{
  "batch": "160-which-states-law-applies-across-a-border-or-after-a-move",
  "articles": [
    {
      "id": "learn_r160_which_states_law_applies_across_a_border_or_after_a_move_160_fla_jurisdiction_conduct_or_result",
      "category": "Safety",
      "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Florida: Criminal jurisdiction when an offense element occurs in-state",
      "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] Florida asserts criminal jurisdiction over a person acting wholly outside the state if any conduct or result that is an element of the offense occurs within Florida.",
      "body": "Florida asserts criminal jurisdiction over a person acting wholly outside the state if any conduct or result that is an element of the offense occurs within Florida.\n\nWhat Florida Legislature (Online Sunshine) actually says:\n\n“(1) A person is subject to prosecution in this state for an offense that she or he commits, while either within or outside the state, by her or his own conduct or that of another for which the person is legally accountable, if: (a) The offense is committed wholly or partly within the state; ... (2) An offense is committed partly within this state if either the conduct that is an element of the offense or the result that is an element, occurs within the state.”\n\nNote: F.S. 910.005(1) and (2).",
      "source_type": "official",
      "source_link": "https://leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0900-0999%2F0910%2FSections%2F0910.005.html",
      "last_verified": "2026-09-07",
      "reliability": "VERIFIED RULE",
      "source_tier": "A",
      "source_publisher": "Florida Legislature (Online Sunshine)",
      "evidence_quote": "(1) A person is subject to prosecution in this state for an offense that she or he commits, while either within or outside the state, by her or his own conduct or that of another for which the person is legally accountable, if: (a) The offense is committed wholly or partly within the state; ... (2) An offense is committed partly within this state if either the conduct that is an element of the offense or the result that is an element, occurs within the state.",
      "volatility": "low",
      "from_batch": "160-which-states-law-applies-across-a-border-or-after-a-move",
      "subject": "Florida",
      "topic": "Criminal jurisdiction when an offense element occurs in-state",
      "applies_to_country": "US",
      "applies_to_scope": "Florida (F.S. 910.005)",
      "tags": {
        "lane": "any",
        "stage": "any",
        "region": [
          "us-fl"
        ],
        "platform": "any",
        "topic": [
          "unclassified"
        ],
        "explicitness": "any"
      },
      "verification": {
        "status": "unverified",
        "label": "Unverified - being checked",
        "reasons": [
          "thin_body",
          "source_unverifiable:fetch_failed:budget"
        ],
        "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z"
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "learn_r160_which_states_law_applies_across_a_border_or_after_a_move_160_fla_jurisdiction_party_in_state",
      "category": "Safety",
      "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Florida: Whether presence of one party in-state is enough for jurisdiction",
      "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] Under Florida law an offense is deemed committed partly within the state if either a conduct element or a result element occurs within the state.",
      "body": "Under Florida law an offense is deemed committed partly within the state if either a conduct element or a result element occurs within the state.\n\nWhat Florida Legislature (Online Sunshine) actually says:\n\n“(2) An offense is committed partly within this state if either the conduct that is an element of the offense or the result that is an element, occurs within the state.”\n\nNote: The statute states the test; application to a given recording offence requires examining that offence's elements. Not stated whether mere presence of one party suffices.",
      "source_type": "official",
      "source_link": "https://leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0900-0999%2F0910%2FSections%2F0910.005.html",
      "last_verified": "2026-09-07",
      "reliability": "VERIFIED RULE",
      "source_tier": "A",
      "source_publisher": "Florida Legislature (Online Sunshine)",
      "evidence_quote": "(2) An offense is committed partly within this state if either the conduct that is an element of the offense or the result that is an element, occurs within the state.",
      "volatility": "low",
      "from_batch": "160-which-states-law-applies-across-a-border-or-after-a-move",
      "subject": "Florida",
      "topic": "Whether presence of one party in-state is enough for jurisdiction",
      "applies_to_country": "US",
      "applies_to_scope": "Florida (F.S. 910.005(2))",
      "tags": {
        "lane": "any",
        "stage": "any",
        "region": [
          "us-fl"
        ],
        "platform": "any",
        "topic": [
          "unclassified"
        ],
        "explicitness": "any"
      },
      "verification": {
        "status": "unverified",
        "label": "Unverified - being checked",
        "reasons": [
          "legal_fetch_over_cap"
        ],
        "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z"
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "learn_r160_which_states_law_applies_across_a_border_or_after_a_move_160_fla_jurisdiction_outside_to_inside_trial",
      "category": "Safety",
      "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Trial county when an offense commenced outside the state is consummated in Florida",
      "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] An offense commenced outside Florida but consummated in Florida is tried in the county where it is consummated.",
      "body": "An offense commenced outside Florida but consummated in Florida is tried in the county where it is consummated.\n\nWhat Florida Senate actually says:\n\n“910.01 Offenses committed partly in this state.—(1) If the commission of an offense commenced outside the state is consummated within this state, the offender shall be tried in the county where the offense is consummated.(2) If the commission of an offense commenced within this state is consummated outside the state, the offender shall be tried in the county where the offense is commenced.”\n\nNote: The reciprocal rule in subsection (2) keeps an in-state-initiated offense with out-of-state consummation tried in Florida's county of commencement.",
      "source_type": "official",
      "source_link": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2026/0910.01",
      "last_verified": "2026-09-07",
      "reliability": "STRONG PRACTICE",
      "source_tier": "A",
      "source_publisher": "Florida Senate",
      "evidence_quote": "910.01 Offenses committed partly in this state.—(1) If the commission of an offense commenced outside the state is consummated within this state, the offender shall be tried in the county where the offense is consummated.(2) If the commission of an offense commenced within this state is consummated outside the state, the offender shall be tried in the county where the offense is commenced.",
      "volatility": "low",
      "from_batch": "160-which-states-law-applies-across-a-border-or-after-a-move",
      "subject": "Florida",
