Recording police stop may be illegal! - Page 4

Recording police stop may be illegal!

This is a discussion on Recording police stop may be illegal! within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Relax, everyone. This is highly over blown. Yes, in some backward areas, you may be charged with wiretapping. And, yes, you'd have to hire a ...

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 56 of 56
Like Tree14Likes

Thread: Recording police stop may be illegal!

  1. #46
    Member Array katmandoo122's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    326
    Relax, everyone. This is highly over blown. Yes, in some backward areas, you may be charged with wiretapping. And, yes, you'd have to hire a lawyer. But you'd beat the charge. The case law is quite clear that there is no expectation of privacy in a traffic stop or incident in public with a peace officer. Heck, they use that case law all the time in the prosecution of cases. Now, you might get caught an disturbing the peace or whatever local law indicated interferring with the duties of a police officer, but you can get that for 1 million different reasons.

    And Califonia did NOT say it was OK to go through your cell phone without a warrant. They said that it is OK for electronic media (in this case, a cell phone) to be searched after it has been impounded as evidence as part of an arrest. They can also search your pockets and car after an arrest, all without a warrant (assuming you were in your car at the time of arrest, or similar circumstances).

    Yes, police over reach and prosecutors are incented in the wrond way but if you are stopped, feel free to record the incident. If the PO objects, ask him to call his supervisor.
    Human Beings understand Reason, Compassion, and Dignity

    Predators understand Strength


  2. #47
    New Member Array hermann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lilljehammer
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Yep, dead serious. If I have done something to bring police attention to me, what am I going to be recording? Me trying to explain why I was doing X. Seems that I would be stacking the deck for the LEO's if I had to fight it.

    Please explain this. How do folks advocate not saying a word or say they will not give a statement without their lawyer, but then want to record the interaction with the LEO for use later. Hmmm, plead the 5th so you can't incriminate yourself then make a video or audio recording that can be subpoenaed for use against you. I don't see the logic in that.

    Now granted, I might be a bit biased because I have never had a bad LEO experience, even when I was in my teens and early 20's and was full of myself, but don't see that changing any time soon.
    Do you by chance have a background in law enforcement? LAST WEEKEND we saw a case in Miami where LEOs took several individuals into custody and allegedly damaged their recording devices because they recorded the killing of an unrelated third party in circumstances that were patently illegal, whether or not the murdered man did what he was alleged to do - which is in doubt. The badge-wearing killers are walking free. The citizen who recorded these public servants in public are being maligned to the press by the MPD. Whether or not you personally have yet found it necessary to tape an interaction with a LEO, why would you post here to discourage citizens from exercizing their rights and implying that those who choose to do so are somehow engaged in illegal activity? "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither." In my view, those who would pressure others to sacrifice freedom are unAmerican.

  3. #48
    New Member Array hermann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lilljehammer
    Posts
    8
    This isn't overblown. We have recent examples in California, New York, Miami and Iowa in which law-abiding citizens have had their property destroyed or impounded and have been threatened with devastating prison terms for exercising the right to record public servants' PUBLIC execution of their duties. In no other instance does the law afford an expectation of privacy in such circumstances. But when the person denying one's rights has a gun, the complicity of the courts and the ear of the press, the law is what they say it is. To preserve our freedom and limit trespasses by our evolving police state, our right to document LEOs' behavior needs a clear legal precedent. "You'd have to hire a lawyer" is a cavalier statement in the face of the actual cost and disruption requisite upon hiring an attorney and taking leave from one's job to attend depositions and hearings. You say "the law is quite clear" but in Iowa, the complainant is a judge filmed in a courtroom and state law clearly prohibits the recording thereof. While I agree that this is invalid, inasmuch as it is unconstitutional and also contravenes specific Federal privacy law, a citizen who wants to make that charge has to be prepared to spend years and thousands. The barriers to protecting our liberty are very high for an individual. (This is why it was so important for WalMart to quash the recent class action; they know one person can't hope to fight their legal apparatus). And to say "you might get caught for disturbing the peace"...how is the fact of a video recording device disruptive to anyone except an abusive LEO? No one is advocating resisting legally constituted authority. Naturally and appropriately, the court is more inclined to believe a trained LEO than a citizen who may or may not have been caught in a breach of the law. In such a case, a record of the incident can only bolster the LEO's credibility unless s/he is behaving inappropriately. No one has claimed that these recordings are being used as an excuse to resist an officer's legitimate orders or that they have been altered. Why, then, is your side fighting so very hard to conceal the behavior of public employees from the public?

  4. #49
    New Member Array hermann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lilljehammer
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Yep, dead serious. If I have done something to bring police attention to me, what am I going to be recording? Me trying to explain why I was doing X. Seems that I would be stacking the deck for the LEO's if I had to fight it.

