General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: McConnell's office was not bugged, it was recorded after an open meeting. [View all]Babel_17
(5,400 posts)and/or there wasn't a need for enhancements to the audio to make it clear, these peeps could easily be off the hook.
The one phrase, "a person who desires privacy can take the steps necessary to ensure that his conversation cannot be overheard by the ordinary ear" might push the burden of proof onto McConnell. Unless the device was extraordinary, the presumption, imo, should be it doesn't exceed the ability of human hearing. McConnell would, imo, have to demonstrate otherwise.
Though a grey are might exist if the device was pushed into a vent. At what point does human hearing become not plausible? On the third hand, who has the burden of proof? Recording with a handheld device should be presumed to be an innocent act, if I'm interpreting the statute correctly.