How JustAnswer Works:

  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.

Ask CALawyer Your Own Question

CALawyer
CALawyer, Lawyer
Category: Criminal Law
Satisfied Customers: 1655
Experience:  Attorney at Law
2669768
Type Your Criminal Law Question Here...
CALawyer is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

I went with my parents to my mothers doctors appointment.

Customer Question

I went with my parents to my mothers doctors appointment. I decided to record the visit so my other 2 sisters would know what was said since I don''t live locally and they could not attend. I was the only one that knew I was taping. I knew the visit would be about an hour long and I as well as my parents would not be able to remember the entire conversation. Could any type of suit be brought against me for doing this?   My sisters and brother in law were the only ones that heard it after the visit and was then erased.
Submitted: 6 years ago.
Category: Criminal Law
Expert:  CALawyer replied 6 years ago.
What state was the Dr. appointment in?
Customer: replied 6 years ago.
Wimberley, TX
Customer: replied 6 years ago.
Reply to CALawyer's Post: Texas
Expert:  CALawyer replied 6 years ago.
Texas law only requires one party's consent to record the conversation. So basically, as long as you were part of the conversation, it is legal to record it.

As far as whether it is a good idea, it might not be. You might want to ask next time before doing so just so you don't make anyone upset.

Here is the full text of the statute and I have bolded the relevant portion for you:

