Wiretap laws need revision

[Cozarkian]

In Woodland Hills, Pennsylvania, a 14 year old secretly recorded the principal threatening to knock his teeth out. The kid claims he made the recording because his mom didn't believe the principal was bullying him. The principal also told the kid it would be his word v. the kid's in court. The principal is on leave, but the superintendent doesn't think it is fair to judge him quickly based on one incident:

http://triblive.com/local/allegheny/11564761-74/johnson-principal-hills

Notably the principal's method has reduced suspensions/expulsions by 40%:

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/ed...or-threatening-a-student/stories/201611300281

Since the recording was illegal, the cops can't use it to investigate the principal:

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016...-laced-threat-wont-factor-into-investigation/

Also, the child was previously arrested for a different secret recording.

http://lancasteronline.com/news/pen...cle_eb30b431-0445-5143-98e0-98e77c92b383.html

Fortunately the arrest in September was after he recorded the principal in April so it didn't stop the kid from doing the only thing that could possibly protect him from persons given authority over him.

There is a question as to why the mother waited so long to act on the video, but regardless, maybe we shouldn't pass laws that prevent kids from protecting themselves?

 

[Zorba]

It seems reasonable to at least allow an exemption to the wire tapping laws if someone is doing it to protect themselves from illegal activity, or to be a whistle blower on illegal activity.

I can see the intent of two sided authorization laws to prevent blackmail or stealing company information, etc. But it shouldn't come into affect for a case like this.

Of course many states already allow total one sided authorization and I haven't heard of any big issues coming from that.

 

[Darwin333]

That's a state issue and I agree, all state's should have "one party" wiretapping laws. Basically as long as one party is aware of the recording, in this case the boy, then it's legal to record.

 

[Brainonska511]

It seems like there are some exceptions to the wiretapping law in PA that should have allowed for this recording (reasonable suspicion of a crime of violence about to take place).

Link to law
(if the link doesn't work, use this one and click Title 18 (the first in the list), Part II, Article F, Chapter 57, Subchapter B, and then the specific provision)

(17) Any victim, witness or private detective licensed under the act of August 21, 1953 (P.L. 1273, No. 361),3 known as The Private Detective Act of 1953, to intercept the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, if that person is under a reasonable suspicion that the intercepted party is committing, about to commit or has committed a crime of violence and there is reason to believe that evidence of the crime of violence may be obtained from the interception.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Where there is smoke....