Taking phone from rape victims? I read in a recent news report that victims of rape would no longer be required to surrender their phones to police for a &quot;digital strip search&quot;, however the alleged perpetrator would. The victim would instead get to make the decision of whether, or not, to let the police go through their phone. I have seen several news reports, television programmes, and I believe even a Panorama documentary on rape victims feeling it is unfair that the police have demanded their phone to be able to investigate the rape allegation. Although, the television often does mislead... I am curious as to what the Law was (criminal law in England &amp; Wales jurisdiction) during the year 2019. I believe, based on this article, that all victims of rape had to give their phones into the police for analysis, but I might be wrong and am looking for clarification?
According to the Crown Prosecution Service's legal guidance Disclosure – Guidelines on Communications Evidence (26 January 2018), the law is that: Investigating officers are required to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry, whether to exonerate or implicate suspects … This will often include the obtaining and analysis of communication evidence whether it originates from devices or social media accounts belonging to the complainant or the suspect or, in some cases, to third parties. See also Disclosure – A guide to &quot;reasonable lines of enquiry&quot; and communications evidence (24 July 2018): The examination of mobile devices belonging to the complainant is not a requirement as a matter of course in every case. There will be cases where there is no requirement for the police to take the media devices of a complainant or others at all … Examples of this would include sexual offences committed opportunistically against strangers, or historic allegations where there is considered to be no prospect that the complainant’s phone will retain any material relevant to the period in which the conduct is said to have occurred and/or the complainant through age or other circumstances did not have access to a phone at that time. There is an extensive discussion of the &quot;issues of principle … that frequently arise in present-day police investigations … linked to the privacy concerns of complainants and other witnesses who are asked by the police to share the contents of their mobile telephones&quot; in Bater-James v The Queen [2020] EWCA Crim 790 (23 June 2020), from paragraph 65 onwards. The end-to-end rape review report on findings and actions (June 2021), at paragraphs 93 – 101, cites this decision and commits the Government to ensuring that: No victim is left without a phone for more than 24 hours … and victims are not asked for information unless it is necessary and proportionate in pursuit of a reasonable line of inquiry. The most recent Rape Review progress update (June 2022), at pages 11 – 12, summarises recent reform in this area, including changes to police practice and passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Chapter 3 of Part 2 of that Act introduces new powers to extract information from electronic devices with the user's informed consent. However, as noted at paragraph 22 of the new Code of practice: Extraction of information from electronic devices (17 October 2022), these powers are distinct from existing &quot;coercive or compulsory powers, such as a search warrant, production order or statutory notice.&quot;
As the previous reply says, you can't steal something if it was yours already. That's by definition – stealing can only be of something that isn't your possession. However there are three ways you can have a problem despite this, partly referred to in another answer: If there is a law or other legal basis for the other person to have control and keep that object, either for a while or indefinitely. So if your phone is legitimately taken by a police officer, you can't "steal" it but you may still not have the right to take it. But this would be treated as some other crime, not "theft." If you cannot gain legal access it, and would have to commit another kind of crime to get it back. So you can't legally get back money by hacking someone's bank account, or defrauding them, or get back an object by breaking down their front door or using illegal force, or by making unlawful threats and blackmail.On the other hand, if you were invited by them to visit their house (or persuaded them to let you visit) and you found it and took it back while visiting under their consent, or they gave you a lift and while in the car you rummaged in the glove compartment and saw your property there, then the issue of legal consent for access is potentially a non-issue, meaning that taking it back under those conditions (even against their objections when they realised) may well be technically legal in many cases, depending on the exact facts of the case and applicable law. (less likely) If something has happened that means, technically, it isn't yours any more, or never was yours. For example, you accidentally give or throw your valuable phone away in error and someone else legitimately (in law) assumes ownership afterwards, or sign away or renounce something without realising it, or allow someone to use something in a way that gives them some ownership-like rights over it, so that by law you are deemed to have relinquished or waived some/all of your rights as an owner (the other person was honest and didn't defraud you), and you later try to take it back without consent, then in principle you could now be seen as stealing it back.You might also believe something is absolutely yours but in fact legally you don't own it and never did. For example you 'bought' some music or software, or a right to use something under license, and believe you actually own it or that you have a moral right to own it. So, later on, you sell it, dispose of it to someone else, or treat it as yours, when in law, it never was yours to do these things. Technically depending on the situation and exact wording of the law, this might be construed as stealing, in some cases and some jurisdictions. Between these legal limits, there is a grey area where you can get it back in practice despite an illegality. For example if the unlawful access is so minor you are sure it won't be a criminal issue, or you're sure it wouldn't be reported, you might chance it. But that's not a legal issue as much as a personal one. An interesting variant of this applies in English law, although I doubt it has any legal relevance in US law. In English law, "theft" was defined by the Theft Act 1968 as, "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive the other of it". This meant that a person who could show a court that they did not "intend" to "permanently deprive", or did not act "dishonestly" or "appropriate" the property (treat it as if they were its owner), might in fact have a strong legal defence against a charge of theft. Update from comment below "If you saw it in a shop would you be able to take it and run away?" You wouldn't have to. In almost all cases if something isn't legally yours, you can't legally pass ownership to anyone else, such as a store, whether for money or not, because it wasn't ever yours to pass good (legal) title. So the item is still owned by its original legitimate owner, meaning the exact same legal position still applies as above, if you had discovered it was in someone's house. It could change hands many times (not just once) from thief to fence to store to shopper to friend as a gift, and even so, the same would still apply - it would remain yours in law. If anything it's a bit easier if you saw it in a shop. A shop usually consents to members of the public entering - they don't have to ask normally! - and you might ask to see the item or look closely (if it's locked in the window). You now have it with consent and without any crime. If confident, you can walk out completely legally with your possession. (Tracking down the "rogue" or recovering any money paid for it, is their problem not yours in the eyes of the law). That said, realistically you wouldn't do it that way. This is slipping into personal view rather than law, but this is how I'd do it instead of "grab and run." Assuming a "typical" store and store staff, you would ask them to fetch the manager, and you would explain firmly that you claim this is your stolen property, and therefore not owned by them (nor do they have any rights to make any decisions about it), and you are taking it back. You would offer sight of ID or some means of contact, telling them this is so that they have a means to contact you, if they wish to dispute it via lawyers or police. You would offer to wait for the police if they wish, but maintain that you are not parting with it and they may call the police if they disagree; when they arrive, tell the police exactly the same, and that you have given your ID and waited there, as a mark of good faith, and invite them to come back with you to see where you live or proof of purchase or anything else, if relevant. You would tell the police that if they think you have committed a crime according to the law then they must of course arrest you for it, but if not, you now wish to go. You would meet any police request to give it to the police or store by asserting that it is your property and you would rather not, or by asking if you will be committing a criminal offence (if so which) if you refuse, and refuse if you feel able to do so. Then follow whichever way it goes. You would do these things because they are fair, reasonable, and they mark you out as someone asserting a right, not a thief yourself, and they reduce the odds that you will be taken for a thief, or meet with violence in their efforts to recover it. After all, the storekeeper and police can claim "reasonable belief" for any of their actions afterwards, so it's best that you reduce their likelihood of something nasty.
UPDATE On 24/07/2023, Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist, a senior officer in the Metropolitan Police Service (the &quot;Met&quot;), released a statement giving the police's account of the incident and the &quot;legal basis for her arrest&quot; as requested by the OP. It is quite lengthy but I have resisted editing or redacting it to ensure the whole statement is available to those users (like me) that would rather not follow anonymous links. I have also resisted emboldening any of the text to allow users to make up their own minds without any unconscious bias on my part. Finally, I have left my original answer as is for posterity. The statement in full reads as follows (with the description of what caused the arrest bolded): “It is clear from the video that has been shared online that this incident was distressing for the woman involved and particularly for her child. We understand why it has prompted significant public concern and we want to be transparent about our position and the role of our officers. “Officers from the Met’s Roads and Transport Policing Command were supporting TfL ticket inspectors on a pre-planned operation in Whitehorse Road, Croydon on Friday, 21 July. As buses pulled into the stop, TfL inspectors would check the tickets of those onboard and also those getting off. “Anyone without a valid ticket is required to provide their details to a TfL inspector so a penalty fare can be issued. This is not a policing matter. Officers only become involved where details are not provided or where someone tries to leave when challenged. “The woman involved in this incident was asked to provide her ticket as she got off the bus, but did not do so. She was spoken to by a TfL inspector, then by a PCSO and finally by a police officer. She