Sec. 16.02. UNLAWFUL INTERCEPTION, USE, OR DISCLOSURE OF WIRE, ORAL, OR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS. (a) In this section, "computer trespasser," "covert entry," "communication common carrier," "contents," "electronic communication," "electronic, mechanical, or other device," "immediate life-threatening situation," "intercept," "investigative or law enforcement officer," "member of a law enforcement unit specially trained to respond to and deal with life-threatening situations," "oral communication," "protected computer," "readily accessible to the general public," and "wire communication" have the meanings given those terms in Article 18.20, Code of Criminal Procedure.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures another person to intercept or endeavor to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication;
(2) intentionally discloses or endeavors to disclose to another person the contents of a wire, oral, or electronic communication if the person knows or has reason to know the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;
(3) intentionally uses or endeavors to use the contents of a wire, oral, or electronic communication if the person knows or is reckless about whether the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;
(4) knowingly or intentionally effects a covert entry for the purpose of intercepting wire, oral, or electronic communications without court order or authorization; or
(5) intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when the device:
(A) is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through a wire, cable, or other connection used in wire communications; or
(B) transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of communications by radio.
(c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (b) that:
(1) an operator of a switchboard or an officer, employee, or agent of a communication common carrier whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication intercepts a communication or discloses or uses an intercepted communication in the normal course of employment while engaged in an activity that is a necessary incident to the rendition of service or to the protection of the rights or property of the carrier of the communication, unless the interception results from the communication common carrier's use of service observing or random monitoring for purposes other than mechanical or service quality control checks;
(2) an officer, employee, or agent of a communication common carrier provides information, facilities, or technical assistance to an investigative or law enforcement officer who is authorized as provided by this section to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication;
(3) a person acting under color of law intercepts:
(A) a wire, oral, or electronic communication, if the person is a party to the communication or if one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception;
(B) a wire, oral, or electronic communication, if the person is acting under the authority of Article 18.20, Code of Criminal Procedure; or
(C) a wire or electronic communication made by a computer trespasser and transmitted to, through, or from a protected computer, if:
(i) the interception did not acquire a communication other than one transmitted to or from the computer trespasser;
(ii) the owner of the protected computer consented to the interception of the computer trespasser's communications on the protected computer; and
(iii) actor was lawfully engaged in an ongoing criminal investigation and the actor had reasonable suspicion to believe that the contents of the computer trespasser's communications likely to be obtained would be material to the investigation;
(4) a person not acting under color of law intercepts a wire, oral, or electronic communication, if:
(A) the person is a party to the communication
; or
(B) one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing an unlawful act;
(5) a person acting under color of law intercepts a wire, oral, or electronic communication if:
(A) oral or written consent for the interception is given by a magistrate before the interception;
(B) an immediate life-threatening situation exists;
(C) the person is a member of a law enforcement unit specially trained to:
(i) respond to and deal with life-threatening situations; or
(ii) install electronic, mechanical, or other devices; and
(D) the interception ceases immediately on termination of the life-threatening situation;
(6) an officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Communications Commission intercepts a communication transmitted by radio or discloses or uses an intercepted communication in the normal course of employment and in the discharge of the monitoring responsibilities exercised by the Federal Communications Commission in the enforcement of Chapter 5, Title 47, United States Code;
(7) a person intercepts or obtains access to an electronic communication that was made through an electronic communication system that is configured to permit the communication to be readily accessible to the general public;
(8) a person intercepts radio communication, other than a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between a cordless telephone handset and a base unit, that is transmitted:
(A) by a station for the use of the general public;
(B) to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress;
(C) by a governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system that is readily accessible to the general public, unless the radio communication is transmitted by a law enforcement representative to or from a mobile data terminal;
(D) by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or
(E) by a marine or aeronautical communications system;
(9) a person intercepts a wire or electronic communication the transmission of which causes harmful interference to a lawfully operating station or consumer electronic equipment, to the extent necessary to identify the source of the interference;
(10) a user of the same frequency intercepts a radio communication made through a system that uses frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of the system, if the communication is not scrambled or encrypted; or
(11) a provider of electronic communications service records the fact that a wire or electronic communication was initiated or completed in order to protect the provider, another provider furnishing service towards the completion of the communication, or a user of that service from fraudulent, unlawful, or abusive use of the service.
(d) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally manufactures, assembles, possesses, or sells an electronic, mechanical, or other device knowing or having reason to know that the device is designed primarily for nonconsensual interception of wire, electronic, or oral communications and that the device or a component of the device has been or will be used for an unlawful purpose; or
(2) places in a newspaper, magazine, handbill, or other publication an advertisement of an electronic, mechanical, or other device:
(A) knowing or having reason to know that the device is designed primarily for nonconsensual interception of wire, electronic, or oral communications;
(B) promoting the use of the device for the purpose of nonconsensual interception of wire, electronic, or oral communications; or
(C) knowing or having reason to know that the advertisement will promote the use of the device for the purpose of nonconsensual interception of wire, electronic, or oral communications.
(e) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (d) that the manufacture, assembly, possession, or sale of an electronic, mechanical, or other device that is designed primarily for the purpose of nonconsensual interception of wire, electronic, or oral communication is by:
(1) a communication common carrier or a provider of wire or electronic communications service or an officer, agent, or employee of or a person under contract with a communication common carrier or provider acting in the normal course of the provider's or communication carrier's business;
(2) an officer, agent, or employee of a person under contract with, bidding on contracts with, or doing business with the United States or this state acting in the normal course of the activities of the United States or this state;
(3) a member of the Department of Public Safety who is specifically trained to install wire, oral, or electronic communications intercept equipment; or
(4) a member of a local law enforcement agency that has an established unit specifically designated to respond to and deal with life-threatening situations.
(f) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree, unless the offense is committed under Subsection (d) or (g), in which event the offense is a state jail felony.
(g) A person commits an offense if, knowing that a government attorney or an investigative or law enforcement officer has been authorized or has applied for authorization to intercept wire, electronic, or oral communications, the person obstructs, impedes, prevents, gives notice to another of, or attempts to give notice to another of the interception.
(h) Repealed by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 889, Sec. 1, eff. June 17, 2005.
Added by Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 738, ch. 275, Sec. 2, eff. Aug. 31, 1981. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 4878, ch. 864, Sec. 1 to 3, eff. June 19, 1983; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1166, Sec. 16, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 790, Sec. 16, eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1051, Sec. 9, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1270, Sec. 11, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 678, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 889, Sec. 1, eff. June 17, 2005.




If this information was helpful, please click ACCEPT to give me credit for answering. Bonuses and positive feedback are appreciated if deserved. If you need any clarification, just post a reply. Thanks!
CALawyer, Lawyer
Category: Criminal Law
Satisfied Customers: 1655
Experience: Attorney at Law
CALawyer and 3 other Criminal Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 6 years ago.
My father has since found out that I recorded this and he may try to take some legal action because he is upset that I did this. My sisters and I have been trying to find a way to get my father to give my seriously ill mother pain medication on a regular basis. From your reply it sounds like he would not be able to take any legal action against me. Is this assumption/interpertation by me correct?
Expert:  CALawyer replied 6 years ago.
Well, he made you privy to the conversation and you didn't commit any crimes by recording it. I don't see how he could pursue any legal action against you.