      "topic": "Trial county when an offense commenced outside the state is consummated in Florida",
      "applies_to_country": "US",
      "applies_to_scope": "Florida (F.S. 910.01)",
      "tags": {
        "lane": "any",
        "stage": "any",
        "region": [
          "us-fl"
        ],
        "platform": "any",
        "topic": [
          "unclassified"
        ],
        "explicitness": "any"
      },
      "verification": {
        "status": "unverified",
        "label": "Unverified - being checked",
        "reasons": [
          "legal_fetch_over_cap"
        ],
        "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z"
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "learn_r160_which_states_law_applies_across_a_border_or_after_a_move_160_idaho_jurisdiction_prosecutable_act_in_state",
      "category": "Safety",
      "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Idaho requires a prosecutable act committed in-state (jurisdiction requisit)",
      "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] Idaho asserts jurisdiction only where a prosecutable act was committed within the state, and that fact must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.",
      "body": "Idaho asserts jurisdiction only where a prosecutable act was committed within the state, and that fact must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.\n\nWhat Idaho State Legislature actually says:\n\n“(1) Jurisdiction – venue. Every person is liable to punishment by the laws of this state, for a public offense committed by him therein, except where it is by law cognizable exclusively in the courts of the United States. Evidence that a prosecutable act was committed within the state of Idaho is a jurisdictional requisite, and proof of such must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt.”\n\nNote: I.C. 19-301(1). Note the contrast: venue is nonjurisdictional and proved only by a preponderance (I.C. 19-301(2)).",
      "source_type": "official",
      "source_link": "https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title19/t19ch3/sect19-301/",
      "last_verified": "2026-09-07",
      "reliability": "VERIFIED RULE",
      "source_tier": "A",
      "source_publisher": "Idaho State Legislature",
      "evidence_quote": "(1) Jurisdiction – venue. Every person is liable to punishment by the laws of this state, for a public offense committed by him therein, except where it is by law cognizable exclusively in the courts of the United States. Evidence that a prosecutable act was committed within the state of Idaho is a jurisdictional requisite, and proof of such must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt.",
      "volatility": "low",
      "from_batch": "160-which-states-law-applies-across-a-border-or-after-a-move",
      "subject": "Idaho",
      "topic": "Idaho requires a prosecutable act committed in-state (jurisdiction requisit)",
      "applies_to_country": "US",
      "applies_to_scope": "Idaho (I.C. 19-301)",
      "tags": {
        "lane": "any",
        "stage": "any",
        "region": [
          "us-id"
        ],
        "platform": "any",
        "topic": [
          "unclassified"
        ],
        "explicitness": "any"
      },
      "verification": {
        "status": "unverified",
        "label": "Unverified - being checked",
        "reasons": [
          "legal_fetch_over_cap"
        ],
        "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z"
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "learn_r160_which_states_law_applies_across_a_border_or_after_a_move_160_idaho_jurisdiction_consummated_in_state",
      "category": "Safety",
      "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Jurisdiction when an offense commenced outside Idaho is consummated in Idaho",
      "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] An offense commenced outside Idaho but consummated within its boundaries subjects the defendant to Idaho punishment even if the defendant was outside Idaho when the offense was charged as commenced.",
      "body": "An offense commenced outside Idaho but consummated within its boundaries subjects the defendant to Idaho punishment even if the defendant was outside Idaho when the offense was charged as commenced.\n\nWhat Idaho State Legislature actually says:\n\n“19-302. Offenses commenced without the state. When the commission of a public offense, commenced without the state is consummated within its boundaries, the defendant is liable to punishment therefor in this state, though he was out of the state at the time of the commission of the offense charged.”\n\nNote: I.C. 19-302. Capture of the out-of-state actor on consummation in Idaho.",
      "source_type": "official",
      "source_link": "https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title19/t19ch3/sect19-302/",
      "last_verified": "2026-09-07",
      "reliability": "VERIFIED RULE",
      "source_tier": "A",
      "source_publisher": "Idaho State Legislature",
      "evidence_quote": "19-302. Offenses commenced without the state. When the commission of a public offense, commenced without the state is consummated within its boundaries, the defendant is liable to punishment therefor in this state, though he was out of the state at the time of the commission of the offense charged.",
      "volatility": "low",
      "from_batch": "160-which-states-law-applies-across-a-border-or-after-a-move",
      "subject": "Idaho",
      "topic": "Jurisdiction when an offense commenced outside Idaho is consummated in Idaho",
      "applies_to_country": "US",
      "applies_to_scope": "Idaho (I.C. 19-302)",
      "tags": {
        "lane": "any",
        "stage": "any",
        "region": [
          "us-id"
        ],
        "platform": "any",
        "topic": [
          "unclassified"
        ],
        "explicitness": "any"
      },
      "verification": {
        "status": "unverified",
        "label": "Unverified - being checked",
        "reasons": [
          "legal_fetch_over_cap"
        ],
        "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z"
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "learn_r160_which_states_law_applies_across_a_border_or_after_a_move_160_idaho_jurisdiction_multi_county",
      "category": "Safety",
      "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Idaho venue when an offense spans more than one county",
      "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] When an Idaho public offense is committed in part in more than one county, venue lies in either county.",
      "body": "When an Idaho public offense is committed in part in more than one county, venue lies in either county.\n\nWhat Idaho State Legislature actually says:\n\n“(1) When a public offense is committed in part in one (1) county and in part in another, or the acts or effects thereof constituting or requisite to the consummation of the offense occur in two (2) or more counties, the venue is in either county.”\n\nNote: I.C. 19-304(1). Venue (not jurisdiction) provision.",
      "source_type": "official",
      "source_link": "https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title19/t19ch3/sect19-304/",
      "last_verified": "2026-09-07",
      "reliability": "VERIFIED RULE",
      "source_tier": "A",
      "source_publisher": "Idaho State Legislature",
      "evidence_quote": "(1) When a public offense is committed in part in one (1) county and in part in another, or the acts or effects thereof constituting or requisite to the consummation of the offense occur in two (2) or more counties, the venue is in either county.",
      "volatility": "low",
      "from_batch": "160-which-states-law-applies-across-a-border-or-after-a-move",
      "subject": "Idaho",
      "topic": "Idaho venue when an offense spans more than one county",
      "applies_to_country": "US",
      "applies_to_scope": "Idaho (I.C. 19-304)",
      "tags": {
        "lane": "any",
        "stage": "any",
        "region": [
          "us-id"
        ],
        "platform": "any",
        "topic": [
          "unclassified"
        ],
        "explicitness": "any"
      },
      "verification": {
        "status": "unverified",
        "label": "Unverified - being checked",
        "reasons": [
          "legal_fetch_over_cap"
        ],
        "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z"
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "learn_r160_which_states_law_applies_across_a_border_or_after_a_move_160_idaho_tax_resident_test",
      "category": "Safety",
      "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Definition of Idaho income-tax resident",
      "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] Idaho defines an income-tax resident as anyone domiciled in Idaho for the entire taxable year or who maintains a place of abode in Idaho the entire year and spends more than 270 days of the year in the state.",
      "body": "Idaho defines an income-tax resident as anyone domiciled in Idaho for the entire taxable year or who maintains a place of abode in Idaho the entire year and spends more than 270 days of the year in the state.\n\nWhat Idaho State Legislature actually says:\n\n“(1) The term \"resident,\" for income tax purposes, means any individual who: (a) Is domiciled in the state of Idaho for the entire taxable year; or (b) Maintains a place of abode in this state for the entire taxable year and spends in the aggregate more than two hundred seventy (270) days of the taxable year in this state. Presence within the state for any part of a calendar day shall constitute a day spent in the state unless the individual can show that his presence in the state for that day was for a temporary or transitory purpose.”\n\nNote: I.C. 63-3013(1).",
      "source_type": "official",
      "source_link": "https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title63/t63ch30/sect63-3013/",
      "last_verified": "2026-09-07",
      "reliability": "VERIFIED RULE",
      "source_tier": "A",
      "source_publisher": "Idaho State Legislature",
      "evidence_quote": "(1) The term \"resident,\" for income tax purposes, means any individual who: (a) Is domiciled in the state of Idaho for the entire taxable year; or (b) Maintains a place of abode in this state for the entire taxable year and spends in the aggregate more than two hundred seventy (270) days of the taxable year in this state. Presence within the state for any part of a calendar day shall constitute a day spent in the state unless the individual can show that his presence in the state for that day was for a temporary or transitory purpose.",
      "volatility": "low",
      "from_batch": "160-which-states-law-applies-across-a-border-or-after-a-move",
      "subject": "Idaho",
      "topic": "Definition of Idaho income-tax resident",
      "applies_to_country": "US",
      "applies_to_scope": "Idaho (I.C. 63-3013(1))",
      "tags": {
        "lane": "any",
        "stage": "any",
        "region": [
          "us-id"
        ],
        "platform": "any",
        "topic": [
          "unclassified"
        ],
        "explicitness": "any"
      },
      "verification": {
        "status": "unverified",
        "label": "Unverified - being checked",
        "reasons": [
          "thin_body",
          "source_unverifiable:fetch_failed:budget"
        ],
        "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z"
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "learn_r160_which_states_law_applies_across_a_border_or_after_a_move_160_idaho_tax_part_year_move",
      "category": "Safety",
      "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Part-year resident status on moving into or out of Idaho",
      "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] A person who moves into or out of Idaho during the tax year is a part-year resident, taxed on all income received while an Idaho resident plus Idaho-source income.",
      "body": "A person who moves into or out of Idaho during the tax year is a part-year resident, taxed on all income received while an Idaho resident plus Idaho-source income.\n\nWhat Idaho State Tax Commission actually says:\n\n“Part-year resident | Do either of these: Are a resident of Idaho, and you changed your domicile either to or from Idaho during the tax year. Are a resident of Idaho, and you lived in Idaho more than one day during the tax year. This means you have a home in Idaho and are here for more than a temporary reason. | Idaho taxes: All the income you receive while living in Idaho. Any income you receive from Idaho sources when not living in Idaho.”\n\nNote: From the 'Individual Income Tax Basics' guidance; the quoted material is the part-year resident row. The move date within the tax year sets the split.",
      "source_type": "official",
      "source_link": "https://tax.idaho.gov/taxes/income-tax/individual-income/online-guide/guidance-for-specific-circumstances-of-residency/",
      "last_verified": "2026-09-07",
      "reliability": "STRONG PRACTICE",
      "source_tier": "A",
      "source_publisher": "Idaho State Tax Commission",
      "evidence_quote": "Part-year resident | Do either of these: Are a resident of Idaho, and you changed your domicile either to or from Idaho during the tax year. Are a resident of Idaho, and you lived in Idaho more than one day during the tax year. This means you have a home in Idaho and are here for more than a temporary reason. | Idaho taxes: All the income you receive while living in Idaho. Any income you receive from Idaho sources when not living in Idaho.",
      "volatility": "low",
      "from_batch": "160-which-states-law-applies-across-a-border-or-after-a-move",
      "subject": "Idaho",
      "topic": "Part-year resident status on moving into or out of Idaho",
      "applies_to_country": "US",
      "applies_to_scope": "Idaho (Idaho State Tax Commission guide; Form 43)",
      "tags": {
        "lane": "any",
        "stage": "any",
        "region": [
          "us-id"
        ],
        "platform": "any",
        "topic": [
          "unclassified"
        ],
        "explicitness": "any"
      },
      "verification": {
        "status": "unverified",
        "label": "Unverified - being checked",
        "reasons": [
          "legal_fetch_over_cap"
        ],
        "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z"
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "learn_r160_which_states_law_applies_across_a_border_or_after_a_move_160_idaho_tax_445day",
      "category": "Safety",
      "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Idaho 445-day absence exception to resident status",
      "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] An individual domiciled in Idaho may be treated as a nonresident (part-year) if absent from Idaho at least 445 days in a 15-month period under specified conditions.",
