• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Where/When legal to record LEOs

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
380
Location
Phoenix, AZ
If they do their job properly without violating anyone's rights, why should it matter if they are recorded?
Indeed, they should want to be recorded, as it is (a) evidence of good police work, (b) good PR, and (c) evidence for a LEO's claims regarding the behavior of both others and themselves. Only LEOs that are looking to be abusive themselves should be worried about being filmed.
 

Blueberries

New member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
3
Location
wrg
With that being said, those laws would obviously still apply in an encounter with an LEO, so you have to put it out there. Just how the laws reads。。。 :lol:
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
With that being said, those laws would obviously still apply in an encounter with an LEO, so you have to put it out there. Just how the laws reads。。。 :lol:

What laws? The ones protecting conversations made with an expectation of privacy? Those laws would not apply to a police encounter.
 

Irish_Dave

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2011
Messages
39
Location
Peoples Repulic of MA
What laws? The ones protecting conversations made with an expectation of privacy? Those laws would not apply to a police encounter.

I can only speak regarding the laws I am familiar with ( Massachusetts). The laws regarding secretly recoding a conversation absolutely apply to police encounters, there is case law involving a felony conviction for it.
 

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,085
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
Ohio's a one party consent state for recording.

So long as you're a party to the conversation, you need neither consent nor knowledge of any other party.

Recording public acts of LEOs is also protected. Not too long ago, an Akron cop got hammered with quite a long (extended by the mayor, no less) unpaid suspension for falsely arresting a woman who filmed him arresting somebody, after being ORDERED to leave the woman alone. He and the city are probably being sued as well.

I recently got my first Android phone and the FIRST app I downloaded was Cop Recorder 2.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Well, why let this annoying distraction of FACTS, get in the way of you telling a fictional story to try and discredit a Law Enforcement Officer who was legally doing their job.

You were discussing a friend videotaping a traffic stop. Your friend was OCing at the time. On the side of the highway.


Guess what? If you park on the shoulder of the highway, BEHIND a L.E.O. who is in the middle of a traffic stop, odds are you are about to bite into a good sized portion of the "**** sandwich".

I can't guess what the Officer's reasoning was for confiscating the video tape, if it even happened, but it's their discretion anyway. You won't put anything down except for maybe your own rights to carry, if you keep acting and talking like every cop is the enemy. Go ahead, take a nice big bite of your buddy's sandwich.

Posts like the above are a shining example of WHY there is a perception that some cops are the enemy. Read and make note of the attitude, folks.
 

sheepdog251

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
21
Location
WI
Posts like the above are a shining example of WHY there is a perception that some cops are the enemy. Read and make note of the attitude, folks.


Yes, please take note of my having noticed that somebody is claiming mistreatment, overzealous enforcement, and theft of property by the LEOs involved when they encountered someone who was OCing a loaded weapon while driving down the road.

My "attitude" is that if you are engaged in illegal activity, like driving a car with a loaded weapon on your immediate person, you can expect a L.E.O. to question your activities. It doesn't matter what you are videotaping or doing otherwise, illegal activity will merit that attention received. So, go ahead and misconstrue these facts as "attitude". It's your bond money and court appearance.
 

nigmalg

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
148
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Commonwealth v. Hyde,434 Mass.594 (2001). This was an SJC decision where the defendant was convicted of a felony for an illegal wiretap for secretly recording the police during a routine traffic stop

Ah Massachusetts... How far you've come.

I'm curious how the Appellate Judges interpreted the use of audio/video recording within the realm of convenience stores, news cameras, or the police officer's own dashcam?

Is it SOP for an officer to inform you that you're being recorded by his dashcam? If not, is that not a "secret recording" then? What about a convenience store, or Walmart, which doesn't conspicuously post their notice?
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
sheepdog251 said:
My "attitude" is that if you are engaged in illegal activity, like driving a car with a loaded weapon on your immediate person, you can expect a L.E.O. to question your activities.

Wait, that's illegal now?


Sheepdog is confusing the laws of Wisconsin with the laws of other states. It would appear he believes that if something is illegal in WI, then it follows that it must be illegal everywhere. One will note that he presumes "driving with a loaded weapon" is illegal without specification as to where the activity is performed.

Whether that's through ignorance, or deliberate distortion isn't for me to say.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Ah Massachusetts... How far you've come.

