YODL on Nostr: From my very surface level AI “research,” it seems like two party consent applies ...
From my very surface level AI “research,” it seems like two party consent applies to wire tap/recording and not search or arrest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You’re probably thinking of the concept of two-party consent in the context of privacy laws, particularly regarding wiretapping and recording conversations, rather than warrants.
Two-Party Consent and the Constitution
There is no general constitutional requirement for two-party consent when it comes to law enforcement actions like search or arrest warrants. However, the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, which means that warrants must be issued based on probable cause and approved by a judge.
Two-Party Consent in Wiretapping and Recording Laws
• Some states require all parties in a conversation to consent before it can be legally recorded. This is called two-party (or all-party) consent.
• Other states only require one party to consent.
• The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) generally requires one-party consent, meaning as long as one person in the conversation agrees to the recording, it’s legal.
Could Warrants Have Ever Required Two-Party Consent?
There is no historical record of warrants themselves requiring the consent of both law enforcement and the person being searched. However, before modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, there were legal debates over how broadly authorities could conduct searches. Early American legal traditions were influenced by English common law, which heavily criticized “general warrants” (warrants that lacked specificity).
If you’re thinking of an old legal principle or a specific historical case, let me know and I can help track it down!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You’re probably thinking of the concept of two-party consent in the context of privacy laws, particularly regarding wiretapping and recording conversations, rather than warrants.
Two-Party Consent and the Constitution
There is no general constitutional requirement for two-party consent when it comes to law enforcement actions like search or arrest warrants. However, the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, which means that warrants must be issued based on probable cause and approved by a judge.
Two-Party Consent in Wiretapping and Recording Laws
• Some states require all parties in a conversation to consent before it can be legally recorded. This is called two-party (or all-party) consent.
• Other states only require one party to consent.
• The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) generally requires one-party consent, meaning as long as one person in the conversation agrees to the recording, it’s legal.
Could Warrants Have Ever Required Two-Party Consent?
There is no historical record of warrants themselves requiring the consent of both law enforcement and the person being searched. However, before modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, there were legal debates over how broadly authorities could conduct searches. Early American legal traditions were influenced by English common law, which heavily criticized “general warrants” (warrants that lacked specificity).
If you’re thinking of an old legal principle or a specific historical case, let me know and I can help track it down!