Landlord's Recording, Pretext Call, and Record Requests
A landlord client in Somerville hires you because he suspects a tenant is running a dog-grooming business out of a one-bedroom apartment in violation of the lease. The landlord wants three things: (1) record conversations with neighboring tenants without telling them, to see if they mention the business; (2) call the tenant while pretending to be a city water inspector to ask about water use and get her to admit the business; and (3) pull her criminal record and a photo from the Registry of Motor Vehicles. The landlord says, 'It's my property, so I can do what I want.' You have a standard one-week retainer. What legal issues arise, and what can you actually do?
1. Analyze the recording request under Massachusetts law.
Read the worked answer
Massachusetts is an all-party consent state for oral communications under the wiretap statute, M.G.L. c. 272, § 99. Secretly recording a conversation with neighbors about the tenant could violate the statute if the speakers have a reasonable expectation of privacy, even in a common area or on a phone. The landlord's ownership of the property does not create consent. You may conduct interviews and take notes, or record openly with all parties' consent on the record. In genuinely public places with no expectation of privacy, recording may be permissible, but the risk is high and the analysis is fact-specific. Best practice: no concealed recording. If you want an audio record, say you are recording and get consent from each participant.
2. Analyze the pretext call and the records requests.
Read the worked answer
Impersonating a city water inspector is misrepresentation and could violate Massachusetts fraud or impersonation statutes and federal pretexting rules; it also risks the landlord's case and your license. Do not make the call. A lawful approach is to interview the tenant openly, review lease terms, and document observable evidence from common areas without trespass. For criminal records, use only DCJIS-authorized CORI access for a permissible purpose; a landlord's curiosity is not enough, and CORI use is regulated. For the RMV photo and driving record, the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2721, limits disclosure to permissible uses; a landlord-tenant dispute may not qualify, and the request for a photo is especially risky. Require a lawful basis, consent, or subpoena.