In People v
Badalamenti, 2016 WL 1306683 (2016) the Court of Appeals held that the
definition of consent, in the context of “mechanical overhearing of a
conversation” pursuant to Penal Law § 250.00(2), includes vicarious consent, on
behalf of a minor child. It established a “narrowly tailored” test for
vicarious consent that requires a court to determine (1) that a parent or
guardian had a good faith belief that the recording of a conversation to which
the child was a party was necessary to serve the best interests of the child
and (2) that there was an objectively reasonable basis for this belief. The
Court cautioned that its holding should not be interpreted as a vehicle to attempt
to avoid criminal liability for the crime of eavesdropping when a parent acts
in bad faith and lacks an objectively reasonable belief that a recording is
necessary in order to serve the best interests of his or her minor child. Penal
Law § 250.05 and CPLR 4506 cannot be so easily circumvented. The procedural
vehicles of pretrial hearings must be used to determine the admissibility of
any recordings and will result in the suppression of any parent’s recording
that a court determines did not meet the narrowly tailored and objective test.
In making this admissibility determination, a court should consider the
relevant factors, which include, but are not limited to, the parent’s motive or
purpose for making the recording, the necessity of the recording to serve the
child’s best interests, and the child’s age, maturity, and ability to formulate
well-reasoned judgments of his or her own regarding best interests.