We find both audio and video electronic bugs. If a electronic bug is found, it could result in a felony against the person who installed it. We will preserve all evidence collected so that the police can properly follow-up with their own investigation of the matter.
We offer a 3 month money back guarantee. If an electronic bug is detected within three months after we have debugged your location, we will refund your fee for service. All requests for refunds must be accompanied by a police incident report indicating that an electronic eavesdropping device was found, either audio or video, in the location where services were performed. The report must document the exact location of the device when it was found.
Eavesdropping – Privacy Laws
To listen and record conversations, where on telephone, device or in person, without the knowledge of those being recorded, certainly brings into issue state and federal privacy laws. Telecommunications and eavesdropping laws come into play as well. Title III of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act already outlaws wiretapping and other forms of electronic eavesdropping, possession of wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping equipment and use or disclosure of information obtained through illegal wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping. 18 U.S.C. § 2510et seq. In essence, this act prohibits any person from intentionally intercepting, or endeavoring to intercept wire, oral or electronic communications by using an electronic, mechanical device unless the conduct is specifically authorized or expressly not covered.- In Washington State, all parties to either an in-person conversation or electronic communication generally must consent to its recording — a requirement that is satisfied by one party’s reasonably effective announcement, which also must be recorded, to all other parties that the conversation is about to be recorded. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9.73.030 (West 2012. For electronic communications, both parties must consent. It is unlawful to record a "private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals" without first obtaining the consent of all participants in the communication. And because the statute does not differentiate between oral and written private communications transmitted electronically, the consent of all parties likewise is required to disclose the contents of text messages sent between wireless devices. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9.73.030.
Statute
All parties generally must consent to the interception or recording of any private communication, whether conducted by telephone, telegraph, radio or face-to-face, to comply with state law. Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030. The all-party consent requirement can be satisfied if "one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted." In addition, if the conversation is to be recorded, the requisite announcement must be recorded as well. Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030.
A party is determined to have consented to recording if he is aware that the recording is taking place. Washington v. Modica, 149 P.3d 446 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006.) Consent to recording of real-time conversation using online discussion software is implicit because participants know the conversations will be recorded on the other party’s computer. Washington v. Townsend, 20 P.3d 1027 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001.) Moreover, an employee of a news organization engaged in newsgathering is deemed to have the requisite consent to record and divulge the contents of conversations "if the consent is expressly given or if the recording or transmitting device is readily apparent or obvious to the speakers." Wash. Rev. Code § 0.73.030(4). Anyone speaking to an employee of a news organization who has been deemed to have given consent cannot withdraw that consent after the communication has been made. Wash. Rev. Code § 0.73.030(4).
Statutory liability exists only for nonconsensual recording or intercepting, not divulging, of private conversations. Kearney v. Kearney. 974 P.2d 872 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999.) The statutory terms "Record" and "intercept" do not encompass the meaning of divulge. Whether a communication is considered "private" under the statute depends on the factual circumstances. Washington v. Townsend, 57 P.2d 255 (Wash. 2002.) The state Supreme Court has identified three factors bearing on the reasonable expectations and intent of the parties: (1) duration and subject matter of the conversation, (2) location of conversation and presence or potential presence of a third party, and (3) role of the non-consenting party and his or her relationship to the consenting party. Lewis v. State Dept. of Licensing, 139 P.3d 1078 (Wash. 2006.)
A party is determined to have consented to recording if he is aware that the recording is taking place. Washington v. Modica, 149 P.3d 446 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006.) Consent to recording of real-time conversation using online discussion software is implicit because participants know the conversations will be recorded on the other party’s computer. Washington v. Townsend, 20 P.3d 1027 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001.) Moreover, an employee of a news organization engaged in newsgathering is deemed to have the requisite consent to record and divulge the contents of conversations "if the consent is expressly given or if the recording or transmitting device is readily apparent or obvious to the speakers." Wash. Rev. Code § 0.73.030(4). Anyone speaking to an employee of a news organization who has been deemed to have given consent cannot withdraw that consent after the communication has been made. Wash. Rev. Code § 0.73.030(4).
Statutory liability exists only for nonconsensual recording or intercepting, not divulging, of private conversations. Kearney v. Kearney. 974 P.2d 872 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999.) The statutory terms "Record" and "intercept" do not encompass the meaning of divulge. Whether a communication is considered "private" under the statute depends on the factual circumstances. Washington v. Townsend, 57 P.2d 255 (Wash. 2002.) The state Supreme Court has identified three factors bearing on the reasonable expectations and intent of the parties: (1) duration and subject matter of the conversation, (2) location of conversation and presence or potential presence of a third party, and (3) role of the non-consenting party and his or her relationship to the consenting party. Lewis v. State Dept. of Licensing, 139 P.3d 1078 (Wash. 2006.)
If you suspect unwarranted electronic surveillance
Despite the laws designed to protect us from these types of invasions of privacy, electronic bugs and wiretaps are regularly used to spy on people involved in litigation, divorce, sensitive business, and well-to-do individuals. Imagine if all of your conversations with friends, family, business associates, your lawyer, doctor or accountant were being monitored by someone.