He might be able to argue that it was negligent infliction of emotional distress or something like that, but I don't think that argument would go very far. Frankly, I don't think any attorney would take a case like this, but I have been suprised in the past.


If this information was helpful, please click ACCEPT to give me credit for answering. Bonuses and positive feedback are appreciated if deserved. If you need any clarification, just post a reply. Thanks!

JustAnswer in the News:

 
 
 
Ask-a-doc Web sites: If you've got a quick question, you can try to get an answer from sites that say they have various specialists on hand to give quick answers... Justanswer.com.
JustAnswer.com...has seen a spike since October in legal questions from readers about layoffs, unemployment and severance.
Web sites like justanswer.com/legal
...leave nothing to chance.
Traffic on JustAnswer rose 14 percent...and had nearly 400,000 page views in 30 days...inquiries related to stress, high blood pressure, drinking and heart pain jumped 33 percent.
Tory Johnson, GMA Workplace Contributor, discusses work-from-home jobs, such as JustAnswer in which verified Experts answer people’s questions.
I will tell you that...the things you have to go through to be an Expert are quite rigorous.
 
 
 

What Customers are Saying:

 
 
 
  • Your Expert advise has provided insight on a difficult situation. Thank you so much for the prompt response. I will definitely recommend your website to my friends. Norma Pensacola, FL
< Last | Next >
  • Your Expert advise has provided insight on a difficult situation. Thank you so much for the prompt response. I will definitely recommend your website to my friends. Norma Pensacola, FL
  • Mr. Kaplun clearly had an exceptional understanding of the issue and was able to explain it concisely. I would recommend JustAnswer to anyone. Great service that lives up to its promises! Gary B. Edmond, OK
  • My Expert was fast and seemed to have the answer to my taser question at the tips of her fingers. Communication was excellent. I left feeling confident in her answer. Eric Redwood City, CA
  • I am very pleased with JustAnswer as a place to go for divorce or criminal law knowledge and insight. Michael Wichita, KS
  • PaulMJD helped me with questions I had regarding an urgent legal matter. His answers were excellent. Three H. Houston, TX
  • Anne was extremely helpful. Her information put me in the right direction for action that kept me legal, possible saving me a ton of money in the future. Thank you again, Anne!! Elaine Atlanta, GA
  • It worked great. I had the facts and I presented them to my ex-landlord and she folded and returned my deposit. The 50 bucks I spent with you solved my problem. Tony Apopka, FL
 
 
 

Meet The Experts:

 
 
 
  • Fran L.

    JustAnswer Criminal Law Mentor

    Satisfied Customers:

    8061
    18 yrs of NYC public defense. Extensive arraignment, hearing, trial experience.
< Last | Next >
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/RE/retiredlawyer/2012-6-6_19326_franL.64x64.jpg Fran L.'s Avatar

    Fran L.

    JustAnswer Criminal Law Mentor

    Satisfied Customers:

    8061
    18 yrs of NYC public defense. Extensive arraignment, hearing, trial experience.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/RA/ratioscripta/2012-6-13_2955_foto3.64x64.jpg Ely's Avatar

    Ely

    Counselor at Law

    Satisfied Customers:

    2079
    Private practice with focus on family, criminal, PI, consumer protection, and business consultation.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/NA/nathanmoorelaw/2011-5-31_21375_headshotbig.64x64.jpg Nate's Avatar

    Nate

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    1625
    Over 10 years of criminal defense practice.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/LA/LawTalk/2012-6-6_17379_LawTalk.64x64.JPG LawTalk's Avatar

    LawTalk

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    1434
    30 years legal experience
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/PH/philip.simmons/2012-6-7_161915_BIGPhilipSimmons.64x64.jpg P. Simmons's Avatar

    P. Simmons

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    1418
    16 yrs. of experience including criminal law.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/marshadjd/2009-6-1_194320_marshajd.jpg Marsha411JD's Avatar

    Marsha411JD

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    1380
    Licensed attorney with 27 yrs. exp. in criminal law
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/RO/RobertJDFL/2012-6-6_175352_7538220120606.64x64.jpg RobertJDFL's Avatar

    RobertJDFL

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    1300
    Experienced in multiple areas of the law.
 
 
 
Chat Now With A Criminal Lawyer
CALawyer
CALawyer
Criminal Lawyer
1655 Satisfied Customers
Attorney at Law