Camaro owner records mechanics abusing car, scheming to get damages paid for

[MoBoost]

The guy was okay to record this conversation inside his own vehicle, if he had set the recording up inside the dealership somewhere it would be a different story.

You are totally wrong.

Recording in the dealership would be OK since it is a "public area", I can't think of more private place than a car with shut doors. This has nothing to do with "what" belongs to "who" (most likely the car belongs to a bank anyhow) - it has to do with a reasonable expectation of privacy.

As far as nanny cams go - they are expressly prohibited from recording audio.

But than again, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, even if it's wrong.

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.

Source: http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations

 

[NikatKimber]

I think I'll just start telling anyone who I leave my car with that there may be recordings or data logging from inside the car while they are in possession of it.

 

[MLR]

I have learned from discussions on this form about gun owners who carry recorders that carrying and using a recorder is baiting. That the person doing it is up to no good. Why is this any different? Shouldn't we be bashing the car owner for looking for trouble? Shouldn't the fact he had a recorder be proof of his intent to cause trouble?
I mean we do want to be consistent don't we?

Michael