinois law requires that all parties consent to the recording. This applies even to conversations that are not private. Illinois law does not require that one or more parties reasonably expect the conversation to be private, thus If a conversation is recorded without the consent of one of the participating parties, that party's right to privacy may have been violated and they may be able to sue, both criminally for eavesdropping, and civilly for invasion of privacy.
there is confusion here on two totally different issues , wire tap is a ease dropping unknown to the targeted party and requires a court order .even the feds have to get a court order , a monitor phone you must be told it is so and a warning beep must sound every 60 seconds if you proceed

“Y'all smell that sawdust?”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#23 Mar 9, 2012
tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>
there is confusion here on two totally different issues , wire tap is a ease dropping unknown to the targeted party and requires a court order .even the feds have to get a court order , a monitor phone you must be told it is so and a warning beep must sound every 60 seconds if you proceed
No one said anything about a wire tap.
Truthseeker

Huntington, NY

#24 Mar 9, 2012
Confederate Wood Worker wrote:
<quoted text>
No one said anything about a wire tap.
Uh, technically Tally did.

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

#25 Mar 9, 2012
Confederate Wood Worker wrote:
<quoted text>
No one said anything about a wire tap.
Illinois's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Illinois makes it a crime to use an "eavesdropping device" to overhear or record a phone call or conversation without the consent of all parties to the conversation. The law defines an "eavesdropping device" as "any device capable of being used to hear or record oral conversation or intercept, retain, or transcribe electronic communication whether such conversation or electronic communication is conducted in person, by telephone, or by any other means." 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/14-1,-2. If you are operating in Illinois, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording an in-person conversation or telephone call. In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, violating the Illinois wiretapping statute can expose you to a civil lawsuit for damages by an injured party.

the law did ..

“The Spotted Girl News Network”

Level 8

Since: Apr 09

Spotted World

#26 Mar 9, 2012
tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>
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 ,
Actually both laws apply. Like I said, all but 12 states allow taping (not wire-tapping) of private phone calls by one of the involved parties. The rest allow it with consent of both parties, using the FCC approved process for obtaining consent. When there is a conflict in laws when the call is between 2 states, the stricter state's laws apply. However, the state laws are subject to the federal process. In what I quoted from the FCC, there is no conflict between that and state laws allowing the caller or the recipient to record their calls. If so, then an answering machine would be illegal. They are not. They are FCC certified.

It seems you keep confusing lawful recording of phone calls by the parties involved which are state regulated with federal wire-tapping laws and the general federal telecommunication laws.

“The Spotted Girl News Network”

Level 8

Since: Apr 09

Spotted World

#27 Mar 9, 2012
Back to this topic, he might not get by with it if his state's telecommunication laws give any clues. It was his house, but doesn't she have reasonable expectation of privacy, particularly if she has a separate bedroom?

Now, I do understand his motives. His stated motive was not to harass nor publish (like in the case of the Rutgers University students who placed surveillance in a gay suite mate's room, contributing to his suicide), but to know when the coast was clear. Her activities angered and sickened him, and he apparently didn't want to be around when certain things were happening, knowing how he felt. Maybe motion or weight sensors would have been better. If the bed rocks, a remote LED or whatever comes on. So it would be monitoring movement or activity in a room or the bed. Hospital beds have this sort of technology in case patients fall out of bed.

His biggest mistake was not negotiating with her. He could have explained that while she was free to see whoever, he didn't want to be around when she was doing it. Then he could have negotiated a way he could find out whether she was having an intimate moment without being there.
The Geno

Portland, OR

#28 Mar 9, 2012
tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>
Illinois's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Illinois makes it a crime to use an "eavesdropping device" to overhear or record a phone call or conversation without the consent of all parties to the conversation. The law defines an "eavesdropping device" as "any device capable of being used to hear or record oral conversation or intercept, retain, or transcribe electronic communication whether such conversation or electronic communication is conducted in person, by telephone, or by any other means." 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/14-1,-2. If you are operating in Illinois, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording an in-person conversation or telephone call. In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, violating the Illinois wiretapping statute can expose you to a civil lawsuit for damages by an injured party.
the law did ..
It's not eavesdropping if you are taping the conversation you're having with someone else. You're already there, part of it.

“Y'all smell that sawdust?”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#29 Mar 9, 2012
The Geno wrote:
<quoted text>It's not eavesdropping if you are taping the conversation you're having with someone else. You're already there, part of it.
Up until last week, when a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional, recording a conversation you were a party to without the consent of the other party, violated the Illinois Wiretapping law. The state is appealing.

More here:

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/state-and-regi...

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

#30 Mar 9, 2012
Spotted Girl wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually both laws apply. Like I said, all but 12 states allow taping (not wire-tapping) of private phone calls by one of the involved parties. The rest allow it with consent of both parties, using the FCC approved process for obtaining consent. When there is a conflict in laws when the call is between 2 states, the stricter state's laws apply. However, the state laws are subject to the federal process. In what I quoted from the FCC, there is no conflict between that and state laws allowing the caller or the recipient to record their calls. If so, then an answering machine would be illegal. They are not. They are FCC certified.
It seems you keep confusing lawful recording of phone calls by the parties involved which are state regulated with federal wire-tapping laws and the general federal telecommunication laws.
my dear the telephone is federal regulated media , it involves civil rights ,
however he did not ease drop on her telephone , can he do that ?, depends on the state laws ..

when a police officer records his conversation upon a traffic stop ,[not a dash cam] in some states the laws says only one part of the parties has to know .. officer knew , that is all that is required .. the officer is one part of the parties ..

a wire tap is unknown to the party upon whom was the target

HEY TONY speak into the flower I'm wearing a wire

I didn't go to law school / served in the DA's office and was seated on the bench [for ten years], because I'm confused

kinda like the Oval office huh and it recordings ..

“Free beer tomorrow ....”

Level 5

Since: May 10

You'll find me!

#31 Mar 9, 2012
The Geno wrote:
<quoted text>It's not eavesdropping if you are taping the conversation you're having with someone else. You're already there, part of it.
Is that how you caught your wife, have another drink.

(_)}
Its Time

Rochester, MN

#33 Mar 10, 2012
MeanandNasty wrote:
Why just listen? He should have put up a webcam.
so true and then sold the video on ebay

“Jody”

Level 7

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#34 Mar 10, 2012
Bar Fly_ok wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that how you caught your wife, have another drink.
(_)}
Cool cup.

“Temporary tinctumutation”

Level 5

Since: Apr 10

Funk, NE

#35 Mar 10, 2012
She Was Busy wrote:
"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.
ญญ

An "Ohh Baby!" monitor

For Cripe's sake...
Sam King

Greensburg, KY

#38 Jul 22, 2013
Oh yea

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
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 13 min Enzo49 74,335
News Thousands of demonstrators protest Trump in Atl... 48 min Charles 2,083
2words into 2new words (May '12) 57 min rainmaker2016 8,016
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 1 hr CJ Rocker 6,567
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Freespirit8 215,436
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 1 hr Denny CranesPlace 21,761
News Chicago artist creates a mural of Michelle Obam... 1 hr okimar 24
What Is Your DREAM JOB? 3 hr DarkSoul___ 46
A to Z songs by title or group! 3 hr CJ Rocker 1,585
More from around the web