Opinion ID: 1608509
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Chancellor ordered Donna to stop recording phone conversations

Text: ¶ 30. Donna argues that the chancellor committed reversible error by ordering her to stop recording telephone conversations on her home telephone. Our Court has held that [i]f there is no prohibition against a spouse recording the conversations of another spouse within the marital home, then it follows that there should be no prohibition against a custodial parent recording the conversations of her children in the custodial home. Wright v. Stanley, 700 So.2d 274, 279 (Miss.1997). In Wright, Steve Wright argued that his former wife violated state law by tape-recording conversations of Steve and his children without their consent. Id. Our Court held that the Mississippi wiretap prohibition is almost identical to its federal counterpart. Id. at 280. We went on to find that the statute did not apply to Steve's former wife as she was a subscriber to a telephone operated by a communication common carrier which intercepted communications on her telephone. Id. Miss.Code Ann. § 41-29-535 (1993) provides: This article shall not apply to a person who is a subscriber to a telephone operated by a communication common carrier and who intercepts a communication on a telephone to which he subscribes. This article shall not apply to persons who are members of households of the subscriber who intercept communications on a telephone in the home of the subscriber. Miss.Code Ann. § 41-29-535 (1993). For this reason, this Court held that it is permissible to record what one could hear by picking up an extension phone. Id. at 279. ¶ 31. Based on this Court's precedent, the chancellor did err in ordering Donna to cease recording telephone conversations between Mark and Erin on her own telephone. However, due to our holding in part III(C), we find this error to be harmless.