I recently captured a cellphone video of a tenant ranting and vulgarly swearing at me - without him realizing it.

When I later showed it to him, he said I had violated his constitutional right to "privacy."

If he is right, would it be unwise or illegal to ultimately use it against him in court?

For more info: Photography is Not a Crime - The use of wiretapping laws to suppress photographers clearly violate the First Amendment, and courts have noted that public officers in a public place have no expectation of privacy.[12][13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_is_Not_a_Crime

I would tell him to tell it to the judge.

There is no longer any expectation of privacy. People are videoing everything these days.

It may be (illegal or unwise).

I see the following possible problems:

1. You MAY have violated his privacy. Different states have different approaches. CA, in particular, has the right to privacy enshrined right in the preamble to the State Constitution, and thus the right to privacy is clearly public policy in CA. Additionally, if your video has recorded "a confidential conversation", then it is illegal in at least CA.

2. What does your video show, even if the court would accept it? " tenant ranting and vulgarly swearing at (you) " Is THAT illegal? How does it help you in court? for what cause?

3. If the video does not make a clear contribution to the genuine and valid case that you are pursuing in court, then I would not use it. Not only is it not likely to help you, but your reputation with the judge will suffer.

" tenant ranting and vulgarly swearing at (you) " Is THAT illegal? How does it help you in court? for what cause?"

You captured it WHERE exactly? You were in their unit talking to them? Or out on the sidewalk out front? It may very well make a difference as to whether or not they had an expectation of privacy.

A quick Google search shows RI as a one-party state. So, you're PROBABLY ok to record in most cases since you were a party to the conversation itself, of course.

- John...

It may show character and temperament, but it may not. Lots of people swear and rant these days. It is probably not illegal to swear and rant, and it probably is not illegal to video on the street. In his home is another story, it may be illegal to tape there.

Interesting answers.

John, Will you please provide the internet source you referred to in order to determine each State's standing on this question. Thank you!

@ Linda (NY)…" It is probably not illegal to swear and rant"

" it shows the character and temperament of the tenant. ... a judge is quite likely to take that into consideration "

JB: Have you been to court much?

If the law says that tenant gets evicted if rent not paid within 3 days of Notice to pay or quit, then the only thing that a competent judge wants to know is, was the rent paid or not paid within 3 days of notice to P or Q.

Temperament of one of the parties won't count, unless the judge has good reason AND AUTHORITY to stick it to the temperamental party.

If you ever go to either Small Claims Court or Eviction Court, you will see that the judge has no time or patience for anything that doesn't get him directly to the correct conclusion.

I bow down to the all-knowing Moshe.

Same for any other cause of action.

If the law says if tenant violates, fails to cure with 3 days of notice to cure, then all judge wants to know is:

1. What does lease say?

2. Did tenant violate that clause?

3. IS IT A MATERIAL VIOLATION of the lease?

4. Does law say that under such circumstances, judge may order eviction?

5. No valid defense by tenant.

Temperament of tenant not relevant. Judge won't even want to hear about it.

Same for any other cause of action. What does the law say? Does case presented fall within the law? Do facts support that violation occurred? Is the violation MATERIAL violation? Does defendant present a valid defense UNDER THE LAW? Temperament does not apply.

I offer a sincere suggestion to you, JB. Go to court, and sit and listen for a while. Try it with a couple of different judges, and do it maybe 3 times each judge for a whole morning/afternoon. Maybe it will improve your perspective.

Regards,

The all-knowing Moshe

One time I provided the court with a transcript of a conversation. The judge asked to did the transcription. I explained a licensed court reporter. The court then viewed the transcript. Then some comments were made that this wasn't a true account of the conversation. So the judge then allowed the recording to be played. It was crystal clear that the tenant said horrible things and said unless I drop my eviction case against them, they were doing to damage the property to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars.

Joe: I tend to use this site (as do most people, including journalists, looking into these laws):

www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/state-state-guide/rhode-island

It's a non-profit whose purpose is to assist journalists.

- John...

margie,

My court says NO VIDEO.

And the video you describe is pointless in court. Swearing is not against the law. Evict based on unoaid rent or notice to vacate.

I see 2 larger issues:

1. Who let this guy in? What was missed in screening? Lots of LLs say they like showing homes personally to get to know the applicant but this guy got thru

2. Text is much safer. Never get into an argument with a res. You had your phone on for a reason, maybe you expected trouble or turned it on when the conversation escalated. Either way you shoukd have simply walked away for your own safety.

Hang in there!

The few times I pulled out my phone to record, it only inflamed the situation making the other person angrier.

On the flip side the police say their body cams reduce tensions because people tend to be nicer for a police recording.

I do like Robert’s point about threats. Could justify an emergency eviction or asking for quicker possession.

My experience is that the hotter the hot-head the less likely they are to show up for court.

Keep it simple, stick to the facts and the law is on your side.

In reading through this thread, I was amazed by how many of us simply ASSUMED that Margie is evicting this tenant for non-payment of rent. She never said anything to that effect.

IF (and that is a big IF) Margie is trying to evict for non-payment of rent, then the video of him cursing and ranting is not relevant. Unless the T then claims some defense of habilitability, and Margie claims that in an a rage, the T did destructive things. Showing his violent temper might be relevant at that point.

If Margie wants to evict him for violating a "be civil to the LL" clause, it is certainly relevant.

If Margie wants a restraining order, it would be relevant.