      "body": "An individual domiciled in Idaho may be treated as a nonresident (part-year) if absent from Idaho at least 445 days in a 15-month period under specified conditions.\n\nWhat Idaho State Legislature actually says:\n\n“(2) An individual shall not be considered a resident, but may be considered a part-year resident, during a period of absence from this state described as follows: (a) The period begins with an individual leaving this state if the individual is absent from this state for at least four hundred forty-five (445) days in the first fifteen (15) months.”\n\nNote: I.C. 63-3013(2)(a). Relevant to a move out of Idaho: departure gives part-year status for that tax year.",
      "source_type": "official",
      "source_link": "https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title63/t63ch30/sect63-3013/",
      "last_verified": "2026-09-07",
      "reliability": "VERIFIED RULE",
      "source_tier": "A",
      "source_publisher": "Idaho State Legislature",
      "evidence_quote": "(2) An individual shall not be considered a resident, but may be considered a part-year resident, during a period of absence from this state described as follows: (a) The period begins with an individual leaving this state if the individual is absent from this state for at least four hundred forty-five (445) days in the first fifteen (15) months.",
      "volatility": "low",
      "from_batch": "160-which-states-law-applies-across-a-border-or-after-a-move",
      "subject": "Idaho",
      "topic": "Idaho 445-day absence exception to resident status",
      "applies_to_country": "US",
      "applies_to_scope": "Idaho (I.C. 63-3013(2); Idaho State Tax Commission guidance)",
      "tags": {
        "lane": "any",
        "stage": "any",
        "region": [
          "us-id"
        ],
        "platform": "any",
        "topic": [
          "unclassified"
        ],
        "explicitness": "any"
      },
      "verification": {
        "status": "unverified",
        "label": "Unverified - being checked",
        "reasons": [
          "legal_fetch_over_cap"
        ],
        "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z"
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "learn_r160_which_states_law_applies_across_a_border_or_after_a_move_160_fla_move_driver_license",
      "category": "Safety",
      "title": "[Unverified - being checked] New Florida resident driver licence requirement and timing",
      "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] A nonresident who begins employment, a trade, profession, occupation, or public schooling in Florida must obtain a Florida driver licence within 30 days, and their spouse or dependent child must also obtain one within that period.",
      "body": "A nonresident who begins employment, a trade, profession, occupation, or public schooling in Florida must obtain a Florida driver licence within 30 days, and their spouse or dependent child must also obtain one within that period.\n\nWhat Florida Senate actually says:\n\n“(1) In each case in which a nonresident, except a nonresident migrant or seasonal farm worker as defined in s. 316.003, accepts employment or engages in a trade, profession, or occupation in this state or enters his or her children to be educated in the public schools of this state, such nonresident shall, within 30 days after beginning such employment or education, be required to obtain a Florida driver license if such nonresident operates a motor vehicle on the highways of this state. The spouse or dependent child of such nonresident shall also be required to obtain a Florida driver license within that 30-day period before operating a motor vehicle on the highways of this state.”\n\nNote: F.S. 322.031(1). Applies to license operation of a vehicle on Florida highways after employment/schooling triggers.",
      "source_type": "official",
      "source_link": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2026/0322.031",
      "last_verified": "2026-09-07",
      "reliability": "STRONG PRACTICE",
      "source_tier": "A",
      "source_publisher": "Florida Senate",
      "evidence_quote": "(1) In each case in which a nonresident, except a nonresident migrant or seasonal farm worker as defined in s. 316.003, accepts employment or engages in a trade, profession, or occupation in this state or enters his or her children to be educated in the public schools of this state, such nonresident shall, within 30 days after beginning such employment or education, be required to obtain a Florida driver license if such nonresident operates a motor vehicle on the highways of this state. The spouse or dependent child of such nonresident shall also be required to obtain a Florida driver license within that 30-day period before operating a motor vehicle on the highways of this state.",
      "volatility": "low",
      "from_batch": "160-which-states-law-applies-across-a-border-or-after-a-move",
      "subject": "Florida",
      "topic": "New Florida resident driver licence requirement and timing",
      "applies_to_country": "US",
      "applies_to_scope": "Florida (F.S. 322.031)",
      "tags": {
        "lane": "any",
        "stage": "any",
        "region": [
          "us-fl"
        ],
        "platform": "any",
        "topic": [
          "unclassified"
        ],
        "explicitness": "any"
      },
      "verification": {
        "status": "unverified",
        "label": "Unverified - being checked",
        "reasons": [
          "legal_fetch_over_cap"
        ],
        "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z"
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "learn_r160_which_states_law_applies_across_a_border_or_after_a_move_160_fla_move_domicile_declaration",
      "category": "Safety",
      "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Florida Declaration of Domicile filing statute",
      "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] A person who has established Florida domicile may evidence it by filing a sworn statement with the circuit court clerk of their Florida county declaring they reside in and maintain a permanent home there.",
      "body": "A person who has established Florida domicile may evidence it by filing a sworn statement with the circuit court clerk of their Florida county declaring they reside in and maintain a permanent home there.\n\nWhat Florida Legislature (Online Sunshine) actually says:\n\n“222.17 Manifesting and evidencing domicile in Florida.—(1) Any person who shall have established a domicile in this state may manifest and evidence the same by filing in the office of the clerk of the circuit court for the county in which the said person shall reside, a sworn statement showing that he or she resides in and maintains a place of abode in that county which he or she recognizes and intends to maintain as his or her permanent home.”\n\nNote: F.S. 222.17(1). The declaration is evidence of intent; the statute lists the contents in (2) and (3).",
      "source_type": "official",
      "source_link": "https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0200-0299%2F0222%2FSections%2F0222.17.html",
      "last_verified": "2026-09-07",
      "reliability": "VERIFIED RULE",
      "source_tier": "A",
      "source_publisher": "Florida Legislature (Online Sunshine)",
      "evidence_quote": "222.17 Manifesting and evidencing domicile in Florida.—(1) Any person who shall have established a domicile in this state may manifest and evidence the same by filing in the office of the clerk of the circuit court for the county in which the said person shall reside, a sworn statement showing that he or she resides in and maintains a place of abode in that county which he or she recognizes and intends to maintain as his or her permanent home.",
