15 Or 21

[sidtrey]

Hey my paperwork syays I'm legit after 15 days, but everyone says 21. What's the dealio?

[drtarzanmd]

Hey my paperwork syays I'm legit after 15 days, but everyone says 21. What's the dealio?

 

333.26429 ( B ) "If the department fails to issue a valid registry identification card in response to a valid application or renewal submitted pursuant to this act within 20 days of its submission, the registry identification card shall be deemed granted, and a copy of the registry identification application or renewal shall be deemed a valid registry identification card."

[bobandtorey]

Hey my paperwork says I'm legit after 15 days, but everyone says 21. What's the deal?

 

don't know but me i think you are legal as soon as your Doc:signs the Rec: am no Lawyer it's just what i think

[old-hobo]

I whole heartedly agree with you B/T. according to the A/D,all you need is a Dr. REC.

[sidtrey]

Thanks guys! Just was real blurry on this! I don't want to get people/myself in trouble, so prolly best I wait the 20.

[wingnut]

Thanks guys! Just was real blurry on this! I don't want to get people/myself in trouble, so prolly best I wait the 20.

MSP says card only so IDK!

[welj31]

This is really going to depend on your local PA and LEO. The truth is if you have a condition you could use AD. You could use you DR cert. You could use you apt for card. Or you could just wait for the card.

I would call the PA and LEO (record the call) and ask their view. Yes MSP say you are only legal with card, but good for us MSP dont make the law (they just think they do ).

[Guest Medicinal Patient]

This is really going to depend on your local PA and LEO. The truth is if you have a condition you could use AD. You could use you DR cert. You could use you apt for card. Or you could just wait for the card.

I would call the PA and LEO (record the call) and ask their view. Yes MSP say you are only legal with card, but good for us MSP dont make the law (they just think they do ).

 

Great Advice. I remember you touched base on recording calls awhile back. I forget do we have to tell them in advance its being recorded in order for it to be admissible? I did just google and read its an all party consent state. It was an answer to a question so not sure how accurate. Thanks

[welj31]

Great Advice. I remember you touched base on recording calls awhile back. I forget do we have to tell them in advance its being recorded in order for it to be admissible? I did just google and read its an all party consent state. It was an answer to a question so not sure how accurate. Thanks

Because Michigan’s definition of “eavesdrop” is to “overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others,” Michigan courts have held that participant recording (even without the consent of the other parties) is not prohibited. Therefore, a party to the conversation can record the conversation himself without obtaining the consent of the other parties. He cannot, however, employ a third party to record the conversation on his behalf without getting the consent of all the parties.

 

This issue was central to the Michigan appeals court’s holding in a 1997 civil suit involving the media. In Dickerson v. Raphael, the court ruled that the “Sally Jessy Raphael” show violated the eavesdropping statute by recording a discussion between Dorothy Dickerson and members of her family in a public park. Dickerson’s daughter contacted the “Sally Jessy Raphael” show, with the intent of confronting her mother about her involvement with Scientology and taping the confrontation for later broadcast on the show. The producer of the show arranged to have the daughter “wired” for the conversation, and the conversation was monitored and recorded from a nearby sound truck.

 

The court ruled that the conversation was private, even though it took place in a public park, because: 1) it was intended only for a small group of people (i.e., the family members present) to hear, 2) no passers-by had been close enough to have heard it, and 3) the daughter and the producers knew that Dickerson would not have consented had they asked for her permission to tape the conversation.

 

The court ruled that although the daughter may have been within her rights to record the conversation herself, the involvement of third parties violated the statute. Multimedia, Inc., the company that produced the “Sally Jessy Raphael” show, violated the statute by employing technicians to eavesdrop and by divulging the conversation on the broadcast. The court held that Sally Jessy Raphael, the show’s host, also violated the statute because she was ultimately responsible for the show’s content and, therefore, for divulging the conversation.

 

The court also rejected the defendants’ First Amendment arguments, saying that although the First Amendment protects the publication of truthful information of legitimate public concern, the information may not be obtained unlawfully. The court held that the eavesdropping statutes are generally applicable laws that had only an incidental effect on the defendants’ newsgathering and reporting.

[welj31]

So you can but you would not be allowed to "broadcast" the content. However I would hold it in escrow for use at a later date if need be.

[DLD420]

Correct welj31, I had someone harassing me on my Nextel 2-way,I bought a digital recorder and got him the next few times he called me. The County Sheriff used it in a harassment charge ( they recorded my recording). Got him a 30 day sentance (susp) and $500 fine plus costs. So it is legal to record a call or 2-way you are involved in without telling the other person.