Police Officers Find Tiny Pocket Cams Are 'Silent Partners'

[DoctorBob]

Fine and all-- it should go both ways though.

Unfortunately some states prohibit filming the police at work (Maryland I think) and others have convoluted two party consent laws for the voice recording. Last week there was a dust up in NY when a woman filmed a stop in front of her home, and got herself arrested for her trouble; released by the DA no charges filed.

We need legislatures (and judges with some real world common sense) who are as concerned with protecting citizen rights as they are about protecting LEO prerogatives.

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.

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"

Maryland
"Can We Tape?"

Illinois
"Can We Tape?"

Massachusetts
"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?"

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[ArkhmAsylm]

Great addition to a dash cam. Everyone should have one.

[onacoma]

Waterborne - Thanks for the update and I'll check them out. The S&W was ±$150.00 per camera.

[oneshot]

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

[Aaron1100us]

We use the MUVI cameras

Sent from my PB99400 using Tapatalk

[Eagleks]

Every gun owner in Philadelphia should have one when they go out.

[Sticks]

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".

[Chevy-SS]

.....We have yet to achieve "Foolproof".

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.

[DoctorBob]

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).

[Yankeejib]

Of course, if the camera captures a faux pas from the LEO, expect the camera to experience a "malfunction".

[HotGuns]

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?

[Doctor]

Fine and all-- it should go both ways though.

Unfortunately some states prohibit filming the police at work (Maryland I think) and others have convoluted two party consent laws for the voice recording. Last week there was a dust up in NY when a woman filmed a stop in front of her home, and got herself arrested for her trouble; released by the DA no charges filed.

We need legislatures (and judges with some real world common sense) who are as concerned with protecting citizen rights as they are about protecting LEO prerogatives.

+1 ...

If I can be legally filmed without consent then this should apply to LEO as well as civillians.

[Guns and more]

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.

[Maine_Train]

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.

A couple of corrections:
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."

[Pioneer]

Check local state laws before you buy one. In some states you must inform people they are being recorded and they must consent.