    Please explain this. How do folks advocate not saying a word or say they will not give a statement without their lawyer, but then want to record the interaction with the LEO for use later. Hmmm, plead the 5th so you can't incriminate yourself then make a video or audio recording that can be subpoenaed for use against you. I don't see the logic in that.

    Now granted, I might be a bit biased because I have never had a bad LEO experience, even when I was in my teens and early 20's and was full of myself, but don't see that changing any time soon.
    Do you by chance have a background in law enforcement? LAST WEEKEND we saw a case in Miami where LEOs took several individuals into custody and allegedly damaged their recording devices because they recorded the killing of an unrelated third party in circumstances that were patently illegal, whether or not the murdered man did what he was alleged to do - which is in doubt. The badge-wearing killers are walking free. The citizen who recorded these public servants in public are being maligned to the press by the MPD. Whether or not you personally have yet found it necessary to tape an interaction with a LEO, why would you post here to discourage citizens from exercizing their rights and implying that those who choose to do so are somehow engaged in illegal activity? "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither." In my view, those who would pressure others to sacrifice freedom are unAmerican.

  5. #50
    New Member Array hermann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lilljehammer
    Posts
    8
    If the PO is behaving appropriately, a recording can only redound to his or her benefit. Given that citizens enjoy the presumption of innocence, we have to accept that police may have reason to interact with the innocent. In one recent instance, the person who summoned law enforcement was allegedly harassed by the responding officer, and she has submitted into evidence the hand-written home phone number he gave her. The members of this board are interested in preserving the legal balance between the need for effective law enforcement and the rights of citizens. Why would a legitimate member of this board submit so many posts implying that those who wish to record an interaction are somehow automatically at fault. Another user, @Patrol, states outright that s/he is a police officer and goes on to acknowledge that there is no expectation of, or need for, privacy when one carries out public duties. What are you afraid of?

  6. #51
    New Member Array hermann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lilljehammer
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by IWLAFART View Post
    I think that most of these guys that OC and film or record are just trying the system. You never see any good film or recordings . Maybe just trying to find someone to sue.
    Why would the MSM publicize an officer doing his or her job? That's what the public has a right to expect. If an officer is behaving appropriately, s/he can only benefit from an unbiased recording of the incident. Intent is a tricky thing to prove and it is irrelevant to the issue of misfeasance. To paraphrase Socrates, if officers don't wish to be recorded in an embarrassing manner, they should endeavor to be what they wish to appear. No one can tape misconduct if it doesn't occur.

  7. #52
    VIP Member Array paaiyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,071
    Hermann, while I agree with the sentiment that officers should be responsible for their actions and that recording those actions should not be illegal unless it puts an officer in jeopardy, say the potential to compromise an undercover officer, I'm going to ding you on one point.

    You don't need.

    A separate post.

    For each paragraph.
    My blog

    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

  8. #53
    New Member Array hermann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lilljehammer
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by southchatham View Post
    It's because state legislators pass laws that make it a felony. Powerful police unions push such laws.
    A C-o-P whom I've known for years recently told the press that the public should be prevented from exercising the same rights as officers and, for that matter, random tourists do in making recordings in a public place. His concern was that LEOs might second-guess themselves if they know they're being recorded. What professional doesn't think things through a few times before proceeding? IMHO, as an attorney who spends a fair bit of time on issues like this, I find it disturbing that my colleague and friend could even think in those terms.

  9. #54
    New Member Array hermann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lilljehammer
    Posts
    8
    If that's the case, the recording can only benefit the officer. It is one thing to speculate on recorders' motives, but quite another to try to intimidate people who choose to exercise that right. In no state is there an expectation of privacy when one is in public. C-o-Ps and unions who challenge citizens' rights or who tacitly condone the intimidation of witnesses or the destruction of property are only harming their own case by showing us how willing a few bad apples are to overstep legal bounds and to ignore the requisite presumption of innocense.

  10. #55
    New Member Array hermann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lilljehammer
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by paaiyan View Post
    Hermann, while I agree with the sentiment that officers should be responsible for their actions and that recording those actions should not be illegal unless it puts an officer in jeopardy, say the potential to compromise an undercover officer, I'm going to ding you on one point.

    You don't need.

    A separate post.

    For each paragraph.
    Agreed, with apologies - this is my first time on this board and I didn't realize that responses with quotes were posted chronologically and not in line. Or should I say...

    Not.

    In.

    Line.


  11. #56
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,900
    Take it elsewhere, this isn't the forum for tin foil theories.
    "Just blame Sixto"

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

can you film police in texas
,
can you record police in tennessee
,

can you record police in texas

,
is it illegal to videotape police in texas
,
is it legal to film police in georgia
,
is it legal to record police in georgia
,
is it legal to record police in tennessee
,

is it legal to videotape police in texas

,

recording police in florida

,
recording police in texas
,

recording police in washington state

,
recording police washington state
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors