July 5th, 2011 05:31 PM
recording public servants in a public place where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy is probably not illegal but yu might have to go to court to prove it. Maryland allows this exclusion as do many states that have 'all party consent' laws.
Originally Posted by Hopyard
Florida, thank goodness has an exclusion:
Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of “oral communication,” Fla. Stat. ch. 934.02. See also Stevenson v. State, 667 So.2d 410 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996); Paredes v. State, 760 So.2d 167 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000).
Here are links to the several states that have 'all party consent' to "wiretapping"
"Can We Tape?"
"Can We Tape?"
"Can We Tape?"
Here's a link so that you can check out your state. Might be a good idea to know this...
"Can We Tape?"
July 5th, 2011 06:03 PM
Great addition to a dash cam. Everyone should have one.
"Historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right." -- U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings, Re: U.S. vs Emerson (1999)
July 5th, 2011 09:20 PM
Waterborne - Thanks for the update and I'll check them out. The S&W was ±$150.00 per camera.
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress. -- John Adams
If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free! -- P.J. O'Rourke
July 5th, 2011 10:13 PM
Well in Michigan, at least, it looks as though the police will have to go climb a tree on this one.
It appears this state wants its officers to be on the up and up.
Whats good for the goose,,,,,,,,
A recent Michigan Supreme Court ruling could cause some changes for police officers and how they deal with civilians recording them on the job.
The court ruled in March that police do not have any expectations of a right of privacy on duty in terms of being recorded.
Taken from this here: State Supreme Court rules recording police legal, local agencies foresee little change*|*Central Michigan Life
If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.
Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn
July 5th, 2011 10:19 PM
We use the MUVI cameras
Sent from my PB99400 using Tapatalk
July 6th, 2011 01:11 AM
Every gun owner in Philadelphia should have one when they go out.
I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."
July 6th, 2011 06:34 AM
Sorry to be the pessimist here, but there will still be the "Technical Malfunction", or "Accidentally Overwritten/Deleted" on those really questionable cases, in those questionable departments.
We have yet to achieve "Foolproof".
Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.
See also Sheep
July 6th, 2011 11:41 AM
Originally Posted by Sticks
Nothing is 'foolproof'. But these cameras are a terrific start. They offer a lot of protection for citizens, as well as cops. Helps keep BOTH sides (citizens and cops) honest.
I betcha you will start seeing these diminutive cameras on more and more LEO pockets across the country, as time goes by.
'Be careful, even in small matters' - Miyamoto Musashi
August 28th, 2011 05:20 PM
ACLU and the US First Circuit on recording police.
This is a really big big deal!
Check it out!!!
1st Circuit: A Clearly Established First Amendment Right to Film Officers In A Public Space (This Is A Big Deal) Part I » righttorecord.org
Hopefully, this will have some effect on areas beyond the first circuit (Maine, Mass. NH, Rhode Island).
August 28th, 2011 05:47 PM
Of course, if the camera captures a faux pas from the LEO, expect the camera to experience a "malfunction".
August 28th, 2011 06:17 PM
It has been my experience that the cameras work more for the benefit of the police, than they do the citizen.
I can't tell you how many cases of "police abuse" have been dropped when a someone was brought in, sat down, interviewed, told their part of the story about how that bigolenastyrudecrude police officer hurt their feelings. They would sign a statement testifying that what they said was the truth and they would sign under oath,and by doing so acknowledge the fact that they knew they could be cited,fined or jailed for committing perjury.
Then the CD or the "chip" would be brought out and reviewed. It's amazing. All of a sudden they would backtrack,stutter,stick their tail between their legs and try to slink off like the sorry excuse of a human being that they were. The comments are always the same. I didnt remember it that way...or...that is wrong, that aint the way it happened...or that footage has been doctored up...or some lame excuse which would find them trying to discredit what they saw.
Some would even go as far to argue that its not them in the tape...while being too stupid to remember that they have the DL info recorded by 911...that can put them there at that time.
It works well with kids too...that insist to Mom or Pop that the cop is all wrong and out to get them. The parents, beleiving that little Johnny or Sue can do no wrong and would never lie to them want the head of the officer on a stick...right up until they see how their kids acted. Its kind of funny to watch Mr. Indignant howcouldyoudothistomychild? get that look on his face when he figures out that things arent exactly as he thought they were.Or when a Mother with a 100mileanhour mouth all of a sudden shuts up and hangs her head down, never to look you in the eye again.
If in the unlikley event that an officer goes stupid...then that will be there to watch when he gets called up on the carpet and told to explain his actions.
Yeah...I like cameras.
The cop knows that they are on camera. Most of the time Joe Q. Citizen dosent.
Quess where the advantage goes?
I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
August 28th, 2011 06:29 PM
Originally Posted by Hopyard
If I can be legally filmed without consent then this should apply to LEO as well as civillians.
Glock 36 with Lasermax / Glock 23 / Glock 21. Ruger SP101. Taurus 85.
DZSG (Designated Zombie Survival Gun) = 870 Remington Tactical Shotgun
August 28th, 2011 08:45 PM
All of you who are worried about the legality of recording without permission, let me remind you of the case in Florida.
Back about 15 yrs, Newt Gingrich was driving through Florida and talking on his cell phone. Unknown to him, a couple with a scanner was recording his conversation, and later gave it to his opponent to be used against Newt.
Did they get in legal trouble? No.
Citing the law means nada in some cases.
It doesn't matter if you like Newt or not (I do not) what matters is the politics of prosecution.
August 28th, 2011 10:26 PM
A couple of corrections:
Originally Posted by Guns and more
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) was driving in Florida while talking to Gingrich and other Republican leaders via a conference call.
John and Alice Martin were charged with, and pleaded guilty to, violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. They were each fined "only" $500. (The maximum fine then was $5,000.)
"Inquiry on Gingrich Call to Look at Plausibility of Florida Couple's Account"
"Florida Couple Are Charged In Taping of Gingrich Call"
I think dash-cams and similar devices are a boon for law enforcement. (Although even "plain as day" recorded events can sometimes be misinterpreted.)
I've used a pen camera with a 4 gigabyte flash drive to make recordings when I interact with trespassers at my job. It helps remind me that "If it felt good to say it, it was probably the wrong thing to say."
August 30th, 2011 05:28 PM
Check local state laws before you buy one. In some states you must inform people they are being recorded and they must consent.
U.S. Navy Veteran '65-'69
Retired Police Detective '71 - '01
NRA Life Member / SAF Member
U.S. Constitution (c) 1791, All Rights Reserved.
Search tags for this page
law enforcement pocket camera
law enforcement pocket cameras
pocket camera for law enforcement
pocket camera police
police officer pocket camera
police officers carrying small camera
police pocket cam
police pocket camcorder
police pocket camera
police pocket cameras
small aluminum pocket camera
tiny pocket camera
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors