Lexus mechanic takes my car to pick up lunch....
03-21-17, 06:04 AM
#31
I googled it for you:
Dealer sues customer for $25,000 over dash cam: https://www.google.com/amp/jalopnik....1557675732/amp
Another interesting discussion:
https://dashcamtalk.com/forum/thread...ing-laws.7576/
If you're recording people, notify them. Post a sign, do something. This can even be considered a felony...
Dealer sues customer for $25,000 over dash cam: https://www.google.com/amp/jalopnik....1557675732/amp
Another interesting discussion:
https://dashcamtalk.com/forum/thread...ing-laws.7576/
If you're recording people, notify them. Post a sign, do something. This can even be considered a felony...
it sounds like the dealer was suing for defamation, not privacy.
03-21-17, 06:43 AM
#33
Lexus Fanatic
Originally Posted by kitabel
WRT "This can even be considered a felony":
No such thing as "considered a felony" any more than "considered dead", it either is or isn't. In this context, "considered" means "I don't know".
Depends on state law, and usually this is covered by the "reasonable expectation of privacy" concept, and when you're driving someone else's car you don't have any.
To a lawyer, everything is a felony, meaning "something I make money from".
No such thing as "considered a felony" any more than "considered dead", it either is or isn't. In this context, "considered" means "I don't know".
Depends on state law, and usually this is covered by the "reasonable expectation of privacy" concept, and when you're driving someone else's car you don't have any.
To a lawyer, everything is a felony, meaning "something I make money from".
Then go ahead and keep recording people without their consent.
If people have an expectation of privacy in your home they have it in your car.
And yes, the dealer above is suing for defamation that was derived from the customers illegal recording of their facility and employees. Something can't be defamation if it's true, of the recording were legal they would have no basis for their lawsuit.
Like I said, do some research into recording audio without consent. To make a declarative statement like "they have no expectation of privacy in your car" is uninformed.
Last edited by SW17LS; 03-21-17 at 06:47 AM.
03-21-17, 07:18 AM
#34
Lexus Fanatic
To add to what I wrote above which I wrote quickly.
My background with this comes from housing. I'm in the real estate business, and this is an issue in my business. People have nanny cams and such in their houses, and when people are in their homes viewing them to buy or rent or whatever, its an issue. We were involved in a case a few years ago where a homeowner revealed something negative that happened in their house to the employer of a real estate agent, and that agency subsequently sued the homeowner and us as the listing company because we were recording their employee without their consent where they had an expectation of privacy. Judge agreed to let it go to trial, my company settled and ultimately so did the seller. Cost us and them some bucks. Now we have all our clients sign a waiver that says we have instructed them and they agree to terminate any and all surveillance equipment and to hold us harmless from any liability associated with their use of that equipment.
Thats the point of all of this...whether or not what you are doing is wrong is meaningless...if somebody THINKS what you are doing is wrong, they can sue you. I don't know if any of you have had the misfortune of having been sued...I have... That $25,000 lawsuit will cost that guy $25,000 easily just to defend it. Seriously...if somebody sued me for $25,000 I would just settle it...its not worth defending because it would cost me that much or more to defend it. The last situation I was involved in that didn't even become a lawsuit, just a threatening letter from an attorney that we had to respond to cost me $5,000. No basis, guy was saying we breached a contract...there was no contract. That was two meetings with an attorney at an hour each, a couple phone calls, him sending letters back and forth to the other attorney...that was all. So in short, you want to do whatever you can to AVOID being sued in the first place. Which involves not doing things that could reasonably be considered questionably legal...such as recording people in your car without their consent. Remember...the dealer is a big company with in house counsel or lawyers on retainer...it doesn't cost them anything to sue you.
The OP could easily contact the dealer, provide them the video and have the dealer turn around and sue them. Whether they have any grounds doesn't even matter, its still going to cost the guy $5-10k minimum just to respond and defend it. Not worth it.
My background with this comes from housing. I'm in the real estate business, and this is an issue in my business. People have nanny cams and such in their houses, and when people are in their homes viewing them to buy or rent or whatever, its an issue. We were involved in a case a few years ago where a homeowner revealed something negative that happened in their house to the employer of a real estate agent, and that agency subsequently sued the homeowner and us as the listing company because we were recording their employee without their consent where they had an expectation of privacy. Judge agreed to let it go to trial, my company settled and ultimately so did the seller. Cost us and them some bucks. Now we have all our clients sign a waiver that says we have instructed them and they agree to terminate any and all surveillance equipment and to hold us harmless from any liability associated with their use of that equipment.
Thats the point of all of this...whether or not what you are doing is wrong is meaningless...if somebody THINKS what you are doing is wrong, they can sue you. I don't know if any of you have had the misfortune of having been sued...I have... That $25,000 lawsuit will cost that guy $25,000 easily just to defend it. Seriously...if somebody sued me for $25,000 I would just settle it...its not worth defending because it would cost me that much or more to defend it. The last situation I was involved in that didn't even become a lawsuit, just a threatening letter from an attorney that we had to respond to cost me $5,000. No basis, guy was saying we breached a contract...there was no contract. That was two meetings with an attorney at an hour each, a couple phone calls, him sending letters back and forth to the other attorney...that was all. So in short, you want to do whatever you can to AVOID being sued in the first place. Which involves not doing things that could reasonably be considered questionably legal...such as recording people in your car without their consent. Remember...the dealer is a big company with in house counsel or lawyers on retainer...it doesn't cost them anything to sue you.
The OP could easily contact the dealer, provide them the video and have the dealer turn around and sue them. Whether they have any grounds doesn't even matter, its still going to cost the guy $5-10k minimum just to respond and defend it. Not worth it.
03-21-17, 10:20 AM
#35
Lexus Test Driver
To add to what I wrote above which I wrote quickly.
My background with this comes from housing. I'm in the real estate business, and this is an issue in my business. People have nanny cams and such in their houses, and when people are in their homes viewing them to buy or rent or whatever, its an issue. We were involved in a case a few years ago where a homeowner revealed something negative that happened in their house to the employer of a real estate agent, and that agency subsequently sued the homeowner and us as the listing company because we were recording their employee without their consent where they had an expectation of privacy. Judge agreed to let it go to trial, my company settled and ultimately so did the seller. Cost us and them some bucks. Now we have all our clients sign a waiver that says we have instructed them and they agree to terminate any and all surveillance equipment and to hold us harmless from any liability associated with their use of that equipment.
Thats the point of all of this...whether or not what you are doing is wrong is meaningless...if somebody THINKS what you are doing is wrong, they can sue you. I don't know if any of you have had the misfortune of having been sued...I have... That $25,000 lawsuit will cost that guy $25,000 easily just to defend it. Seriously...if somebody sued me for $25,000 I would just settle it...its not worth defending because it would cost me that much or more to defend it. The last situation I was involved in that didn't even become a lawsuit, just a threatening letter from an attorney that we had to respond to cost me $5,000. No basis, guy was saying we breached a contract...there was no contract. That was two meetings with an attorney at an hour each, a couple phone calls, him sending letters back and forth to the other attorney...that was all. So in short, you want to do whatever you can to AVOID being sued in the first place. Which involves not doing things that could reasonably be considered questionably legal...such as recording people in your car without their consent. Remember...the dealer is a big company with in house counsel or lawyers on retainer...it doesn't cost them anything to sue you.
The OP could easily contact the dealer, provide them the video and have the dealer turn around and sue them. Whether they have any grounds doesn't even matter, its still going to cost the guy $5-10k minimum just to respond and defend it. Not worth it.
My background with this comes from housing. I'm in the real estate business, and this is an issue in my business. People have nanny cams and such in their houses, and when people are in their homes viewing them to buy or rent or whatever, its an issue. We were involved in a case a few years ago where a homeowner revealed something negative that happened in their house to the employer of a real estate agent, and that agency subsequently sued the homeowner and us as the listing company because we were recording their employee without their consent where they had an expectation of privacy. Judge agreed to let it go to trial, my company settled and ultimately so did the seller. Cost us and them some bucks. Now we have all our clients sign a waiver that says we have instructed them and they agree to terminate any and all surveillance equipment and to hold us harmless from any liability associated with their use of that equipment.
Thats the point of all of this...whether or not what you are doing is wrong is meaningless...if somebody THINKS what you are doing is wrong, they can sue you. I don't know if any of you have had the misfortune of having been sued...I have... That $25,000 lawsuit will cost that guy $25,000 easily just to defend it. Seriously...if somebody sued me for $25,000 I would just settle it...its not worth defending because it would cost me that much or more to defend it. The last situation I was involved in that didn't even become a lawsuit, just a threatening letter from an attorney that we had to respond to cost me $5,000. No basis, guy was saying we breached a contract...there was no contract. That was two meetings with an attorney at an hour each, a couple phone calls, him sending letters back and forth to the other attorney...that was all. So in short, you want to do whatever you can to AVOID being sued in the first place. Which involves not doing things that could reasonably be considered questionably legal...such as recording people in your car without their consent. Remember...the dealer is a big company with in house counsel or lawyers on retainer...it doesn't cost them anything to sue you.
