Recording Device Flap Between Mitch McConnell And Bruce Lunsford Could Backfire And Land McConnell Staffer In Felony Trouble.
Read more here, or the excerpts below from Law Reader:
A Marshall County Grand Jury will hear evidence on Nov. 7th. about a controversy over a digital recording device that erupted after last week’s debate between candidates in the Kentucky U.S. Senate race. This investigation launched at the request of the McConnell campaign may boomerang and could result in prosecution of a McConnell campaign worker.
The investigation concerns various claims reported in the press. Lunsford is quoted as saying he was at his podium in the public debate with Mitch McConnell, and found a digital recording device hidden under a notebook on his podium. Lunsford turned the recording device over to a campaign aide and it was later delivered to the Marshall County Sheriff Kevin Byars.
A McConnell campaign worker Richard St. Onge filed a complaint with the Marshall County attorney’s office asking that charges be filed against Lunsford and Achim Bergmann a Lunsford campaign consultant. St. Onge claims that the Lunsford campaign deleted the recordings on the recording device before delivering it to Sheriff Byars.
A press report yesterday stated that the McConnell campaign had taken the recording device to an expert and they had restored the audio recording.
The complaint by St. Onge seems to make the claim that he is the owner of the digital recorder. Therefore, the Grand Jury can be expected to inquire about how the device got to the Lunsford podium. It is suggested that the device had recorded private comments of Lunsford with his campaign workers.
Throughout this election the McConnell campaign has assigned a worker identified as “Richard” to follow Lunsford throughout the state and videotape every Lunsford appearance. “Richard” repeatedly followed Lunsford and videotaped him as he walked through crowds and shook hands with voters and spoke to them. Is this “Richard” the same person as the Richard St. Onge who filed the complaint with the Marshall County prosecutor?
So far the media has run this story as a charge against the Lunsford campaign. However Kentucky law appears to cover the activities as a potential felony offense committed by the person who placed the recording device on Lunsford’s podium and hid it.
Kentucky law (KRS 526.010) defines “eavesdrop” as meaning “to …record…any part of (a) oral communication of others without the consent of at least one (1) party thereto by means of any electronic, mechanical or other device.”
Lunsford said that he believed the device was placed on his podium and hidden in an attempt to record pre-debate comments he made to his campaign workers and to record any public comments he made under his breath during the debate.
It is one thing to record a public statement of a candidate. It may well be a felony however if any part of a private conversation is recorded without permission of at least one of the participants to the conversation. It would not be a violation of law to record or videotape a public statement of a candidate, but conversations made in private appear to be protected by Kentucky law.
If a person is guilty of eavesdropping under Kentucky law they have committed a Class D Felony punishable by a sentence of up to five years in prison. (KRS 526.020).
Even the act of installing a recording device with the intent to eavesdrop is defined as a Felony under KRS 526.030.
Mere possession of an eavesdropping device is itself a misdemeanor. (KRS 526.040).
If a device is determined to be an eavesdropping device, it must be forfeited. (KRS 526.080).
The procedure where the Lunsford campaign turned the device over to the local Sheriff seems to be the correct thing to do. If you find evidence of a crime you should turn it over to the law enforcement officials.
The act of the Sheriff in not holding on to the device, and instead delivering it back to the McConnell campaign seems to be a strange thing for a law enforcement official to do with material evidence of a crime.
The Marshall County Grand Jury will not meet to consider the McConnell campaign complaint against Lunsford until Nov. 7th., but due to the eavesdropping laws, the Grand Jury may well be more interested in examining the conduct of Richard St. Onge, than of the Lunsford campaign.
The claim that the Lunsford campaign deleted the recorded information on the recording device, if true, could complicate the issue. However KRS 526. 030 makes it a Felony offense just to install such a device, and does not require proof that a private conversation was actually recorded.
Read the applicable Kentucky Law for yourself:
KRS 526.010 Definition.
The following definition applies in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
“Eavesdrop” means to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of a wire or
oral communication of others without the consent of at least one (1) party thereto by
means of any electronic, mechanical or other device.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 226, effective January 1, 1975.
KRS 526.020 Eavesdropping.
(1) A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he intentionally uses any device to
eavesdrop, whether or not he is present at the time.
(2) Eavesdropping is a Class D felony.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 227, effective January 1, 1975.
KRS 526.030 Installing eavesdropping device.
(1) A person is guilty of installing an eavesdropping device when he intentionally
installs or places such a device in any place with the knowledge that it is to be used
for eavesdropping.
(2) Installing an eavesdropping device is a Class D felony.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 228, effective January 1, 1975.
KRS 526.040 Possession of eavesdropping device.
(1) A person is guilty of possession of an eavesdropping device when he possesses any
electronic, mechanical or other device designed or commonly used for
eavesdropping with intent to use that device to eavesdrop or knowing that another
intends to use that device to eavesdrop.
(2) Possession of an eavesdropping device is a Class A misdemeanor.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 229, effective January 1, 1975.
KRS 526.080 Forfeiture.
Any electronic, mechanical or other device designed or commonly used for
eavesdropping which is possessed or used in violation of this chapter, is forfeited to the
state and shall be disposed of in accordance with KRS 500.090.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 233, effective January 1, 1975.
