President Donald Trump’s influential MAGA ally Mike Davis is facing new scrutiny after allegedly threatening to stop a Justice Department official during negotiations over a major tech merger, according to a Wall Street Journal investigation. Gail Slater, then head of the DOJ’s antitrust division, w...
What happens if a person in two party consent state calls someone in a one party or vice versa? Which state law applies?
The one-party state law applies to the person in the one-party state.
The two-party state might bitch and moan and claim otherwise, but guess what? It doesn’t have jurisdiction!
I am not a lawyer, but I live in a one party state and my friend had to record multiple calls for a reason to a company in a two party state and he still won handily and it never came up. Just anecdotal data.
In theory, couldn’t they still issue a warrant and try have you extradited?
if you record someone on a phone call, the recording happens where you happen to physically be.
so the “crime” would have happened in a 1-party state, and would not have been a crime.
In theory. But most states don’t send people elsewhere for bullshit like that. Usually just for things like violent felonies. They don’t want to be seen as possibly protecting a murderer by keeping them from justice.
That’s not how that works.
if, for example, texas wants to send cops to arrest out-of-state doctors providing abortions to texas residents, that would be illegal, and the state the doctor resides in would almost certainly intervene if they had the opportunity to. (I.E. the doctor calls 911 and they have time.)
while there’s some circumstances where states would be okay with outside cops coming in to make an arrest, those circumstances are like “I was trying to pull him over and they fled across state lines.”
But they have no general authority to arrest people outside their jurisdiction. the usually process is that they would files the extradition paperwork/ gets an interstate warrant, the fugitive state (where the fugitive resides,) reviews the paper work and holds a hearing on it and then makes a decision, then the fugitive gets carted back. But the arrest happens by the law enforcement belonging to the fugitive state.
You seem to have assumed I was saying a State will send law enforcement to another state to get you. That’s not at all what I was saying, but I can see how you misread my comment that way.
I was referencing your State extraditing you to the other state for petty bullshit like recording your own calls. They’re not going to bother with that, there are way more pressing matters to attend to in their own state than doing what a state like Florida wants.
We live in legally wacky time though, I’d probably err on the side of caution and announce the recording: It’d still have a deterrent effect and help prevent any legal fuckery.
The two-party consent state laws vary on this. So if you care, you would need to handle both ends of the call giving consent to be sure. This is why companies tell you they are recording even if they’re located in a one-party state, especially if they have a physical presence in that State.
So assuming there’s not an exception… for example, in Michigan there is an exception if you are a participant in a phone call. You just cannot give a third-party permission to record without the other person’s consent. So it’s really a one-party consent state for most things you would care about.
But again… even if we ignore the whole primary purpose here of recording threats… if you live in a one-party state like Arizona, do you really care about Florida if you never go there? And that even assumes Florida cares enough to pursue it in the first place.
Sounds like there’s a non-zero chance of extradition then, and would they care? Depends on the circumstances I guess. It still seems like announcing that the call is being recorded would have a good deterrent effect though.