By Liz Nass
Gongwer News Service
A Michigan federal judge decided Monday to uphold one-party consent in recordings after a nine-year case involving eavesdropping on a union group.
Judge Linda Parker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled eavesdropping only applies to a third-party not involved in a conversation, reaffirming that one party to a conversation can consent to a recording if they are part of a conversation.
Michigan has been a one-party state since 1982, as upheld in a Court of Appeals ruling.
The Michigan Press Association, a party in the litigation on behalf of the defendant, said while the ruling does not conclude other issues in that case, it “does end a lengthy journey for the current state of Michigan law.”
“With this ruling, the court conclusively upheld Michigan’s long-standing one-party consent rule, clarified the definition of a ‘party’ for purposes of the one-party consent rule, and concluded one of the most closely watched Michigan eavesdropping statute decisions in recent Michigan history,” the association said in a statement.
The case stemmed from Marisa Jorge “infiltrating” AFT Michigan, a chapter of a national teacher union, by receiving an internship with the organization, in turn, allowing her to access internal documents and record conversations as a member of the team.
AFT Michigan’s complaint claimed Jorge committed fraud, trespassed, wiretapped, conducted a conspiracy and breached a duty of loyalty when they found out she was actually working for Project Veritas as a paid investigative journalist in 2017, reporting on a project focused on teachers’ unions.
Jorge claimed she was never instructed that any work she received at AFT was confidential but did carry a camera and recording device with her throughout her internship.
AFT claimed on charges of both federal and state wiretapping that Jorge was not a party to conversations she recorded because they did not actually speak or participate in dialogue, then they could not be a party to the conversation.
However, the court ruled a participant in a conversation is anyone whose “presence is apparent in the midst of a communication.”
“As other district judges have observed, courts considering ‘the scope of the party consent rule have concluded that a person whose presence is apparent in the midst of a communication is considered a party, whether or not that person actually participates verbally in the communication,’” Parker wrote in her decision.
This dismissed the wiretapping claim under Michigan law. However, the court did not place a judgment on federal wiretapping.
While the court ruled in favor of the one-party consent law in the state, it also sided with AFT on trespassing and fraud claims based on Jorge’s hiring into the organization based on fraudulent merits.
Gongwer News Service
A Michigan federal judge decided Monday to uphold one-party consent in recordings after a nine-year case involving eavesdropping on a union group.
Judge Linda Parker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled eavesdropping only applies to a third-party not involved in a conversation, reaffirming that one party to a conversation can consent to a recording if they are part of a conversation.
Michigan has been a one-party state since 1982, as upheld in a Court of Appeals ruling.
The Michigan Press Association, a party in the litigation on behalf of the defendant, said while the ruling does not conclude other issues in that case, it “does end a lengthy journey for the current state of Michigan law.”
“With this ruling, the court conclusively upheld Michigan’s long-standing one-party consent rule, clarified the definition of a ‘party’ for purposes of the one-party consent rule, and concluded one of the most closely watched Michigan eavesdropping statute decisions in recent Michigan history,” the association said in a statement.
The case stemmed from Marisa Jorge “infiltrating” AFT Michigan, a chapter of a national teacher union, by receiving an internship with the organization, in turn, allowing her to access internal documents and record conversations as a member of the team.
AFT Michigan’s complaint claimed Jorge committed fraud, trespassed, wiretapped, conducted a conspiracy and breached a duty of loyalty when they found out she was actually working for Project Veritas as a paid investigative journalist in 2017, reporting on a project focused on teachers’ unions.
Jorge claimed she was never instructed that any work she received at AFT was confidential but did carry a camera and recording device with her throughout her internship.
AFT claimed on charges of both federal and state wiretapping that Jorge was not a party to conversations she recorded because they did not actually speak or participate in dialogue, then they could not be a party to the conversation.
However, the court ruled a participant in a conversation is anyone whose “presence is apparent in the midst of a communication.”
“As other district judges have observed, courts considering ‘the scope of the party consent rule have concluded that a person whose presence is apparent in the midst of a communication is considered a party, whether or not that person actually participates verbally in the communication,’” Parker wrote in her decision.
This dismissed the wiretapping claim under Michigan law. However, the court did not place a judgment on federal wiretapping.
While the court ruled in favor of the one-party consent law in the state, it also sided with AFT on trespassing and fraud claims based on Jorge’s hiring into the organization based on fraudulent merits.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