The OP could easily contact the dealer, provide them the video and have the dealer turn around and sue them. Whether they have any grounds doesn't even matter, its still going to cost the guy $5-10k minimum just to respond and defend it. Not worth it.
03-21-17, 10:44 AM
#36
Lexus Fanatic
No problem, happy to help in areas where I can!
03-21-17, 06:24 PM
#37
- "With certain exceptions, you generally don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car in which you ride as a passenger or in the house in which you're only a guest" sourced from : http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal...f-privacy.html
Last edited by Yoder; 03-21-17 at 06:35 PM.
03-21-17, 06:44 PM
#38
Lexus Fanatic
Hi SW15LS, I don't think you read this article completely, the dealership is not suing for defamation based on a "illegal recording". No where is the article does it state the recording was illegal. The dealership is suing for defamation as the customer is claiming they charged him for 4 hours and only worked on the car for 1.5 hours. The dealership denies overcharging, and has said that the video does not show the true amount of time that the car was in for service ans was edited and hence why they suing for defamation as they feel the customer has damaged their good reputation. The lawsuit is not related to an illegal recording.
The dealership is alleging that the recording was edited and whatever. Is that true? Perhaps, perhaps not...but it doesn't matter. As I said above, just defending the suit is going to cost this guy $25k easy. I bet he wishes he never even went to this dealership with this recording.
Remember...they don't have to have legit grounds to sue you...it will cost you thousands and thousands of dollars to defend it before it even gets to a judge. Costs them nothing. I can sue you for replying to my post if I want to...you can sue somebody for anything.
SW15LS I just did some research regarding your statement about being uninformed and it appears you may be uniformed:
- "With certain exceptions, you generally don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car in which you ride as a passenger or in the house in which you're only a guest" sourced from : http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal...f-privacy.html
Your link says "with certain exceptions" and thats really what it all comes down to. Like I said, there is no black and white, what matters is the argument that the attorney makes and how the jury finds. Like I said, Judge reviewed the case and agreed it had merit and moved it ahead for a jury trial. The settlement was substantial, plus our client had a ton of legal fees. Didn't hurt us because we have in house counsel and we have errors and omissions coverage. The bottom line is you recorded a private conversation between two people of which you were not a part (meaning one party or two party consent doesn't matter, you were not a party) it was done in a closed and locked vehicle which was under the control of one of the participants in the conversation at the time (and any attorney would be comfortable arguing they had an expectation of privacy in that situation). You made no effort to notify people in your car that whatever they say would be recorded. In essence, you "bugged" the car, you surveilled these people without their consent or notification and potentially want to use that recording of their private conversation to damage them. Sorry...that is not legal. If the dealership fires the employee for that recording, the guy has grounds to sue the dealer, and you...and the dealer has potential grounds to sue you too. He would have no problem getting an attorney to take that case.
So, you can choose to heed my warning or you can not lol. You do not want to be sued...you don't want anybody to even serve you with a letter threatening legal action because that is going to cost you thousands of dollars. If you get sued and the person loses, it still costs you the tens of thousands of dollars it cost to defend the claim, unless you can be victorious in some sort of counterclaim. If I were you, I would throw the video away and move on with my life.
Last edited by SW17LS; 03-21-17 at 07:13 PM.
03-21-17, 08:16 PM
#39
Lexus Fanatic
Been digging around trying to find you some links to show you that I'm not making this up.
Here you go:
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/reco...-conversations
(emphasis added)
So there you go. You recorded a conversation between two people, in a closed setting where you would not be naturally (i.e. without the use of technology) able to overhear, to which you were not a party and without the consent of either party involved in the conversation. In short, you have broken the law.
So another thing to take away from this. If you have a dash cam that records the cabin of the car (video and/or especially audio), if you are in a one party consent state then you are free to make that recording with passengers so long as you are in the car, and thus are a party to any conversations. If you are in a two party consent state, which is one of the following states:
Then you really should stop recording audio inside your car if you carry passengers, because you are illegally recording conversations you are having with them.
Here you go:
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/reco...-conversations
(emphasis added)
Recording Phone Calls and Conversations
If you plan to record telephone calls or in-person conversations (including by recording video that captures sound), you should be aware that there are federal and state wiretapping laws that may limit your ability to do so. These laws not only expose you to the risk of criminal prosecution, but also potentially give an injured party a civil claim for money damages against you.
