What the AP story fails to mention is the fact that - under the relevant Maryland law – a party which has not consented to being recorded by another must show that he, she or they had “a reasonable expectation of privacy” at the time the recording was made for it to be considered unlawful by the courts.

According to the Reporters Committee For Freedom Of The Press:

"State courts have interpreted the laws to protect communications only when the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and thus, where a person in a private apartment was speaking so loudly that residents of an adjoining apartment could hear without any sound enhancing device, recording without the speaker’s consent did not violate the wiretapping law. Malpas v. Maryland, 695 A.2d 588 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997); see also Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., 649 F. Supp. 9 (D. Md. 1986) (salesman’s presentation in stranger’s home not assumed to carry expectation of privacy)."

For complete text concerning the relevant Maryland law. visit the website of the Reporters Committee For Freedom Of The Press at <a href="http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/maryland.html" target="_blank">http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/maryland.html

ACORN is a public organization, funded with taxpayer dollars and it is, therefor, difficult to understand how its employees can rightly claim that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy while serving in their capacity as paid community activists in a building open to the general public.

Furthermore, it is unclear how strictly the law applies to audio-inclusive videotape recordings, which may be treated differently than stand-alone audio recordings by the courts.