      "volatility": "low",
      "from_batch": "160-which-states-law-applies-across-a-border-or-after-a-move",
      "subject": "Florida",
      "topic": "Florida Declaration of Domicile filing statute",
      "applies_to_country": "US",
      "applies_to_scope": "Florida (F.S. 222.17)",
      "tags": {
        "lane": "any",
        "stage": "any",
        "region": [
          "us-fl"
        ],
        "platform": "any",
        "topic": [
          "unclassified"
        ],
        "explicitness": "any"
      },
      "verification": {
        "status": "unverified",
        "label": "Unverified - being checked",
        "reasons": [
          "legal_fetch_over_cap"
        ],
        "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z"
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "learn_r160_which_states_law_applies_across_a_border_or_after_a_move_160_idaho_biz_change_registered_agent",
      "category": "Safety",
      "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Changing a registered agent or registered office for an Idaho business entity",
      "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] An Idaho represented entity changes its registered agent or registered office by delivering to the secretary of state a signed statement of change stating the entity name and the new information.",
      "body": "An Idaho represented entity changes its registered agent or registered office by delivering to the secretary of state a signed statement of change stating the entity name and the new information.\n\nWhat Idaho State Legislature actually says:\n\n“30-21-407. CHANGE OF REGISTERED AGENT BY ENTITY. (a) A represented entity may change the information on file under section 30-21-404(a), Idaho Code, by delivering to the secretary of state for filing a statement of change signed by the entity which states: (1) The name of the entity; and (2) The information that is to be in effect as a result of the filing of the statement of change.”\n\nNote: I.C. 30-21-407(a). Mismatched agent changes after 30 days allow secretary-of-state termination of a foreign entity's registration (I.C. 30-21-511(a)(3)) unless cured.",
      "source_type": "official",
      "source_link": "https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title30/t30ch21/sect30-21-407/",
      "last_verified": "2026-09-07",
      "reliability": "VERIFIED RULE",
      "source_tier": "A",
      "source_publisher": "Idaho State Legislature",
      "evidence_quote": "30-21-407. CHANGE OF REGISTERED AGENT BY ENTITY. (a) A represented entity may change the information on file under section 30-21-404(a), Idaho Code, by delivering to the secretary of state for filing a statement of change signed by the entity which states: (1) The name of the entity; and (2) The information that is to be in effect as a result of the filing of the statement of change.",
      "volatility": "low",
      "from_batch": "160-which-states-law-applies-across-a-border-or-after-a-move",
      "subject": "Idaho",
      "topic": "Changing a registered agent or registered office for an Idaho business entity",
      "applies_to_country": "US",
      "applies_to_scope": "Idaho (I.C. 30-21-407; Idaho Secretary of State)",
      "tags": {
        "lane": "any",
        "stage": "any",
        "region": [
          "us-id"
        ],
        "platform": "any",
        "topic": [
          "unclassified"
        ],
        "explicitness": "any"
      },
      "verification": {
        "status": "unverified",
        "label": "Unverified - being checked",
        "reasons": [
          "legal_fetch_over_cap"
        ],
        "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z"
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "learn_r160_which_states_law_applies_across_a_border_or_after_a_move_160_idaho_biz_agent_change_30day",
      "category": "Safety",
      "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Idaho: Deadline to file a registered-agent change after the agent's name or address changes",
      "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] A registered foreign entity that fails to file a statement of change of registered agent within 30 days after a change occurs in the agent's name or address may have its Idaho registration terminated by the secretary of state.",
      "body": "A registered foreign entity that fails to file a statement of change of registered agent within 30 days after a change occurs in the agent's name or address may have its Idaho registration terminated by the secretary of state.\n\nWhat Idaho State Legislature actually says:\n\n“(a) The secretary of state may terminate the registration of a registered foreign entity in the manner provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section if the entity does not: ... (3) Deliver to the secretary of state for filing a statement of change under section 30-21-407, Idaho Code, not later than thirty (30) days after a change occurs in the name or address of the entity's registered agent.”\n\nNote: I.C. 30-21-511(a)(3). Directly relevant to relocating a business: the 30-day clock runs from the agent change. The registered agent wording from the Secretary of State FAQ was verified at sos.idaho.gov.",
      "source_type": "official",
      "source_link": "https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title30/t30ch21/sect30-21-511/",
      "last_verified": "2026-09-07",
      "reliability": "VERIFIED RULE",
      "source_tier": "A",
      "source_publisher": "Idaho State Legislature",
      "evidence_quote": "(a) The secretary of state may terminate the registration of a registered foreign entity in the manner provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section if the entity does not: ... (3) Deliver to the secretary of state for filing a statement of change under section 30-21-407, Idaho Code, not later than thirty (30) days after a change occurs in the name or address of the entity's registered agent.",
      "volatility": "low",
      "from_batch": "160-which-states-law-applies-across-a-border-or-after-a-move",
      "subject": "Idaho",
      "topic": "Deadline to file a registered-agent change after the agent's name or address changes",
      "applies_to_country": "US",
      "applies_to_scope": "Idaho (I.C. 30-21-511)",
      "tags": {
        "lane": "any",
        "stage": "any",
        "region": [
          "us-id"
        ],
        "platform": "any",
        "topic": [
          "unclassified"
        ],
        "explicitness": "any"
      },
      "verification": {
        "status": "unverified",
        "label": "Unverified - being checked",
        "reasons": [
          "legal_fetch_over_cap"
        ],
        "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z"
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "learn_r160_which_states_law_applies_across_a_border_or_after_a_move_160_fla_jurisdiction_internet_venue",
      "category": "Safety",
      "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Florida: Venue for crimes facilitated by communication systems including the Internet",