continued to try to walk away and did not provide her ticket for inspection. “She was arrested on suspicion of fare evasion and was handcuffed. When officers were able to take her ticket from her so that the TfL inspectors could check it, they were able to confirm it was valid. She was immediately de-arrested and her handcuffs were removed. “Throughout the incident, the child was comforted by a PCSO who immediately recognised his distress. Anyone seeing how upset he was would be moved by this, and we regret any impact it may have on him. “We recognise that the use of handcuffs can be a cause of concern, particularly given the context of this incident and the type of offence involved, but when a person is trying to physically leave an incident it is an option officers can consider. All uses of force must be proportionate and necessary in the circumstances. “Ticket inspection operations of this nature are difficult. They place police officers in direct confrontation with frustrated members of the public and could escalate what would otherwise be civil matters to a different level. “This incident raises questions about the extent to which officers are having to intervene in this way when supporting TfL in their operations. We will now work with TfL to ensure that the balance is right between officers tackling the most serious crime on the transport network and supporting their own operations to ensure revenue protection. “An initial review of the officers’ actions did not identify any conduct matters but we will reflect on it carefully, in discussion with communities locally, to urgently identify any opportunities to do things differently. “Given the level of community concern generated we believe it is in the public interest to voluntarily refer the matter to the Independent Office for Police Conduct to review.” ORIGINAL ANSWER YES A breach of the Regulations is a summary offence. As such, a suspect may be arrested if all the relevant conditions at section 24 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 are met. See section 67 Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981: Penalty for breach of regulations. Subject to section 68(1) of this Act [i.e. reasonable excuse], if a person acts in contravention of, or fails to comply with, any regulations made by the Secretary of State under this Act and contravention thereof, or failure to comply therewith, is not made an offence under any other provision of this Act, he shall for each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale. And see Paragraph 7 Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990: (2) ... every passenger on a vehicle being used for the carriage of passengers at separate fares shall– (a)declare, if so requested by the driver, inspector or conductor, the journey which he intends to take, is taking or has taken in the vehicle; (b)where the vehicle is being operated by the driver without a conductor– (i)save as provided in (ii) below, immediately on boarding the vehicle, pay the fare for the journey he intends to take to the driver or, where appropriate, by inserting in any fare-collection equipment provided on the vehicle the money or token required to pay that fare; or (ii)if otherwise directed by the driver, an inspector or a notice displayed on the vehicle, shall pay the fare for his journey in accordance with the direction; (c)where the vehicle is being operated by the driver with a conductor, pay the fare for the journey which he intends to take, is taking, or has taken in the vehicle to the conductor immediately on being requested to do so by the conductor or an inspector; (d)accept and retain for the rest of his journey any ticket which is provided on payment of a fare in accordance with sub-paragraph (b) or (c); (e)produce during his journey any ticket which has been issued to him either under sub-paragraph (d) or before he started his journey for inspection by the driver, inspector or conductor on being requested to do so by the driver, inspector or conductor; and (f)as soon as he has completed the journey for which he has a ticket, either– (i)leave the vehicle; or (ii)pay the fare for any further journey which he intends to take on the vehicle. Paragraph 7 covers numerous alternative scenarios and as I have not seen the video, nor know the surrounding circumstances, I have emboldened the more likely alleged breach(es). I will review this if/when more details become available.
I think that there won't be any trouble from Germany, but the US could be a problem if the girl reports the case to authorities. In that case, further details would depend on the state in question. As far as Germany is concerned, there are two sections in the penal code that could be relevant here: § 176 StGB - Sexual abuse of children § 182 StGB - Sexual abuse of juveniles To make things more complicated, we would also have to take into account juvenile penal law and whether Germany would have jurisdiction in the first place. 1) Jurisdiction: I'm not sure whether this case would fall into German jurisdiction under § 3 StGB as the case could be deemed to be committed in the US. However, in that case, Germany could still assume jurisdiction under § 5 item 8 StGB. 2) Since our guy was only 18, it would be at the discretion of the court to decide whether juvenile criminal law or regular criminal law is to be applied. In the former case, the sentence would be lower (if there is a sentence at all). But then we still have to figure out whether our guy broke a law in the first place. So first of all, let's take a look at § 176 StGB: “Section 176 Sexual abuse of children (1) Whoever performs sexual acts on a person under 14 years of age (child) or has the child perform sexual acts on them incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term of between six months and 10 years. (2) Whoever causes a child to perform sexual