stuckinchico
Regular Member
Im not going to ask for permission regardless. YOu dont like me recording you??? You shouldnt be there then
Can we tape?
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/
Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most also have extended the law to cover in-person conversations.
Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as “one-party consent” statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)
Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as “two-party consent” laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.
Regardless of the state, it is almost always illegal to record a conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent to tape, and could not naturally overhear.
Federal law and most state laws also make it illegal to disclose the contents of an illegally intercepted call or communication.
At least 24 states have laws outlawing certain uses of hidden cameras in private places, although many of the laws are specifically limited to attempts to record nudity. Also, many of the statutes concern unattended hidden cameras, not cameras hidden on a person engaged in a conversation. Journalists should be aware, however, that the audio portion of a videotape will be treated under the regular wiretapping laws in any state. And regardless of whether a state has a criminal law regarding cameras, undercover recording in a private place can prompt civil lawsuits for invasion of privacy.
Umm, Illinois seems to have a problem with it...
http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/23/another-illinois-resident-char
Apparently the ACLU is fighting it, and it seems it is OK for THEM to record YOU!!
Also Maryland and Masachusetts are using "eavesdropping" or "wiretapping" laws as ways to arrest those videotaping teh Police.
http://gizmodo.com/#!5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns
No states require consent to record video unless there is an expectation of privacy, like in a bathroom or changing room.
By way of a coincidence, one of our Alabama members was arrested last month for videotaping a stop on the side of the highway. The incident was just posted yesterday, so we are just learning about it now.
He was charged with obstructing a government official, and the municipal trial is tomorrow.
He was OC at the time, but the taping was not related in any way to OC. However, his OC did result in his getting drawn on. He was also told by one of the officers that, had the officer been the only one on the scene, the officer would've shot him!
By way of a coincidence, one of our Alabama members was arrested last month for videotaping a stop on the side of the highway. The incident was just posted yesterday, so we are just learning about it now.
He was charged with obstructing a government official, and the municipal trial is tomorrow.
He was OC at the time, but the taping was not related in any way to OC. However, his OC did result in his getting drawn on. He was also told by one of the officers that, had the officer been the only one on the scene, the officer would've shot him!
He was OCing a loaded pistol while driving a vehicle?
Let's see the recording he made.
I did not say that.
AFIK, the police confiscated his recording.
I did not say that.
AFIK, the police confiscated his recording.
Collecting evidence for the obstruction charge....I guess. Who wudda thunk it that a LEO(s) wudda confiscated a recording. I thought that the odds of that happening were just about 1 in a bazillion.
Let me put your annoying little distraction down and then move on to actual discussion of the event I posted.
I did not say he was driving OC. Likely he was. I don't know. He didn't say. I didn't say. I don't care. It is not what he nor I was discussing. :banghead:
Now, go ahead and carry on with your distraction. I won't reply further.
How do you reason that?sheepdog251 said: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.
Most officers, of whatever flavor, are probably decent people.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.
if you keep acting and talking like every cop is the enemy. Go ahead, take a nice big bite of your buddy's sandwich.
I don't think anyone mentioned anything about acting like every cop is an enemy. I am sure that everyone knows that is simply not the case. Why do you assume that people think that? Do you hang out with those sorts of people?
Recording interactions with police should not be construed as an attack on them, nor ill will. If they do their job properly without violating anyone's rights, why should it matter if they are recorded? Hell, they record themselves and their interactions with the public most of the time.