Law Articles
To search for a particular term please use the following search box.
Law Topics
Click on a Topic to see available articles for that topic.
- Accidents
- Administrative Law
- Admiralty Law
- Articles
- Banking
- Bankruptcy Law
- Canon Law
- Case Law
- Civil Law
- Civil Rights
- Class Action Lawsuits
- Commercial Law
- Common Law
- Comparative Law
- Constitutional Law
- Consumer Law
- Contracts
- Corporate Law
- Courts
- Criminal Law
- Cyber Law
- Dispute Resolution
- Employment Law
- Equity
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Fiduciary Law
- General Practice
- Government
- Health Law
- Immigration Law
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Jurisprudence
- Labor Law
- Law and Economics
- Maritime Law
- Military Law
- Natural Law
- Personal Injury Law
- Philosophy of Law
- Property Law
- Public Law
- Real Estate Law
- Social Security
- Space Law
- Statutory Law
- Tax Law
- Traffic Law
- Trusts and Estates
- Water Law
Return to Law Dictionary Index
Can I tape in South Carolina?
S.C. Code Ann. �� 17-30-20, 17-30-30: It is a felony to intercept, disclose or use a wire, electronic or oral communication, unless it is done with the consent of at least one party to the communication.
Anyone whose communication has been unlawfully intercepted can recover actual damages in the amount of $500 per day of violation or $25,000, whichever is greater, and also can recover punitive damages, litigation costs and attorney fees. S.C. Code Ann. � 17-30-135.
Another South Carolina statute makes it a misdemeanor to eavesdrop or be a "Peeping Tom" on the premises of another. S.C. Code Ann. � 16-17-470. The term "Peeping Tom" includes using video or audio equipment to invade the privacy of others. However, the statute does not apply to bona fide news gathering activities. S.C. Code Ann. � 16-17-470(E)(5).
An intermediate appellate court held that the "Peeping Tom" statute was not applicable to newspaper reporters who attempted to overhear city council proceedings during a closed executive session because the reporters were on public property � not the premises of another � and did nothing "to enable them to overhear what was going on in the executive session other than to wait in the place provided as a waiting room for reporters and other members of the public." Neither the overhearing, nor the publication of anything overheard, violated the South Carolina statute. Herald Publishing Co. v. Barnwell, 351 S.E.2d 878 (S.C. App. 1986).