Originally posted by @Kelly DeWinter:
@Wesley W.
I understand your desire to secure your property and think visual recording of drug dealers on your property is a great idea.
It doesn't have to pass the "sniff test", it only has to be upheld in the courts.
irregardless of your ability to gain consent from visitors to YOUR property, the law is the law.
There is nothing missing from my understanding or explanation. The statue is simple and concise. You are just looking for validation to place audio surveillance on your property so you keep asking the same question with small variations.
At this point I would recommend paying for a legal opinion or take your chances with your "security guy installer legal advice".
Security cameras have been fond not to deter crime, but only to increase the sale of hoodies. Loss Prevention companies use them to document crimes for easier prosecution, IF they are able to get a good picture of the criminal.
Fun Fact, most state audio recording laws were conceived to protect our 1st amendment rights to Free Speech. The statues we are discussing here are specifically designed to PREVENT recording conversations.
@Andre Debs
. Yes, NY and NJ are 1 party consent states, but ONLY if you are part of the conversation, you cannot audio record a conversation you are NOT part of
. A clause in the lease should state for recording in public spaces, anything else violates the Fair Housing Act. A lease clause will not cover conversations between two people who are visiting the property like two suspected drug dealers.
. Searches at the airport are covered by different state laws.
. Posting signs is informing someone, it is NOT the same as granting consent.
I interpret section D of the NJ law differently.
An Actconcerning the interception of certain wire communications, and amending P.L.1968, c.409.
Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:
1. Section 4 of P.L.1968, c.409 (C.2A:156A-4) is amended to read as follows:
4. It shall not be unlawful under this act for:
a. An operator of a switchboard, or an officer, agent or employee of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication, to intercept, disclose or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service. No provider of wire or electronic communication service shall utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks;
b. Any investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where such officer is a party to the communication or where another officer who is a party to the communication requests or requires him to make such interception;
c. Any person acting at the direction of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception; provided, however, that no such interception shall be made without the prior approval of the Attorney General or his designee or a county prosecutor or his designee;
d. A person not acting under color of law to intercept: (1) a wire [,] communication except as described in paragraph (2) of this subsection, or an electronic or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception, unless such communication is intercepted or used for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of this State or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act [.]; or