      "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] A person charged with a crime facilitated by mail, telephone, newspaper, radio, television, Internet, or other electronic data communication may be tried in the county where the dissemination originated, where the dissemination was made, or where any act necessary to consummate the offense occurred; for Internet communications the communication is deemed made in every county within the state.",
      "body": "A person charged with a crime facilitated by mail, telephone, newspaper, radio, television, Internet, or other electronic data communication may be tried in the county where the dissemination originated, where the dissemination was made, or where any act necessary to consummate the offense occurred; for Internet communications the communication is deemed made in every county within the state.\n\nWhat Florida Legislature (Online Sunshine) actually says:\n\n“910.15 Crimes facilitated by communication systems.—(1) A person charged with committing a crime facilitated by communication through use of the mail, telephone, or newspaper or by radio, television, Internet, or another means of electronic data communication may be tried in the county in which the dissemination originated, in which the dissemination was made, or in which any act necessary to consummate the offense occurred. (2) For purposes of this section, if a communication is made by or made available through the use of the Internet, the communication was made in every county within the state.”\n\nNote: F.S. 910.15. This is a venue (county) rule, not a state-jurisdiction rule; it applies once Florida has jurisdiction. Relevant to content sold/transmitted into a state via the Internet.",
      "source_type": "official",
      "source_link": "https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0900-0999%2F0910%2F0910.html",
      "last_verified": "2026-09-07",
      "reliability": "VERIFIED RULE",
      "source_tier": "A",
      "source_publisher": "Florida Legislature (Online Sunshine)",
      "evidence_quote": "910.15 Crimes facilitated by communication systems.—(1) A person charged with committing a crime facilitated by communication through use of the mail, telephone, or newspaper or by radio, television, Internet, or another means of electronic data communication may be tried in the county in which the dissemination originated, in which the dissemination was made, or in which any act necessary to consummate the offense occurred. (2) For purposes of this section, if a communication is made by or made available through the use of the Internet, the communication was made in every county within the state.",
      "volatility": "low",
      "from_batch": "160-which-states-law-applies-across-a-border-or-after-a-move",
      "subject": "Florida",
      "topic": "Venue for crimes facilitated by communication systems including the Internet",
      "applies_to_country": "US",
      "applies_to_scope": "Florida (F.S. 910.15)",
      "tags": {
        "lane": "any",
        "stage": "any",
        "region": [
          "us-fl"
        ],
        "platform": "any",
        "topic": [
          "unclassified"
        ],
        "explicitness": "any"
      },
      "verification": {
        "status": "unverified",
        "label": "Unverified - being checked",
        "reasons": [
          "legal_fetch_over_cap"
        ],
        "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z"
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "learn_r160_which_states_law_applies_across_a_border_or_after_a_move_160_fla_crossborder_recording_longarm",
      "category": "Safety",
      "title": "Whether an out-of-state recording by a party in another state creates Florida personal jurisdiction",
      "summary": "A Florida court may not exercise long-arm personal jurisdiction under section 48.193(1)(b) over a nonresident defendant solely because the defendant recorded a telephone call with a person in Florida while the defendant was physically outside Florida.",
      "body": "A Florida court may not exercise long-arm personal jurisdiction under section 48.193(1)(b) over a nonresident defendant solely because the defendant recorded a telephone call with a person in Florida while the defendant was physically outside Florida.\n\nWhat Fla. 2d DCA (op. reported at 996 So.2d 246; page reproduced by FLexlaw) actually says:\n\n“we now conclude that a Florida statute that creates a private cause of action for the nonconsensual interception of a communication originating within Florida cannot transform a defendant's out-of-state act of recording that communication, standing alone, into a 'tortious act within this state' for jurisdictional purposes.”\n\nNote: The opinion also notes the interception was not illegal in Nebraska or under federal law (18 U.S.C. s. 2511(2)(c)), and Florida's Act requires all-party consent. This is a civil personal-jurisdiction holding, not a criminal-jurisdiction holding.",
      "source_type": "official",
      "source_link": "https://flexlaw.co/case/1001424/2008-neely-kountze-v-kountze-996-so-2d-246",
      "last_verified": "2026-09-07",
      "reliability": "STRONG PRACTICE",
      "source_tier": "A",
      "source_publisher": "Fla. 2d DCA (op. reported at 996 So.2d 246; page reproduced by FLexlaw)",
      "evidence_quote": "we now conclude that a Florida statute that creates a private cause of action for the nonconsensual interception of a communication originating within Florida cannot transform a defendant's out-of-state act of recording that communication, standing alone, into a 'tortious act within this state' for jurisdictional purposes.",
      "volatility": "low",
      "from_batch": "160-which-states-law-applies-across-a-border-or-after-a-move",
      "subject": "Florida",
      "topic": "Whether an out-of-state recording by a party in another state creates Florida personal jurisdiction",
      "applies_to_country": "US",
      "applies_to_scope": "Florida (Neely Kountze v. Kountze, 996 So.2d 246, Fla. 2d DCA 2008)",
      "tags": {
        "lane": "any",
        "stage": "any",
        "region": [
          "us-fl"
        ],
        "platform": "any",
        "topic": [
          "unclassified"
        ],
        "explicitness": "any"
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "learn_r160_which_states_law_applies_across_a_border_or_after_a_move_160_fla_crossborder_recording_note",
      "category": "Safety",
      "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Recorded call direction into Florida; intentional-tort long-arm cases distinguished",
      "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] The Florida court distinguished cases where a conversation directed into Florida over an interstate telephone call was defamatory or fraudulent, where long-arm jurisdiction under 48.193(1)(b) has been upheld, from an out-of-state recording of a call with a Florida party.",
      "body": "The Florida court distinguished cases where a conversation directed into Florida over an interstate telephone call was defamatory or fraudulent, where long-arm jurisdiction under 48.193(1)(b) has been upheld, from an out-of-state recording of a call with a Florida party.\n\nWhat Fla. 2d DCA (996 So.2d 246; page reproduced by FLexlaw) actually says:\n\n“These cases have generally been based upon common law theories and actions that a reasonable person outside the State of Florida would expect to create a cause of action in Florida. ... Under the circumstances, we follow the general rule that the existence of an injury within Florida, standing alone, is insufficient to support jurisdiction over an out-of-state tortfeasor.”\n\nNote: Recorded as the court's own statement. Whether a sale/transmission 'directed into' a state creates jurisdiction depends on the tort theory and remains case-specific.",
