Am I wrong or isn't recording someone without their knowledge in this state against the law?

"isn't recording someone without their knowledge in this state against the law?"

Rhode Island is commonly referred to as a "one party consent" state, meaning that it is generally stated that the recording of a conversation is legal so long as one of the participants consents.

Massachusetts, on the other hand, requires consent of all parties for such a recording.

But "one party consent" is an over simplification; even with consent of one party in RI, there could be circumstances where recording is not legal, or its legality might be subject to challenge.

So, the correct answer is "it depends."

For anyone interested, here's the applicable statute.

This is the operative language:

(3) A person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication, where the person is a party to the communication, or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in the violation of the constitution or laws of the United States or of any state or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act.

Oo, video recordings. Richard Nixon only dreamed.

Shocked, shocked, shocked, considering she coddled that thug John Dionne all those years.
She aligned herself with the worst of the good old boy Democrats. She could brag about not raising taxes because the GOBs always took care of her (while stiffing other cities and towns).
Sue's living proof that not all the good old boys are boys.

Woonsocket-it must be something in the water

Rhody...so predictable...knew you'd be dropping the "Thug" John Dionne line...I'm sure "WOW", Brian Blais, and Toddler Brien will be posting similar rants soon. Dionne's no angel but you're just as bad with your anonymous cheap shots. You think Susie coddled Dionne? Wrong pal, it's the other way around. He did her bidding for her and she cast him aside when it became politically expedient.

Chorus, she makes a big public deal of casting him aside in a crisis, but the H.R. Haldeman of Woonsocket inevitably pops up back behind the scenes at the next crisis (if only they were all as laughable as stealing high school graduation speeches).
If only I could throw cheap shots like the amen chorus that defends and vouches for the Dionne boys on local talk radio...I wouldn't have to work for a living.

Rhody - The Amen Chorus merely offsets the half-truths and innuendo that's spread by those with an axe to grind. As far as not having to work, don't sell yourself short - I'm sure you don't limit your anonymous commentary to these message boards.

Actually joe, it's in the air. That incinerator coats the whole town in stank. Clearly its become part of the DNA of the locals.

Chorus, the issue is John Dionne. Why you're making it me is a mystery. If I'm such a problem, why don't you petition Justin to start a post about what a threat I am to democracy (even greated than Crowley?)
The post is about a mayor whose administration has wreaked havoc with a city. John Dionne has been a big part of that administration and enabler to one of the most powerful politicians in the state (think of a Buddy Cianci who dresses better).

Rhody - you're making my point - this isn't about John Dionne. This is about Susan Menard - if your perception is that they are invariably linked, then you are wrong.

"If I could only throw cheap shots..."...that's exactly what you do when you call him a thug and try to link him tangentally with everything that goes wrong in Woonsocket. It rained today in Woonsocket, that damn Dionne.

As for making you the focus, fret not. I'm out. The Chorus