acts on a third person or has a third person perform sexual acts on the child incurs the same penalty. (3) In especially serious cases, the penalty is imprisonment for a term of at least one year. (4) Whoever 1. performs sexual acts in the presence of a child, 2. causes the child to perform sexual acts, unless the act is subject to a penalty under subsection (1) or subsection (2), 3. influences a child by way of material (section 11 (3)) or information and communication technologies a) in order to cause the child to perform sexual acts on or in the presence of the offender or a third person or to have the offender or a third person perform sexual acts on the child or b) in order to commit an offence under section 184b (1) no. 3 or under section 184b (3) or 4. influences a child by showing pornographic images or depictions, by playing pornographic audio recordings, making pornographic content available by way of information and communication technologies or pornographic speech incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term of between three months and five years. (5) Whoever offers or promises to supply a child for an offence under subsections (1) to (4) or who arranges with another to commit such an offence incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term of between three months and five years. (6) The attempt is punishable; this does not apply to offences under subsection (4) nos. 3 and 4 and subsection (5).” Since the girl is 15 years old, this section is probably not relevant. However, to know for sure, we would need to know her exact age when contact started. If she was only 13 years and 11 months and contact lasted 1 year and 2 months, then § 176 might be relevant after all. That takes us to § 182. “Section 182 Sexual abuse of juveniles (1) Whoever abuses a person under 18 years of age by taking advantage of a predicament by 1. performing sexual acts on that person or having said person perform sexual acts on them or 2. causing the person to perform sexual acts on a third person or to have sexual acts performed on them by a third person incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine. (2) A person over 18 years of age who abuses a person under 18 years of age by performing sexual acts on that person or having that person perform sexual acts on them for a consideration incurs the same penalty. (3) A person over 21 years of age who abuses a person under 16 years of age by 1. performing sexual acts on that person or having that person perform sexual acts on them or 2. causing that person to perform sexual acts on a third person or to have a third person perform sexual acts on that person, and thereby exploits the victim’s lack of capacity for sexual self-determination, incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or a fine. (4) The attempt is punishable. (5) In the cases under subsection (3), the offence is prosecuted only upon request, unless the prosecuting authority deems there to be a special public interest in prosecution which calls for ex officio intervention. (6) In the cases under subsections (1) to (3), the court may dispense with imposing a penalty pursuant to these provisions if, having regard to the conduct of the person against whom the offence was committed, the wrongfulness of the act is minor.” § 182 para. 1 StGB applies only to cases where the offender takes advantage of a predicament. I seriously doubt there's a predicament involved here. § 182 para. 2 StGB only applies for sexual acts for consideration, i. e. when money is being paid. Since apparantly there was no payment involved in this case, no problem here and we can go on to para. 3. § 182 para. 3 StGB only applies to cases where the victim lacks the capacity for self-determination and the offender is at least 21 years old. Neither is the case here. Summary: As far as Germany is concerned, there's no trouble to be expected under § 182 StGB. § 176 StGB might cause problems but only if the girl was under 14 when contact began. (You stated that she's 15. This could mean that she just turned 15 but was 13 years and 11 months when contact began.) As far as German law is concerned, it looks like our guy was overly cautious and there was no need to cut contact. From the US perspective, however, things will probably be different. I'm not familiar with US law but we would probably need to know the state in question.
If they are recording you, you can record them Assuming that recording requires two-party consent (not all places do), when they informed you that the call may be recorded, they gave consent to it being recorded (obviously) and you gave consent by not hanging up. The consent requirement has been met so anyone and everyone can record it.
There's no legal requirement in Canada or US that the police do anything to investigate a crime, so there's no requirement that they do anything specific to investigate a crime. If the police officers are satisfied by the witness accounts, or have some reason to think viewing surveillance recording wouldn't be useful they don't have to, either by law or policy. Note that ordinarily, police won't consider a physical altercation between two grown men a serious enough crime to warrant charges. If there was no serious injury and there wasn't a large discrepancy between the strength of the two men, police will often decline to lay charges even when they believe the evidence would sustain them. In this case the police may have decided it wasn't worth investigating further because it wasn't worth wasting the time of an already overloaded court system. The victim here still has legal options despite the lack action by the police. He can subpoena the video evidence if he wants to bring lawsuit for damages. In Canada, it's possible even to lay your own criminal charges in a private prosecution, although this much more expensive than a civil lawsuit.