      "source_type": "official",
      "source_link": "https://flexlaw.co/case/1001424/2008-neely-kountze-v-kountze-996-so-2d-246",
      "last_verified": "2026-09-07",
      "reliability": "STRONG PRACTICE",
      "source_tier": "A",
      "source_publisher": "Fla. 2d DCA (996 So.2d 246; page reproduced by FLexlaw)",
      "evidence_quote": "These cases have generally been based upon common law theories and actions that a reasonable person outside the State of Florida would expect to create a cause of action in Florida. ... Under the circumstances, we follow the general rule that the existence of an injury within Florida, standing alone, is insufficient to support jurisdiction over an out-of-state tortfeasor.",
      "volatility": "low",
      "from_batch": "160-which-states-law-applies-across-a-border-or-after-a-move",
      "subject": "Florida",
      "topic": "Recorded call direction into Florida; intentional-tort long-arm cases distinguished",
      "applies_to_country": "US",
      "applies_to_scope": "Florida (Neely Kountze v. Kountze, 996 So.2d 246)",
      "tags": {
        "lane": "any",
        "stage": "any",
        "region": [
          "us-fl"
        ],
        "platform": "any",
        "topic": [
          "unclassified"
        ],
        "explicitness": "any"
      },
      "verification": {
        "status": "unverified",
        "label": "Unverified - being checked",
        "reasons": [
          "legal_fetch_over_cap"
        ],
        "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z"
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "learn_r160_which_states_law_applies_across_a_border_or_after_a_move_160_fla_biz_foreign_llc_authority",
      "category": "Safety",
      "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Foreign LLC must obtain a certificate of authority before transacting business in Florida",
      "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] A foreign limited liability company may not transact business in Florida until it obtains a certificate of authority from the Department of State, and the application must name a Florida registered agent and include a recent certificate of existence from the home state.",
      "body": "A foreign limited liability company may not transact business in Florida until it obtains a certificate of authority from the Department of State, and the application must name a Florida registered agent and include a recent certificate of existence from the home state.\n\nWhat Florida Legislature (Online Sunshine) actually says:\n\n“(1) A foreign limited liability company may not transact business in this state until it obtains a certificate of authority from the department. ... (d) The name and street address in this state of, and the written acceptance by, the foreign limited liability company's initial registered agent in this state.”\n\nNote: F.S. 605.0902(1), (2). 'Foreign' means formed in another US state; the analogous corporation provision is F.S. 607.1503.",
      "source_type": "official",
      "source_link": "https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0600-0699%2F0605%2FSections%2F0605.0902.html",
      "last_verified": "2026-09-07",
      "reliability": "VERIFIED RULE",
      "source_tier": "A",
      "source_publisher": "Florida Legislature (Online Sunshine)",
      "evidence_quote": "(1) A foreign limited liability company may not transact business in this state until it obtains a certificate of authority from the department. ... (d) The name and street address in this state of, and the written acceptance by, the foreign limited liability company's initial registered agent in this state.",
      "volatility": "low",
      "from_batch": "160-which-states-law-applies-across-a-border-or-after-a-move",
      "subject": "Florida",
      "topic": "Foreign LLC must obtain a certificate of authority before transacting business in Florida",
      "applies_to_country": "US",
      "applies_to_scope": "Florida (F.S. 605.0902)",
      "tags": {
        "lane": "any",
        "stage": "any",
        "region": [
          "us-fl"
        ],
        "platform": "any",
        "topic": [
          "unclassified"
        ],
        "explicitness": "any"
      },
      "verification": {
        "status": "unverified",
        "label": "Unverified - being checked",
        "reasons": [
          "legal_fetch_over_cap"
        ],
        "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z"
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "learn_r160_which_states_law_applies_across_a_border_or_after_a_move_160_fla_biz_registered_agent",
      "category": "Safety",
      "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Florida registered agent qualifications and continuous-maintenance duty",
      "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] Each LLP and each foreign LLC with a certificate of authority must continuously maintain a registered office and a registered agent in Florida, who must be a Florida-resident individual or a qualifying entity whose business address matches the registered office.",
      "body": "Each LLP and each foreign LLC with a certificate of authority must continuously maintain a registered office and a registered agent in Florida, who must be a Florida-resident individual or a qualifying entity whose business address matches the registered office.\n\nWhat Florida Senate actually says:\n\n“(1) Each limited liability company and each foreign limited liability company that has a certificate of authority under s. 605.0902 shall designate and continuously maintain in this state: ... (b) A registered agent, who must be: 1. An individual who resides in this state and whose business address is identical to the address of the registered office; ...”\n\nNote: F.S. 605.0113(1). This is the mirror of the Idaho registered-agent rule for the Florida side of a move.",
      "source_type": "official",
      "source_link": "https://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2025/605.0113",
      "last_verified": "2026-09-07",
      "reliability": "STRONG PRACTICE",
      "source_tier": "A",
      "source_publisher": "Florida Senate",
      "evidence_quote": "(1) Each limited liability company and each foreign limited liability company that has a certificate of authority under s. 605.0902 shall designate and continuously maintain in this state: ... (b) A registered agent, who must be: 1. An individual who resides in this state and whose business address is identical to the address of the registered office; ...",
      "volatility": "low",
      "from_batch": "160-which-states-law-applies-across-a-border-or-after-a-move",
      "subject": "Florida",
      "topic": "Florida registered agent qualifications and continuous-maintenance duty",
      "applies_to_country": "US",
      "applies_to_scope": "Florida (F.S. 605.0113)",
      "tags": {
        "lane": "any",
        "stage": "any",
        "region": [
          "us-fl"
        ],
        "platform": "any",
        "topic": [
          "unclassified"
        ],
        "explicitness": "any"
      },
      "verification": {
        "status": "unverified",
        "label": "Unverified - being checked",
        "reasons": [
          "legal_fetch_over_cap"
        ],
