This is a discussion on Recording police within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; The CMLP is thrilled to report that in the case of Glik v. Cunniffe, which the CMLP has blogged previously and in which the CMLP ...
Post By Hopyard
August 27th, 2011 11:30 AM
The CMLP is thrilled to report that in the case of Glik v. Cunniffe, which the CMLP has blogged previously and in which the CMLP attempted to file an amicus brief, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has issued a resounding and unanimous opinion in support of the First Amendment right to record the actions of police in public.
A Victory for Recording in Public! | Citizen Media Law Project
August 27th, 2011 12:34 PM
One more down, many more to go...
"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)
August 27th, 2011 01:43 PM
This important topic, and there are still many places where there are laws on the books against such recording, and this thread "Run in with one of Rock Hill PDs Narcotics Teams," running elsewhere here, have a certain common element. And that is, disrespect for basic rights of ordinary citizens.
If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
August 27th, 2011 03:41 PM
Good outcome for citizens, but it shows that even if you are not violating the law you might still be charged... I always have one of my hotkeys on my cell phone to record so I can record on a short notice. I did this a while ago when an officer thought I was going a little faster than the speed limit. Fortunately, I didn't have to use it.
I know some states have very strict wire tapping laws that require the consent of all parties when making any recording. You might remember a case not too long ago where a motorcyclist with a helmet camera was pulled over for speeding, and later charged with illegal wire tapping.... The town or state later dropped the charges. This latest case might void the NJ statute, but there is probably a long process to actually make it happen.
August 27th, 2011 03:59 PM
by cops who have bad procedure so ingrained that they don't get it
Originally Posted by Hopyard
August 27th, 2011 04:26 PM
Can you really fault a LEO who is following the law? Isn't it actually the fault of those who wrote and passed the law?
Originally Posted by Hopyard
This important topic, and there are still many places where there are laws on the books against such recording,
and this thread "Run in with one of Rock Hill PDs Narcotics Teams," running elsewhere here, have a certain common element. And that is, disrespect for basic rights of ordinary citizens.
Originally Posted by apvbguy
August 27th, 2011 04:51 PM
Its amazing that something like this should even have to go to court. As long as the person that is recording an arrest is not interfering with the events that he/she is recording, I don't know why any LEOs that have a true invested interest in justice would be opposed to recordings. A recording could actually go in LEOs favor if the detainee were to make claims of abuse that did not take place infront of the cam that a lot if not most police cars already have in place.
August 27th, 2011 06:40 PM
Originally Posted by mandalitten
There is a HUGE distinction here regarding electronic communications with an expectation of privacy and PUBLIC communications of which you may or may not be a party.
Florida's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Florida makes it a crime to intercept or record a "wire, oral, or electronic communication" in Florida, unless all parties to the communication consent. See Fla. Stat. ch. 934.03. Florida law makes an exception for in-person communications when the parties do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the conversation, such as when they are engaged in conversation in a public place where they might reasonably be overheard. If you are operating in Florida, you may record these kinds of in-person conversations without breaking the law. However, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording any telephone conversation and any in-person that common sense tells you is private.
Check out this link for further info and links to other states: http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...-recording-law
State Law: Recording | Citizen Media Law Project
Recording the voice or actions of a public servant in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy ain't wrong. But this does not preclude the possibility that you would have to go to court to prove your point
August 27th, 2011 06:56 PM
There are plenty of other places to discuss these issues on the 'net. This is not one of them.
Search tags for this page
glik v cunniffe
Click on a term to search for related topics.