Did Dog's son commit a felony in releasing the tape?

[Hugo Chavez]

Hawaii

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42: Any wire, oral or electronic communication (including cellular phone calls) can lawfully be recorded by a person who is a party to the communication, or when one of the parties has consented to the recording, so long as no criminal or tortious purpose exists. Unlawful interceptions or disclosures of private communications are punishable as felonies.

The one-party consent rule does not apply, however, to the installation of a recording device in a "private place" that will amplify or broadcast conversations outside that private place. All parties who have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that place must consent to the installation of a recording device. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42(b)(3).

Civil penalties for unlawful interception or disclosure include the greater of actual damages or any profits made by the violator, $100 for each day of violation, or $10,000, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-48. A hotel room has been found by the Hawaii Supreme Court to be a private place where a recording device cannot legally be installed without the consent of the room's occupants. Hawaii v. Lo, 675 P.2d 754 (Haw. 1983).

It is a felony to install or use a surveillance device in a private place to view a person in a "stage of undress or sexual activity" without the person's consent. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 711-1110.9. It is a misdemeanor to possess materials obtained in this manner. If the person is not in such a stage, it is a misdemeanor. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 711-1111.

Tucker Chapman is on probation: Felony=back to prison... oops!

unless I'm reading this wrong, I'm no lawyer.

[Hugo Chavez]

nothing?

[Dos Equis]

Not sure about this.  If it was just a recording of telephone conversation, seems like only one party has to consent (in this case Tucker). 

I'm not sure what amplifying or broadcasting conversations outside of a private place means, but that could get the kid in trouble. 

[Hugo Chavez]

Not sure about this.  If it was just a recording of telephone conversation, seems like only one party has to consent (in this case Tucker). 

I'm not sure what amplifying or broadcasting conversations outside of a private place means, but that could get the kid in trouble. 

Yea, I don't know if I'm reading it correctly with the way a lawyer would.  The big thing I see in this that while one party consent rule does not apply and either party can record the conversation, it only applies if there is not a tortious purpose, which could probably be demonstrated here.  Second, while it says you can record private conversations, it expressly lists disclosure of the conversation as a felony.  I would love for someone who has a little knowledge of law to weigh in on this.  So far I haven't heard anything from the media in this area. 

[Hugo Chavez]

The way this reads, it looks like he could be responsible for damages too, which would be huge.

[Mad Nickels]

The way this reads, it looks like he could be responsible for damages too, which would be huge.

the stupid kid.

ruined his dad's career, probably cost the family everything.

he'll get no inheritance.  fmaily will hate him forever.  he'll be sued into bankruptcy.

The greatest irony will be when the girl dumps him when he's not rich and famous anymore. 

[Hugo Chavez]

What dog said is bad, but a betrayal of this sort, it's worse...

[Dos Equis]

It's arguably worse.  What if his kid sees this girl as his future wife and mother of his kids?  Pretty cruel comments. 

Still, I cannot justify what the kid did. 

[Mad Nickels]

It's arguably worse.  What if his kid sees this girl as his future wife and mother of his kids?  Pretty cruel comments. 

Still, I cannot justify what the kid did. 

I'm sure he's in love.  And that word infuriated him.  But he put his emotions before his intellect on this one.  He'll be working a REAL job for the next 50 years, instead of living off Daddy's money, for the next 50 years, because of his decision.

It'll be hilarious news when she leaves him in a year because he's not a free-spirited, porsche-driving, careless kid anymore. 

[Hugo Chavez]

It's arguably worse.  What if his kid sees this girl as his future wife and mother of his kids?  Pretty cruel comments. 

Still, I cannot justify what the kid did. 

that's about my view too.

[Straw Man]

If the kid wanted his dad to stop using racial slurs he should have made the tape and then played it for his dad telling him that if he didn't stop he would release it to the media.   

yeah it's blackmail but justifiable and not as stupid as destroying the family biz and airing their dirty laundry in public

[gcb]

Are you people really saying this ...

Obviously the kid should live of his Dad and not try and contribute anything meaningful to society of his own.

Yeah, god knows his dad's contribution is important enough.

Give the kid a break, he had principles and outed a racist.

[chaos]

Are you people really saying this ...

Obviously the kid should live of his Dad and not try and contribute anything meaningful to society of his own.

Yeah, god knows his dad's contribution is important enough.

Give the kid a break, he had principles and outed a racist.

"outing" a racist is more important that family ties?

Who gives a shit what words he was using, it was a PRIVATE conversation, not intended for those outside the conversation to hear. The little rat bastard sold out his family for $$$$, that's all there is to it. I hope the skanky whore leaves his ass for betraying his father.