Your description of the facts is vague enough that we can't offer an informed judgment, but to remedy this, I will paraphrase your account of the facts (you can decide whether this is what you were trying to say). I was sitting outside of the Sprint store today waiting for my step daughter to come out. While waiting, two police officers walked up to my car and asked me to turn off my vehicle and come inside. When I voluntarily went inside, the store staff said that they called the police because they had had some sort of problems with people applying for service and absconding with the phone to resell on the black market, and they thought that was part of some such criminal plan. Because of that, they refused to give her a phone or service contract. But then they also told us to never come back, threatening arrest for trespassing. I have never been in that store before. Were my rights violated? No, neither by the police nor by the manager. The police, or the store manager, can legally request you to come in for a conversation: what matters most is whether you were forced to come in against your will. By your report, you were not, so your rights were not violated. The police are irrelevant to the remainder of the question. What remains is whether your rights were violated because the manager told you to go away and never come back under pain of prosecution. The store is private property, meaning that the owner has wide latitude to grant or deny permission to enter. If they hate pink hair and your hair is pink, they can legally "ban" you. If they suspect you of involvement in a criminal activity, that can most certainly legally ban you. That does not mean that it was a righteous or justified decision on their part, or a good business choice, but it is their legal right. So, no, your rights were not violated.
Generally... There are important caveats to the general &quot;two-party&quot; consent rule in the State of California; I will attempt to generally describe some of them. &quot;To violate the PC section 632 rule the communication must be &quot;confidential&quot; - this means that recordings taken in places where the other party should have reasonably expected the communication might be overheard or recorded are not covered.&quot; (Wilkins v. NBC, Inc. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1079.) &quot;[A] conversation is confidential if a party to that conversation has an objectively reasonable expectation that the conversation is not being overheard or recorded.&quot; (Flanagan v. Flanagan, 27 Cal.4th 766, 768 (2002)) Accordingly, if one as a complaining party tries to prove that one had a reasonable expectation of privacy it is not enough that one proves that one reasonably thought it was possible or even probable that the conversation was not overheard, monitored or recorded; one must be able to establish that a reasonable person in the same circumstances as one would objectively, that is based on the sum of factual circumstances, assumed a conversation was confidential. This shows well through the following authorities: &quot;A conversation is deemed “confidential” under § 632 of CIPA only if a party to that conversation has an objectively reasonable expectation that the conversation is not being overheard or recorded. Flanagan v. Flanagan(2002) 27 Cal.4th 766, 768, 774–776; Vera v. O'Keefe (S.D.Cal.2011) 791 F.Supp.2d 959; 1396;. Whether there exists a reasonable expectation that no one is secretly recording or listening to a phone conversation is generally a question of fact. (See Kight v. CashCall, Inc. (4th Dist. 2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1396-97; Lieberman v. KCOP Television, Inc. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 156, 169.) However, where the facts are undisputed, the court may decide the issue as a matter of law. (See Weiner v. ARS Services, Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2012) 2012 WL 3632025 (finding circumstances of call, including its short duration, indicated no expectation of privacy).” An important point is made here: No one assert an objectively reasonable exception if the time to evaluate the circumstances of a conversation or the intention, manner and other factors of the other party to engage in a conversation within an objectively insufficient time. Therefore, the duration, and even more so, the shortness of a conversation can very well be determinative of the reasonableness of a party to complain about their expectation to a part or the entirety (for e.g. in an extremely short exchange) of a conversation. This should come as no surprise: If we ever wondered as to how one may overcome the catch 22 of being accused to have begun recording a conversation if one notifies the other party of the recording just prior to beginning the recording since the notice would not be recorded or being accused for invasion of privacy under California Penal Code § 632 for the part of the conversation recorded just before the lawful indication of the lack of objectively reasonable expectation towards confidentiality in the conversation (for e.g. announcing the fact it is not a confidential call or that it may be recorded), is resolved in this. Again, it is, because the criminal threshold to be met, there must be an objectively reasonable expectation to privacy. If one by act or word calls that into question sufficiently that a reasonable person would not be able to objectively expect that the conversation is private or confidential, it no longer is: It implies that private conversations are the exception, and not the rule although the general perception may differ. This, will now be clear through the definition of confidential communicate in the state, too: “Penal Code § 632(c) defines “confidential communication” as including: any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made . . . in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded. To me, through this excerpted quote of the statute, it does appear as to leave an in-between grey area since it does not exclude communications in any other circumstance where circumstances do not reasonably indicate that no party desires it to be confidential, but only in those circumstances in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded. Which indicates toward the general reading of the statute that confidentiality is the rule, and public communications are the exception. However, authority has consistently reenforced the more restrictive approach. Returning to the previous point, due to the above standard test of confidentiality per, among others, Frio that requires a