A Marshall County Grand Jury will hear evidence on Nov. 7th. about a controversy over a digital recording device that erupted after last week’s debate between candidates in the Kentucky U.S. Senate race. This investigation launched at the request of the McConnell campaign may boomerang and could result in prosecution of a McConnell campaign worker.
The investigation concerns various claims reported in the press. Lunsford is quoted as saying he was at his podium in the public debate with Mitch McConnell, and found a digital recording device hidden under a notebook on his podium. Lunsford turned the recording device over to a campaign aide and it was later delivered to the Marshall County Sheriff Kevin Byars.
A McConnell campaign worker Richard St. Onge filed a complaint with the Marshall County attorney’s office asking that charges be filed against Lunsford and Achim Bergmann a Lunsford campaign consultant. St. Onge claims that the Lunsford campaign deleted the recordings on the recording device before delivering it to Sheriff Byars.
A press report yesterday stated that the McConnell campaign had taken the recording device to an expert and they had restored the audio recording.
The complaint by St. Onge seems to make the claim that he is the owner of the digital recorder. Therefore, the Grand Jury can be expected to inquire about how the device got to the Lunsford podium. It is suggested that the device had recorded private comments of Lunsford with his campaign workers.
Throughout this election the McConnell campaign has assigned a worker identified as “Richard” to follow Lunsford throughout the state and videotape every Lunsford appearance. “Richard” repeatedly followed Lunsford and videotaped him as he walked through crowds and shook hands with voters and spoke to them. Is this “Richard” the same person as the Richard St. Onge who filed the complaint with the Marshall County prosecutor?
So far the media has run this story as a charge against the Lunsford campaign. However Kentucky law appears to cover the activities as a potential felony offense committed by the person who placed the recording device on Lunsford’s podium and hid it.
Kentucky law (KRS 526.010) defines “eavesdrop” as meaning “to …record…any part of (a) oral communication of others without the consent of at least one (1) party thereto by means of any electronic, mechanical or other device.”
Lunsford said that he believed the device was placed on his podium and hidden in an attempt to record pre-debate comments he made to his campaign workers and to record any public comments he made under his breath during the debate.
It is one thing to record a public statement of a candidate. It may well be a felony however if any part of a private conversation is recorded without permission of at least one of the participants to the conversation. It would not be a violation of law to record or videotape a public statement of a candidate, but conversations made in private appear to be protected by Kentucky law.
If a person is guilty of eavesdropping under Kentucky law they have committed a Class D Felony punishable by a sentence of up to five years in prison. (KRS 526.020).
Even the act of installing a recording device with the intent to eavesdrop is defined as a Felony under KRS 526.030.
Mere possession of an eavesdropping device is itself a misdemeanor. (KRS 526.040).
If a device is determined to be an eavesdropping device, it must be forfeited. (KRS 526.080).
The procedure where the Lunsford campaign turned the device over to the local Sheriff seems to be the correct thing to do. If you find evidence of a crime you should turn it over to the law enforcement officials.
The act of the Sheriff in not holding on to the device, and instead delivering it back to the McConnell campaign seems to be a strange thing for a law enforcement official to do with material evidence of a crime.
The Marshall County Grand Jury will not meet to consider the McConnell campaign complaint against Lunsford until Nov. 7th., but due to the eavesdropping laws, the Grand Jury may well be more interested in examining the conduct of Richard St. Onge, than of the Lunsford campaign.
The claim that the Lunsford campaign deleted the recorded information on the recording device, if true, could complicate the issue. However KRS 526. 030 makes it a Felony offense just to install such a device, and does not require proof that a private conversation was actually recorded.
Read the applicable Kentucky Law for yourself:
KRS 526.010 Definition.
The following definition applies in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
“Eavesdrop” means to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of a wire or
oral communication of others without the consent of at least one (1) party thereto by
means of any electronic, mechanical or other device.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 226, effective January 1, 1975.
KRS 526.020 Eavesdropping.
(1) A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he intentionally uses any device to
eavesdrop, whether or not he is present at the time.
(2) Eavesdropping is a Class D felony.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 227, effective January 1, 1975.
KRS 526.030 Installing eavesdropping device.
(1) A person is guilty of installing an eavesdropping device when he intentionally
installs or places such a device in any place with the knowledge that it is to be used
for eavesdropping.
(2) Installing an eavesdropping device is a Class D felony.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 228, effective January 1, 1975.
KRS 526.040 Possession of eavesdropping device.
(1) A person is guilty of possession of an eavesdropping device when he possesses any
electronic, mechanical or other device designed or commonly used for
eavesdropping with intent to use that device to eavesdrop or knowing that another
intends to use that device to eavesdrop.
(2) Possession of an eavesdropping device is a Class A misdemeanor.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 229, effective January 1, 1975.
KRS 526.080 Forfeiture.
Any electronic, mechanical or other device designed or commonly used for
eavesdropping which is possessed or used in violation of this chapter, is forfeited to the
state and shall be disposed of in accordance with KRS 500.090.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 233, effective January 1, 1975.
Labels: Stick with Mitch
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 12:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home