In France, is it illicit to use a recorded content as a proof, when the person was recorded without knowing it? I remember hearing more than once from unofficial sources (and from people whose main domain isn't law) that you can't use a recording as a proof at the court, if said recording wasn't taken with the person's consent (or if it isn't a public area with some clear sign of recording devices, e.g. train stations for example). For example: if I were to hide my phone in my back in recording mode, to record someone during a conversation, while they are saying something I could sue them for. Now I know there are some cases of exception (e.g. if people are suspecting someone might be taking part to some terrorism acts for example, but that's the extreme case). In what condition can a recording be considered as illegal, or otherwise, when is it legal to use a recorded material as a proof, even without consent of recording?
Yes, this can land you in jail, no matter what In France, per article 226-1 du code pénal recording without consent may be punished by one year in jail and 45000€ fine. Any recording without authorization of all parties involved (including the owners or administrators of buildings recorded either outside or inside due to copyright of the architectural image) can also land you in legal trouble either criminally or in civil court. The consent is implied if the parties involved knew about it and had means to deny authorization but didn't, but mind that any recording, secret or not, can be considered non consented, which probably discourage anyone from recording anything in France. However you can still show these images obtained illegally in a court and the judge has the right to declare such recording justified (no statute about this, it is totally up to the judge) and thus allow you to use it as evidence both in civil or penal matters. It does not, however, protects you from being sued latter for the exposure of the recorded party, but the acceptance as evidence by a judge may serve as defense. This means that many forms of recording in France, including tourists taking pictures of the Eiffel tower, obviously without authorization of the administrators of the tower or any potential passer-by, is in fact committing a crime, although obviously the law in simply not enforced for these cases. However, if a filmmaker records the Eiffel Tower and makes millions in box office, the tower administration will probably go to the trouble of collecting some money threatening to press charges if not paid.
england-and-wales There is nothing in the criminal law to compel Party X to identify Party Y in this scenario - they are under no legal obligation to contact the police or anyone else, and a witness summons, for example, cannot be served as there is no trial. That said, one option is for the victim to make a complaint to the police for an alleged offence of what is colloquially referred to as &quot;revenge porn&quot; contrary to s.33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015: (1) It is an offence for a person to disclose a private sexual photograph or film if the disclosure is made — (a) without the consent of an individual who appears in the photograph or film, and (b) with the intention of causing that individual distress. ... The definitions of &quot;private&quot; and &quot;sexual&quot; may be found at s.35: (2) A photograph or film is “private” if it shows something that is not of a kind ordinarily seen in public. (3) A photograph or film is “sexual” if — (a) it shows all or part of an individual's exposed genitals or pubic area, (b) it shows something that a reasonable person would consider to be sexual because of its nature, or (c) its content, taken as a whole, is such that a reasonable person would consider it to be sexual. The police can then ask Party X to either provide a witness statement identifying Party Y or, if Party X is concerned about unwarranted repercussions etc, to provide this information in confidence and their involvement will be protected as Sensitive Material as per para 2.1(9) and 6.14 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 Code of Practice.
We don't have a lot of details, but if you're in the United States, the answer is probably yes. There are rarely any meaningful rules of evidence in student misconduct cases, so pretty much anything can come in. There may be some small difference in the answer depending n whether you're dealing with a public university or private, but in either case, I can't think of any reason why they would not be able to introduce the evidence if they had it. If there's a question about its authenticity, I imagine that would just be up to the misconduct board to decide. If Person X says "Person Y sent this to me," and Person X seems credible, that's probably going to be enough.
Here is an excellent (and extensive) explanation of jurisprudence regarding the "good faith exception" to the admissibility of evidence found due to an error. In short: Yes, the contraband found in Unit B would be evidence admissible in court. (Of course, evidence found in Unit B would only support charges against whomever had a nexus to that property. If the owner of Unit C had no access to Unit B, then evidence in Unit B would not per se implicate him in a crime.) Law enforcement will not return seized property if it believes the property is "contraband." As an example, in Pennsylvania a person can petition a court for return of property seized by law enforcement: Rule 588 requires the petitioner to establish entitlement to lawful possession of the property, but the motion will be rejected if the State successfully argues that the property is contraband, or "derivative contraband" (which has been defined in case law to mean there is "a specific nexus between the property and criminal activity").
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.