reasonably objective expectation to privacy, it will be clear as to why it is generally sufficient also to announce a call may be recorded or a call may be monitored — this latter announced solely is fairly rare. (See, e.g., Kight, supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at 1396-1397) Since such announcements in themselves call anyone's reasonably objective expectation to privacy into question, that is, an average person at least contemplates the very real possibility of overhearing or monitoring. Also another consequence which may seem obvious at this point is that since it is not really &quot;consent&quot; that is a prerequisite, but a reasonably objective expectation, and though a fairly low bar, it is effectively imposed on the complaining party, and not the party wishing to record therefore &quot;for purposes of section 632, the privacy rights affected are the same regardless of whether a conversation is secretly recorded by a machine or monitored by a human being” (See, e.g., Kight, supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at 1396-1397) since the threshold is reasonably objective expectation to privacy and effectively not presence or absence of consent; however, if consent is express, than there is, clearly, no reasonably objective expectation to privacy. &quot;Two-party consent&quot; not all party consent? This also leads to the hypothetical: What if in a group one asks another if one can record the conversation, and the other answers in the affirmative, and one begins recording: Would that allow for the recording when the other parties to the conversation haven’t answered? My reading of these interpretations would be that if everyone else in the group made heard the question would no longer have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy furthermore, their consent would also be implied by not objecting and/or proceeding with the communication. So multiple defenses could be used in a case like this — non-confidential communications as well as consent. An even more extreme, and to many, hardly fathomable scenario would be if one party explicitly objects to recording — however, only after an announcement objectively defying any reasonably objective expectations of confidentiality — what would then happen? Recording, absent any reasonable expectation to confidentiality, let alone one such that is objective, without a problem, should be able to be made. An example of this is typical to situations of domestic violence and/or divorce attorneys where they teach a longer disclaimer something along the line: “I will begin recording hence if you continue you will be deemed to have consented to bring recorded” etc., where they typically proceed even against objections. Although this may be much more than what’s minimally required to lawfully record, these disclaimers will probably have a better deterring effect to stop an assault or other aggression than a beep-tone warning that another party may simply disregard. Beep-tone warnings An important, and fairly obscure and unknown consequence of the above espoused interpretations is the so-called beep-tone warnings for recordings or monitoring of calls. In Air Transportation Association of America v. Public Utilities Common of State of California the California Appeal Court for the 9th Circuit found that if &quot;[a] person wishing to listen in on a conversation without violating the regulation can provide notice by using a beep-tone warning device audible to all parties to the conversation[...]&quot;. The rationale follows the previously analyses and is based on the following facts: A reasonable person would have an objective expectation that an ordinarily operating telephone or other customary audio-transmitting devices would cause no beep-tone in order to operate hence being made heard a beep-tone should call a reasonable persons expectation to the ordinary and/or customary operation of any such remote communication device to the extent that it could not maintain a reasonably objective expectation to his or her communication. In a fresh, though unpublished opinion in Smith v. LoanMe, Inc. (2021), an Appeal Court did not vitiate this specific interpretation as it would likely have called the rationale behind it into question as well. &quot;Admissibility&quot; of unlawfully obtained audio recordings Generally, due to the &quot;Right to Truth-in-Evidence&quot; provisions of the California Constitution, a previous statute, Pen. Code § 632(d) was repealed and such evidence became admissible for the purposes of combatting perjury though the person creating such record would still face criminal prosecution for the unlawful recording under § 632; however, I'm less versed in this corner of the statute hence it is highly ill-advised. “[E]vidence of confidential conversations obtained by eavesdropping or recording in violation of Penal Code Section 632 is generally inadmissible in any proceeding…but can be used to impeach inconsistent testimony by those seeking to exclude the evidence.” (People vs. Crow (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 440; Frio vs. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1480.) To answer your questions more specifically... If you have a good faith duty as a result of a contractual relationship between yourself and those you wish to record, you could potentially be sued for damages for a breach of the covenant of good faith duty and fair dealing if you somehow manage to lawfully notify the other party, but he could prove that you had a bad faith intention and intentionally chose a manner to mislead them. It does not seem plausible to me how they could prove this, but it certainly is within the realm of possibilities. As you can see: California's ban, as it is similar with probably other states, is not a ban for recording, per se, it is a ban of recording or monitoring of confidential conversations. Therefore, simply allowing someone else to eavesdrop on the conversation would implicate the same criminal consequences absent objective indications that would call the to-be-recorded party's reasonable expectation to privacy as you could probably thought so by now. Conclusion As you can see, many of the caveats to the statute are such that the general public would not know, and if you were to record someone, knowing that simply announcing that a call may be overheard or that someone may hear it who will not be part of the conversation or using a beep-tone warning device audible to all parties may each call the reasonably objective expectation of a to-be-recorded party into question which may be useful.