        "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z"
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "learn_r160_which_states_law_applies_across_a_border_or_after_a_move_160_fla_recording_all_party_consent",
      "category": "Safety",
      "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Consent required to record a conversation in Florida",
      "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] Florida permits interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication only when all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent (all-party consent state).",
      "body": "Florida permits interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication only when all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent (all-party consent state).\n\nWhat Florida Senate actually says:\n\n“(d) It is lawful under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09 for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception.”\n\nNote: Florida's all-party consent rule is the strictest of the three consent regimes relevant to a cross-border recording (Florida all-party; Idaho and federal one-party).",
      "source_type": "official",
      "source_link": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2026/0934.03",
      "last_verified": "2026-09-07",
      "reliability": "STRONG PRACTICE",
      "source_tier": "A",
      "source_publisher": "Florida Senate",
      "evidence_quote": "(d) It is lawful under this section and ss. 934.04-934.09 for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception.",
      "volatility": "low",
      "from_batch": "160-which-states-law-applies-across-a-border-or-after-a-move",
      "subject": "Florida",
      "topic": "Consent required to record a conversation in Florida",
      "applies_to_country": "US",
      "applies_to_scope": "Florida (F.S. 934.03(2)(d))",
      "tags": {
        "lane": "any",
        "stage": "any",
        "region": [
          "us-fl"
        ],
        "platform": "any",
        "topic": [
          "unclassified"
        ],
        "explicitness": "any"
      },
      "verification": {
        "status": "unverified",
        "label": "Unverified - being checked",
        "reasons": [
          "legal_fetch_over_cap"
        ],
        "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z"
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "learn_r160_which_states_law_applies_across_a_border_or_after_a_move_160_fed_recording_one_party_consent",
      "category": "Safety",
      "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Federal consent rule for recording a conversation (including interstate calls)",
      "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] Under federal law a person who is not acting under color of law may intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication if the person is a party to it or if one of the parties has given prior consent, unless the interception is for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act in violation of the federal or state constitution or laws.",
      "body": "Under federal law a person who is not acting under color of law may intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication if the person is a party to it or if one of the parties has given prior consent, unless the interception is for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act in violation of the federal or state constitution or laws.\n\nWhat Office of the Law Revision Counsel, US House of Representatives actually says:\n\n“(d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.”\n\nNote: The page states text contains laws in effect on September 6, 2026. Federal minimum protects one-party consent for interstate calls; a stricter state rule governs where its law applies.",
      "source_type": "official",
      "source_link": "https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section2511&num=0&edition=prelim",
      "last_verified": "2026-09-07",
      "reliability": "VERIFIED RULE",
      "source_tier": "A",
      "source_publisher": "Office of the Law Revision Counsel, US House of Representatives",
      "evidence_quote": "(d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.",
      "volatility": "low",
      "from_batch": "160-which-states-law-applies-across-a-border-or-after-a-move",
      "subject": "Federal",
      "topic": "Federal consent rule for recording a conversation (including interstate calls)",
      "applies_to_country": "US",
      "applies_to_scope": "18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d)",
      "tags": {
        "lane": "any",
        "stage": "any",
        "region": [
          "us"
        ],
        "platform": "any",
        "topic": [
          "unclassified"
        ],
        "explicitness": "any"
      },
      "verification": {
        "status": "unverified",
        "label": "Unverified - being checked",
        "reasons": [
          "legal_fetch_over_cap"
        ],
        "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z"
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "learn_r160_which_states_law_applies_across_a_border_or_after_a_move_160_idaho_recording_one_party_consent",
      "category": "Safety",
      "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Consent required to record a conversation in Idaho",
      "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] Idaho permits interception of a wire, electronic, or oral communication when one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent (one-party consent state).",
      "body": "Idaho permits interception of a wire, electronic, or oral communication when one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent (one-party consent state).\n\nWhat Idaho State Legislature actually says:\n\n“(d) It is lawful under this chapter for a person to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication when one (1) of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.”\n\nNote: Idaho's one-party rule matches the federal rule; the conflict an all-party state (e.g., Florida) raises is noted under could_not_verify because no tier A source states which standard controls a multi-state recording.",
      "source_type": "official",
      "source_link": "https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch67/sect18-6702/",
      "last_verified": "2026-09-07",
      "reliability": "VERIFIED RULE",
      "source_tier": "A",
      "source_publisher": "Idaho State Legislature",
      "evidence_quote": "(d) It is lawful under this chapter for a person to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication when one (1) of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.",
      "volatility": "low",
      "from_batch": "160-which-states-law-applies-across-a-border-or-after-a-move",
      "subject": "Idaho",
      "topic": "Consent required to record a conversation in Idaho",
      "applies_to_country": "US",
      "applies_to_scope": "Idaho (I.C. 18-6702(2)(d))",
      "tags": {
        "lane": "any",
        "stage": "any",
        "region": [
          "us-id"
        ],
        "platform": "any",
        "topic": [
          "unclassified"
        ],
        "explicitness": "any"
      },
      "verification": {
        "status": "unverified",
        "label": "Unverified - being checked",
        "reasons": [
          "legal_fetch_over_cap"
        ],
        "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z"
      }
    }
  ]
}