From a legal standpoint, the most important question in the recording context is whether you must get consent from one or all of the parties to a phone call or conversation before recording it. Federal law and many state wiretapping statutes permit recording if one party (including you) to the phone call or conversation consents. Other states require that all parties to the communication consent.
Unfortunately, it is not always easy to tell which law applies to a communication, especially a phone call. For example, if you and the person you are recording are in different states, then it is difficult to say in advance whether federal or state law applies, and if state law applies which of the two (or more) relevant state laws will control the situation. Therefore, if you record a phone call with participants in more than one state, it is best to play it safe and get the consent of all parties. However, when you and the person you are recording are both located in the same state, then you can rely with greater certainty on the law of that state. In some states, this will mean that you can record with the consent of one party to the communication. In others, you will still need to get everyone's consent. For details on the wiretapping laws in the fifteen most populous U.S. states and the District of Columbia, see the State Law: Recordingsection. In any event, it never hurts to play it safe and get the consent of all parties to a phone call or conversation that you intend to record.
If you plan to record telephone calls or in-person conversations (including by recording video that captures sound), you should be aware that there are federal and state wiretapping laws that may limit your ability to do so. These laws not only expose you to the risk of criminal prosecution, but also potentially give an injured party a civil claim for money damages against you.
From a legal standpoint, the most important question in the recording context is whether you must get consent from one or all of the parties to a phone call or conversation before recording it. Federal law and many state wiretapping statutes permit recording if one party (including you) to the phone call or conversation consents. Other states require that all parties to the communication consent.
Unfortunately, it is not always easy to tell which law applies to a communication, especially a phone call. For example, if you and the person you are recording are in different states, then it is difficult to say in advance whether federal or state law applies, and if state law applies which of the two (or more) relevant state laws will control the situation. Therefore, if you record a phone call with participants in more than one state, it is best to play it safe and get the consent of all parties. However, when you and the person you are recording are both located in the same state, then you can rely with greater certainty on the law of that state. In some states, this will mean that you can record with the consent of one party to the communication. In others, you will still need to get everyone's consent. For details on the wiretapping laws in the fifteen most populous U.S. states and the District of Columbia, see the State Law: Recordingsection. In any event, it never hurts to play it safe and get the consent of all parties to a phone call or conversation that you intend to record.
Who must give permission to record a telephone or in-person conversation?
Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). This is called a "one-party consent" law. Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation. Furthermore, if you are not a party to the conversation, a "one-party consent" law will allow you to record the conversation or phone call so long as your source consents and has full knowledge that the communication will be recorded.
In addition to federal law, thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia have adopted "one-party consent" laws and permit individuals to record phone calls and conversations to which they are a party or when one party to the communication consents. See the State Law: Recording section of this legal guide for information on state wiretapping laws.
Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). This is called a "one-party consent" law. Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation. Furthermore, if you are not a party to the conversation, a "one-party consent" law will allow you to record the conversation or phone call so long as your source consents and has full knowledge that the communication will be recorded.
In addition to federal law, thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia have adopted "one-party consent" laws and permit individuals to record phone calls and conversations to which they are a party or when one party to the communication consents. See the State Law: Recording section of this legal guide for information on state wiretapping laws.
Can you record a phone call or conversation when you do not have consent from one of the parties?
Regardless of whether state or federal law governs the situation, it is almost always illegal to record a phone call or private conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent from at least one party, and could not naturally overhear. In addition, federal and many state laws do not permit you to surreptitiously place a bug or recording device on a person or telephone, in a home, office or restaurant to secretly record a conversation between two people who have not consented.
Federal law and most state statutes also make disclosing the contents of an illegally intercepted telephone call illegal. See the section on Risks Associated with Publication in this guide for more information.
Regardless of whether state or federal law governs the situation, it is almost always illegal to record a phone call or private conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent from at least one party, and could not naturally overhear. In addition, federal and many state laws do not permit you to surreptitiously place a bug or recording device on a person or telephone, in a home, office or restaurant to secretly record a conversation between two people who have not consented.
Federal law and most state statutes also make disclosing the contents of an illegally intercepted telephone call illegal. See the section on Risks Associated with Publication in this guide for more information.
So another thing to take away from this. If you have a dash cam that records the cabin of the car (video and/or especially audio), if you are in a one party consent state then you are free to make that recording with passengers so long as you are in the car, and thus are a party to any conversations. If you are in a two party consent state, which is one of the following states:
California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington
Then you really should stop recording audio inside your car if you carry passengers, because you are illegally recording conversations you are having with them.
