A Massachusetts Superior Court judge ruled in In Heffernan v. Hashampour that the state Wiretap Act applies when a party outside of Massachusetts secretly records a telephone call to a party in this state. Thus Massachusetts continues to provide its citizens with protection (some say over-protection) from secretive audio recordings. The flip side of this protection can be seen in the case of Simon Glik, who was arrested for video recording police officers making an arrest near Boston Common in 2007. The criminal charges were dropped and Glik has filed a civil rights lawsuit against the City of Boston and three Boston police officers, arguing that public space is not covered by the wiretap law (ie. there is no expectation of privacy in a public place).

Tags: massachusetts, privacy, wiretapping, audio recordings

The big problem facing HR people is balancing costs with coverage. For example, some firms offer a "statewide criminal check" or even "national criminal check". Often times they are simply checking a database of convictions only -- a small universe of people compared to those who are charged. So if your guy has a record of being charged with sexual assaults against women in the workplace, but somehow pled out to misdemeanors or had the cases dismissed, a statewide convictions database would give you no reason to pause.

By searching the lower district courts for any cases filed, your background due diligence would allow you to find the cases and make your own evaluation. This is especially true in certain states such as Massachusetts, where the lower courts hear some felony cases, assaults, and various other serious crimes.

Tags: massachusetts, background check, criminal records

The Massachusetts Bar Association hosts a good summary of privacy laws and surveillance in Massachusetts. written by lawyers Joseph M. Desmond & David Viens. One of the leading cases in Mass. is DiGirolamo v. D.P. Anderson & Associates, Inc., The court wrote that investigators may generally observe, or photograph a person in public places. A gray area arises when a person enters the privacy of their own home. The court looked at 4 scenarios as to whether a private investigator violates a person's statutory right to privacy:

~ the investigator looks through a window into an apartment with the naked eye;
~ the investigator looks with the naked eye when a person walks out onto a balcony;
~ the investigator photographs, or looks at the person on a balcony with enhanced vision
~ the investigator photographs or looks at a person inside the home with enhanced vision.
 
The Mass. court concluded that only the fourth scenario would constitute an unreasonable and substantial interference with the plaintiff’s right to privacy. The court adopted the United States Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment analysis from Oliver v. United States. It also quoted a Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ case United States v. Taborda: “Observation of objects and activities inside a person’s home by unenhanced vision from a location where the observer may properly be does not impair a legitimate expectation of privacy. However, any enhanced viewing of the interior of a home does impair a legitimate expectation of privacy.”

Tags: surveillance, privacy, massachusetts, private investigator

Mass Lawyers Weekly reported an increase in patent cases filed in Massachusetts after streamlined procedures and rules were implemented. Top venues for filing cases continue to be headed by the usual suspects: Northern California, Eastern Texas, and Delaware (which has long had a reputation for sophisticated handling of complex business cases).

Tags: intellectual property, massachusetts, patent infringement