Long story short ... Alejandro says they sent the edited footage to Gruden to get his thoughts and approval -- and Gruden sent a barrage of text messages back raving about the clip.
AB's camp took the positive comments as "consent" and decided to move forward with publishing it. If Alejandro's story is true, it cuts well for AB but doesn't really absolve him if Gruden decides he wants to move forward with prosecution.
Illegally recording a phone conversation in California carries a maximum 1-year jail sentence ... which could be a BIG problem for Antonio Brown if Jon Gruden wants to stick it to the WR.
Patriots fans might want to pay attention ...
Obviously, the issue here is the video Antonio posted on social media Friday night (when he was still a Raider) which contained pieces of a phone call between AB and Gruden.
It seems obvious Gruden didn't know he was being recorded at the time of the call -- and if Antonio was in California (a 2-party consent state) when he pressed "record," he committed a misdemeanor crime.
It's all spelled out in California Penal Code 632 -- an invasion of privacy statute that essentially forbids the recording of a conversation without the knowledge/consent of both parties.
If convicted, it carries a maximum 1-year jail sentence, $2,500 in fines and other penalties.
So, if Gruden believes AB was in CA during the call (which is likely considering Brown was staying in a home near Raiders HQ in Northern California), Jon COULD report Brown to authorities with the intention of having Antonio prosecuted.
Of course, even if Brown was convicted, it's VERY unlikely he would get jail time -- but a criminal investigation/conviction would likely force the NFL to take action as well.
The NFL's Personal Conduct Policy not only allows the league to suspend a player for a criminal conviction, but it also allows the Commish to discipline a player who "undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel."
To our knowledge, the NFL has never dealt with an alleged illegal recording situation before -- so there's no precedent -- but it's clear they DON'T need a conviction to mete out punishment.