[gcb]

"outing" a racist is more important that family ties?

Who gives a shit what words he was using, it was a PRIVATE conversation, not intended for those outside the conversation to hear. The little rat bastard sold out his family for $$$$, that's all there is to it. I hope the skanky whore leaves his ass for betraying his father.

I not saying they are more important, only he can judge that as it is his family and his decision.

Apparently he is going to lose money so everyone tells me.

[Hugo Chavez]

"outing" a racist is more important that family ties?

exactly, and yes gcb we're actually saying this

[Al-Gebra]

Hawaii

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42: Any wire, oral or electronic communication (including cellular phone calls) can lawfully be recorded by a person who is a party to the communication, or when one of the parties has consented to the recording, so long as no criminal or tortious purpose exists. Unlawful interceptions or disclosures of private communications are punishable as felonies.

The one-party consent rule does not apply, however, to the installation of a recording device in a "private place" that will amplify or broadcast conversations outside that private place. All parties who have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that place must consent to the installation of a recording device. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42(b)(3).

Civil penalties for unlawful interception or disclosure include the greater of actual damages or any profits made by the violator, $100 for each day of violation, or $10,000, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-48. A hotel room has been found by the Hawaii Supreme Court to be a private place where a recording device cannot legally be installed without the consent of the room's occupants. Hawaii v. Lo, 675 P.2d 754 (Haw. 1983).

It is a felony to install or use a surveillance device in a private place to view a person in a "stage of undress or sexual activity" without the person's consent. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 711-1110.9. It is a misdemeanor to possess materials obtained in this manner. If the person is not in such a stage, it is a misdemeanor. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 711-1111.

Tucker Chapman is on probation: Felony=back to prison... oops!

unless I'm reading this wrong, I'm no lawyer.

there's no tort involved. end of story.

if there is a tort involved, it's an "invasion of privacy" type tort. so who knows?

[chaos]

there's no tort involved. end of story.

if there is a tort involved, it's an "invasion of privacy" type tort. so who knows?

no but there is "disclosures of private communications" which are "punishable as felonies"

[Al-Gebra]

no but there is "disclosures of private communications" which are "punishable as felonies"

disclosure of private communication is not a felony, unless he had a criminal/tortious purpose

[chaos]

disclosure of private communication is not a felony, unless you the pvt communication is protected . . .    last I heard, dog was a bounty hunter, not a fed agent

Hawaii

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42: Any wire, oral or electronic communication (including cellular phone calls) can lawfully be recorded by a person who is a party to the communication, or when one of the parties has consented to the recording, so long as no criminal or tortious purpose exists. Unlawful interceptions or disclosures of private communications are punishable as felonies



I believe that is interpreted that you can record the conversation for personal use at a later time, maybe to remind yourself of details, but not to disclose the content of the conversation to others....

[Al-Gebra]

Hawaii

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42: Any wire, oral or electronic communication (including cellular phone calls) can lawfully be recorded by a person who is a party to the communication, or when one of the parties has consented to the recording, so long as no criminal or tortious purpose exists. Unlawful interceptions or disclosures of private communications are punishable as felonies

thanks. i read that . . . you don't get to the felony, unless you have a criminal or tortious purpose. 

and like i said earlier, there might be an invasion of privacy tort. 

i'm pretty sure hawaii has not criminalized the sale of rants. 

[Princess L]

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42: Any wire, oral or electronic communication (including cellular phone calls) can lawfully be recorded by a person who is a party to the communication, or when one of the parties has consented to the recording,

As long as one of the participants is the one doing the recording, it's legal.

[Al-Gebra]

as long as he didn't have a tortious purpose. invading somebody's privacy is a tort . . . don't know what the elements for invasion of pvcy are in hawaii, but he could probably make out a case.

although the son could defend by saying dog is a public figure.

[Hugo Chavez]

disclosure of private communication is not a felony, unless he had a criminal/tortious purpose

That's exactly what I said   I do not know how the law would be interpreted.  Tortious, tort: a wrong or injury committed against a person or property.  If all that has to be demonstrated here is the intent of recording a private conversation to wrong or ingure...  Sounds like a close call to me but I don't know, not a lawyer...

[Hugo Chavez]

no but there is "disclosures of private communications" which are "punishable as felonies"

and that's true, is says "or" before disclosures of private communications...

[Al-Gebra]

That's exactly what I said   I do not know how the law would be interpreted.  Tortious, tort: a wrong or injury committed against a person or property.  If all that has to be demonstrated here is the intent of recording a private conversation to wrong or ingure...  Sounds like a close call to me but I don't know, not a lawyer...

read the rest of my posts, they're very illuminating. 

then google invasion of privacy