Unless the Youtube Video shows them committing a crime, then no, they couldn't be arrested and tried for a crime. Them saying it, not under oath, is just hearsay that has no evidentiary value unless there is already other evidence they have committed a crime. In that case, its an admission. But there must be other, either circumstantial, or actual physical evidence of a crime. Past intoxication is not a crime, either. Possession of drugs, if caught with them is. But saying you got high is not. People have walked into police stations and confessed to murders. But with no evidence, no body, no name of a missing person, they can't even be held after the holding period for investigatory purposes expires. If the video shows them committing assault, or breaking and entering (there actually are idiots who post this stuff), the video is actual evidence of a crime and it is often used against them. The statements can be used to begin an investigation, but people don't usually confess to anything worth pursuing even an investigation. The fact that someone says they used to do something criminal is not enough. For all you ( meaning anyone ) knows, the statute of limitations has expired because they "pirated games" 10 years ago. Your comment is right on.
Police continue to investigate Following an acquittal, there are two possible positions for the police: they are certain the acquitted person performed the act but they were not guilty (for all sorts of reasons). The investigation is closed because although the police know who did it, there was no criminality due to the not guilty verdict. The evidence in the court shows that the accused did not commit the act. Ergo, someone else did. The police will keep looking for that someone else. Note that the proposed scenario is highly dangerous for you. First, the exculpatory evidence may be inadmissible, particularly if it is an alibi (see Can I surprise the prosecution with an alibi defense at trial?). To rely on an an alibi defence, it must be raised with the prosecution before the trial. You would have to have said that you were where the phone footage was shot before the trial starts and the police may have therefore discounted you as a suspect from the get go. Second, you are now committing a crime, usually called an attempt to pervert the course of justice and this action may also make you an accomplice to the murder after the fact. You beat the rap on the murder and then spend a lot of time in prison for those two.
Doesn't being recorded in your own home, or someone elses for that matter, require consent? That's not relevant here. Media outlets are generally not liable for reporting information that was or may have been obtained illegally, provided they are not the ones that did the illegal act, or directly incentivized its commission (e.g. if Gawker had paid someone to get them such a video). The person who filmed this act may or may not have committed a crime, but this was not relevant to the case at hand. In fact, Bollea (aka "Hulk Hogan") did sue those responsible for making the video; he settled with Bubba, but not with Clem. Bollea later added Gawker to the ongoing suit against Clem when publication of the tape was ruled to not be a copyright infringement. Isn't there a reasonable expectation of privacy when you're not in public like that? Also largely not relevant here, as Bollea's claims against Gawker were not about the production and existence of the tape, but of its publication. Bollea did allege invasion of privacy in his suit, but as concerns Gawker this was about publishing the video. Also keep in mind that Bollea had gone out of his way to convert his private life into a public spectacle by virtue of his reality tv program. Your reasonable expectation of privacy goes down when you have already set the bar so low that most every aspect of your private life is on public display. Some of Bollea's legal motions in his failed attempts to convict Gawker of copyright infringement were denied on the basis that publication of the video tape may actually constitute fair use. Celebrities in general have lower expectations of privacy than ordinary citizens. It's the well-known price you pay for fabulous amounts of wealth and fame: lots of people are paying attention to you and are interested in what happens to you, and you can't expect a lot of privacy when everyone's staring at you and hanging on your every word and action. Not that they have zero privacy rights, it's just harder for them to establish the "reasonable expectation". don't I have the right to not have that material distributed even if I were famous and it was "newsworthy"? Your question here is the embodiment of the controversy: where does freedom of the press end and personal privacy begin? Freedom of the press is constitutionally enshrined, and tends to be zealously protected in America as a prerequisite for true democracy and freedom. Personal privacy is not, and emerges more as the consequence of laws and the judiciary's application of certain Common Law sensibilities. There are some constitutional protections against governmental infringements (unreasonable search and seizure, that sort of thing), but the protections you have against non-governmental infringements only exist within laws. So the general expectation you can have is that if something is newsworthy, then it's fair game for the press to report on it. The issue falls to what qualifies as "newsworthy", and who gets to make that judgment? Part of Bollea's legal argument was that what Gawker published was not newsworthy, going to the extent of having the editor concede in court that a depiction of Bollea's genitalia was not newsworthy. And this "not newsworthy" angle seems to be the heart of what their case was getting at: what was reported was not done because it was "news", but because it would get Gawker attention and profits at Bollea's expense (including capitalizing on his famous Hulk Hogan persona). It's also the heart of why some people consider this a controversial and potentially problematic case. Those who have voiced 1st amendment concerns have done so primarily out of concern that this trial would allow courts and juries to decide what was "newsworthy" and what was not. Meaning that news outlets might now have to sweat bullets every time they published something because maybe a jury would assert it wasn't newsworthy, leading those outlets to be less likely to report certain aspects of news. Presumably these people feel that the only ones who should be deciding what is newsworthy is the press, and the public vis-à-vis their consumptions and demands thereof.