Last edited by SW17LS; 03-21-17 at 08:25 PM.
03-22-17, 12:08 AM
#40
Fine, so you cant share your source without fear of a big company dropping the legal hammer on your head. However you dont have to reveal your source, you can still share that you found them taking your car for lunch, hours after the service was complete (which makes a test drive seem a bit far fetched) to be unprofessional and not what you would expect of their class of shop.
03-22-17, 06:32 AM
#41
Lexus Fanatic
Sure, but at that point it's going to be your word against theirs. And what is there to gain?
The other part of it is the car is supposed to be road tested after the service is done. Just because they worked on it and parked it doesn't mean the ticket was closed out. I'm sure that the tech chose to drive that particular car because it still needed to be road tested.
The other part of it is the car is supposed to be road tested after the service is done. Just because they worked on it and parked it doesn't mean the ticket was closed out. I'm sure that the tech chose to drive that particular car because it still needed to be road tested.
03-22-17, 08:09 AM
#42
I'm afraid SW15LS is correct about the recording issues. You didn't have their consent, therefore (at least in a lot of states), it's probably against the law. I wonder how often this happens.
I was at one time shopping for muscle cars at a Dodge dealership. And they had a Charger Hellcat that I wanted to test drive. They
gave me a hard time, cause they said it was kind of the car the owner (or manager) uses as his daily driver. This was a car w the sticker on the window too, was being advertised as 'new'. It also had all kinds of trash in the back, stuff all over.
Basically this guy was using it as his personal car.
This is a car that might go for 70K.
I was at one time shopping for muscle cars at a Dodge dealership. And they had a Charger Hellcat that I wanted to test drive. They
gave me a hard time, cause they said it was kind of the car the owner (or manager) uses as his daily driver. This was a car w the sticker on the window too, was being advertised as 'new'. It also had all kinds of trash in the back, stuff all over.
Basically this guy was using it as his personal car.
This is a car that might go for 70K.
03-22-17, 02:07 PM
#43
I'm afraid SW15LS is correct about the recording issues. You didn't have their consent, therefore (at least in a lot of states), it's probably against the law. I wonder how often this happens.
I was at one time shopping for muscle cars at a Dodge dealership. And they had a Charger Hellcat that I wanted to test drive. They
gave me a hard time, cause they said it was kind of the car the owner (or manager) uses as his daily driver. This was a car w the sticker on the window too, was being advertised as 'new'. It also had all kinds of trash in the back, stuff all over.
Basically this guy was using it as his personal car.
This is a car that might go for 70K.
I was at one time shopping for muscle cars at a Dodge dealership. And they had a Charger Hellcat that I wanted to test drive. They
gave me a hard time, cause they said it was kind of the car the owner (or manager) uses as his daily driver. This was a car w the sticker on the window too, was being advertised as 'new'. It also had all kinds of trash in the back, stuff all over.
Basically this guy was using it as his personal car.
This is a car that might go for 70K.
As for items in the car, they will clean it up, detail the car, and it'll be good to go.
It's kind of like an "open box special" for a TV on the sales floor. If the TV has obvious use, it will take a hit on the price.
Either way, the TV is still technically new --- and the warranty will start on the day it is sold.
Same for the car.
03-22-17, 02:10 PM
#44
Let's take a theoretical situation:
Dash cam would not be mentioned.
- I bring car into a dealer for routine service
- My dash cam happens to record the car being taken out to Wendy's 10 miles away at lunch hour. It records conversation inside the care...clearly the mechanics are on a lunch run.
Dash cam would not be mentioned.
03-22-17, 02:19 PM
#45
Let's take a theoretical situation:
Dash cam would not be mentioned.
- I bring car into a dealer for routine service
- My dash cam happens to record the car being taken out to Wendy's 10 miles away at lunch hour. It records conversation inside the care...clearly the mechanics are on a lunch run.
Dash cam would not be mentioned.
If you had a dash cam that recorded voice/video of people inside your car, you can potentially argue that their conversation was not "confidential communication" and that there was no reason to expect privacy. Or, you argue that the camera only captured video and the purpose is to record movement of the vehicle as oppose to communication inside the car.
There is no legal conclusion anyone can make. It is all going to be factually driven and dependent on what law will apply.
Whether anyone wants to take the risk to get sued is up to them. I'm sure you can always run a campaign, launch public awareness, gather sympathy of the public and see if the dealership gives in (if they decide to sue you).