[BC] RE: NPR violation of 73.1206?

[Paul Christensen]

> Regarding Issue #1: I'm not a lawyer but I have been told be several
> lawyers in Indiana that it *is* legal in Indiana to record a phone
> conversation.  The law states as long as one member of the party agrees
> to the recording then it is legal.  Since I would be one member of that
> party and I agree then I can record the conversation legally.

Logically, that sounds bizarre to me, but I know nothing of Indiana's state 
laws.  If only one party is required for the recording of a telephone 
conversation, for what reason does either party need to agree?  An agreement 
mutually exists between two or more parties.

The more important issue is related to federal preemption.  The U.S. 
Constitution's Supremacy Clause effectively trumps state law when state and 
federal law are at odds with each other.  Assuming your facts are correct 
regarding Indiana's state law, their law is at odds with respect to federal 
broadcasting regulations.  So, while there be no violation as far as the 
state is concerned, the federal government doesn't give a damn what Indiana 
has to say about it.

Paul


====================================
Paul Christensen, CPBE, CBNT
LAW OFFICE OF PAUL B. CHRISTENSEN, P.A.
3749 Southern Hills,  Jacksonville, Florida 32225
Office: (904) 379-7802   Facsimile: (904) 212-0050
pchristensen at ieee.org