I'm curious how the Appellate Judges interpreted the use of audio/video recording within the realm of convenience stores, news cameras, or the police officer's own dashcam?

Is it SOP for an officer to inform you that you're being recorded by his dashcam? If not, is that not a "secret recording" then? What about a convenience store, or Walmart, which doesn't conspicuously post their notice?

An exception is built into the law in MA to allow police who have been authorized to make such secret recordings.

From the ruling I gathered the following: The problem in MA is that there is no requirement for an expectation of privacy before the recording is banned. Someone could literally be shouting a message from a soapbox in the public square and demand that a passerby who chose to record the message without the speaker's knowledge be prosecuted!

Also, the recording must be made secretly to be banned. I would think that simply telling the officer that he is being recorded would make it legal. He will surely tell you to stop and might even use force to make you stop, but that would probably not be lawful.

If this is not reversed under federal constitutionality issues, then the voters in MA need to do something to correct this injustice. All instances where a public official exerts the authority of the State over an individual needs to be done in full sunshine, unless the secrecy is intended to protect the interests of the person the State is targeting, with his (or his guardians') consent to the secrecy.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Specifically, with regard to the state of Wisconsin:Chapter 167. Safeguards of persons and property.
167.31 Safe use and transportation of firearms and bows.


[definitions omitted]
167.31(2)
(2) Prohibitions; motorboats and vehicles; highways and roadways.
167.31(2)(a)
(a) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person may place, possess or transport a firearm, bow or crossbow in or on a motorboat with the motor running, unless the firearm is unloaded or unless the bow or crossbow is unstrung or is enclosed in a carrying case.
167.31(2)(b)
(b) Except as provided in sub. (4), no person may place, possess or transport a firearm, bow or crossbow in or on a vehicle, unless the firearm is unloaded and encased or unless the bow or crossbow is unstrung or is enclosed in a carrying case.


So let's skip to sub. (4) and see what the exceptions are, shall we?

167.31(4)
(4) Exceptions.

167.31(4)(a)
(a) Subsections (2) and (3) do not apply to any of the following who, in the line of duty, place, possess, transport, load or discharge a firearm in, on or from a vehicle, motorboat or aircraft or discharge a firearm from or across a highway or within 50 feet of the center of a roadway:

167.31(4)(a)2.
2. A member of the U.S. armed forces.

167.31(4)(a)3.
3. A member of the national guard.

167.31(4)(a)4.
4. A private security person who meets all of the following requirements:

167.31(4)(a)4.a.
a. He or she holds either a private detective license issued under s. 440.26 (2) (a) 2. or a private security permit issued under s. 440.26 (5).

167.31(4)(a)4.b.
b. He or she holds a certificate of proficiency to carry a firearm issued by the department of regulation and licensing.

My question would be what 'certificate of proficiency' is referred to. Does WI issue such?
 
Last edited:

stuckinchico

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
506
Location
Stevenson, Alabama, United States
My "attitude" is that if you are engaged in illegal activity, like driving a car with a loaded weapon on your immediate person, you can expect a L.E.O. to question your activities. It doesn't matter what you are videotaping or doing otherwise, illegal activity will merit that attention received. So, go ahead and misconstrue these facts as "attitude". It's your bond money and court appearance.

And this is illegal how??? try again.
 
Last edited:

nigmalg

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
148
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Someone could literally be shouting a message from a soapbox in the public square and demand that a passerby who chose to record the message without the speaker's knowledge be prosecuted!

Could you imagine if you were in the process of leaving a voice mail in public and accidentally recorded some ambient conversations?
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I would really hope that intent to commit a crime would factor in with that example

It would seem not to be--at least according to the law cited in the case. The only necessary intent would be the intent to record. Criminal intent does not have to be the intent to commit a crime. It could simply be the intent to do the act, which turns out to have been done in a way that violates the law.

Many people make the mistake of thinking criminal intent has to be the intent to break a law. It doesn't. I can often mean simply doing something that was in your control to choose to do or not to do. In MA, when you hit that record button, it sure sounds like you need to KNOW that you are not recording someone else without their knowledge.

Like I said, to me, that should be unconstitutional (federally), or is, at least, bad policy. But that would be up to you folks in MA to fix it. If you tolerate tyranny, don't complain when you get it.
 
Top