Criminal Law Questions? Ask a Criminal Lawyer.
Good morning Barb, I'm Doug, and I'm very sorry to hear of your situation. My goal is to provide you with excellent service today. The Montana law regarding the recording of conversations without permission of all parties present at the conversation is contained in Montana Code Annotated, §45-8-213. Privacy in communications. (1) Except as provided in 69-6-104, a person commits the offense of violating privacy in communications if the person knowingly or purposely: (a) with the purpose to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, or offend, communicates with a person by electronic communication and uses obscene, lewd, or profane language, suggests a lewd or lascivious act, or threatens to inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of the person. The use of obscene, lewd, or profane language or the making of a threat or lewd or lascivious suggestions is prima facie evidence of an intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, or offend. (b) uses an electronic communication to attempt to extort money or any other thing of value from a person or to disturb by repeated communications the peace, quiet, or right of privacy of a person at the place where the communications are received; (c) records or causes to be recorded a conversation by use of a hidden electronic or mechanical device that reproduces a human conversation without the knowledge of all parties to the conversation. This subsection (1)(c) does not apply to: (i) elected or appointed public officials or to public employees when the transcription or recording is done in the performance of official duty; (ii) persons speaking at public meetings; (iii) persons given warning of the transcription or recording, and if one person provides the warning, either party may record; or (iv) a health care facility, as defined in 50-5-101, or a government agency that deals with health care if the recording is of a health care emergency telephone communication made to the facility or agency. (2) Except as provided in 69-6-104, a person commits the offense of violating privacy in communications if the person purposely intercepts an electronic communication. This subsection does not apply to elected or appointed public officials or to public employees when the interception is done in the performance of official duty or to persons given warning of the interception. (3) (a) A person convicted of the offense of violating privacy in communications shall be fined an amount not to exceed $500 or be imprisoned in the county jail for a term not to exceed 6 months, or both. (b) On a second conviction of subsection (1)(a) or (1)(b), a person shall be imprisoned in the county jail for a term not to exceed 1 year or be fined an amount not to exceed $1,000, or both. (c) On a third or subsequent conviction of subsection (1)(a) or (1)(b), a person shall be imprisoned in the state prison for a term not to exceed 5 years or be fined an amount not to exceed $10,000, or both. (4) "Electronic communication" means any transfer between persons of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photo-optical system. You are right; that the recording is either illegal or it is not. If it is illegal, then it need not be returned to you. However, just because it is adjudged illegal does not mean that you MUST be prosecuted for the alleged crime. The prosecutor can take the position that they don't believe you can be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, and choose not to prosecute you. Technically, they can hold the recording as potential evidence of the crime until the statute of limitations expires if they want to press the issue. You may petition the court for the return of the recording, or to have a copy of the recording made for your personal use. It is NOT the sharing of the recording with people who might not have been allowed to attend the meeting that makes the recording illegal. That act might be grounds for a claim of invasion of privacy---a very weak claim at that---but it would not make an otherwise legal recording somehow illegal. That is a preposterous suggestion.
I do tend to agree with you, that based on the people allowed into the meeting, that the meeting would qualify as a public meeting and the recording was entirely lawful. However, intimately the determination of that fact would be decided by a judge or a jury, and the police are violating no law at present by refusing to return the recording. You might give them notice that they are not to destroy the recording as it is evidence in a suit you plan to bring if the recording is not returned to you.
If your formal request for the property to the court doesn’t result in its return, then you would need to file a Replevin claim against the police department and seek a court order that the tape be returned. Please keep in mind that, even though you have already paid your deposit money over to JustAnswer, until you rate me highly for my service, I will not be paid for having assisted you with your questions. If you have additional questions, you may reply back to me using the Reply to Expert link and I will be happy to assist you further until your questions have been answered to your satisfaction. I wish you the best in your future. Doug
Thank you for your positive rating of my service, Barb. It has been my pleasure to assist you and I hope than you will ask for me on JustAnswer should a future need ever arise. I am generally available at least 6 days a week, and often 7, and it would be my privilege to assist you again in the future.Please feel free to bookmark the following link so you can request me to answer any future legal questions you may have, or simply ask for me by name in the first sentence of your new question:http://www.justanswer.com/law/expert-lawtalk/Thanks again.DougWhen you receive your Customer Satisfaction Survey from JustAnswer, please do rate me highly (9-10) there as well. It would be tremendously appreciated.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).