&gt; Come on now. If it&#x27;s inadmissible then it&#x27;s inadmissible. That&#x27;s not how the law works.<p>It really does depend alot on <i>who</i> is making the recordings and <i>for what purpose</i>. Incriminating evidence obtained illegally is always bared because the state is in the business of snooping into people&#x27;s business and needs strict boundaries set. Exculpatory evidence collected by the neighborhood busybody can be allowed even if the recordings were made illegally.<p>Of course, the Busybody&#x27;s lawyer may try and get it struck as admitting it would make any civil and&#x2F;or criminal trial harder to defend against, but that wouldn&#x27;t necessarily stop them from doing so. Makes it more complex if the Busybody is also the defendant, but then you&#x27;re trading admission of guilt for a lesser offense (illegal recording) to get you off from a higher offense, like anti-trust type stuff.<p>And that&#x27;s also assuming that the people you are recording decide they <i>want</i> to press charges.