Very interesting and informative, thanks.
Thread: 7 Rules for Recording Police
Reason Magazine posted this article, which might be of value to some of us here.
Very interesting and informative, thanks.
Life member GOA (and NRA). Member SAF, NAGR.
Very informative, this helps a lot. Thanks. I'm getting ready to post about my experience today, and this is very relevant.
Last edited by OC-moto450r; 08-02-2012 at 06:49 PM.
RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!
Life Member NRA
Life Member GOA
2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"
Yeah, my takeaway is the same, that there is no "expectation of privacy" while performing the public duties of a public officer, which makes the 1-party thing moot. I would say the gotcha to watch out for is civilian bystanders that might somehow have an expectation of privacy.
Sent from my Windows Phone using Board Express
An there was already a case in Maryland that an off duty cop pulled over a biker and they wanted to try him for recording which was tossed. Cops on duty don't have the same privacy rights as everyone else.
This is probably what you are looking for
Pay special attention to the bold text.NRS 200.650 Unauthorized, surreptitious intrusion of privacy by listening device prohibited. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, and 704.195, a person shall not intrude upon the privacy of other persons by surreptitiously listening to, monitoring or recording, or attempting to listen to, monitor or record, by means of any mechanical, electronic or other listening device, any private conversation engaged in by the other persons, or disclose the existence, content, substance, purport, effect or meaning of any conversation so listened to, monitored or recorded, unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation.
Now if you are having a conversation with someone, do one of you give permission to record?
At least that's the way I see it, as I am not a lawyer so use this at your own risk
I record every moment I am out either open or concealing just to cover my butt and if I get popped with the recording thing I will use this hopefully in my favor, but would have to contact a lawyer to help me with it.
I had a lawyer on my payroll tell me a few years ago that I could record phone calls because in Nevada all that was required was that one person in the conversation knew it was being recorded. He told me in CA that both parties had to know. There has never been an expectation of privacy in a public setting. When I was in radio news we always knew that if it is in public, it is public.
Last edited by The Big Guy; 04-06-2012 at 09:04 AM.
Life member GOA (and NRA). Member SAF, NAGR.
Nevada is one of a handful of "2-party" states. It did not reply in this instance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKYzwdyyrXk
I was spooked about the 2-party issue when I recorded a public official by phone. He was calling me for official business and I think he used his personal phone to do that.
Since Utah is not a 2-party consent state I don't know how - if at all - my call from Utah impacted that law.
Bottom line, the "man" will find ways to charge you - whether they are right or wrong - and it's up to us to beat them back via their own rules.
YouTube OC activism vids: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...ature=view_all
TigerLily's Freedom ROAR Radio show
I don't ride to be safe, I ride to be free.
Last edited by OC-moto450r; 08-02-2012 at 06:48 PM.
The words "any private conversation" are the ones which remove this protection from a police officer performing official duties.
I seem to recall hearing of a defense attorney who tried to get an interview recording quashed because it was a private conversation between his client and the cops, and he lost that attempt because a cop speaking under cloak of authority is representing the public, thus there is no expectation of privacy. If the defendant can't expect privacy, then neither can the cops.
I might be missing something but what about a news cast or some by-stander on the road recording a shooting etc. Won't the courts use this? What about some mom/pop store recordings and no sign?
Also, what about a store WITH a sign and it is ok to record-maybe we can have a sign on our jacket
I read through the NRS about this a while ago and all I could get from it was it was illegal to audio record a phone conversation without both parties knowing. I am not a lawyer and am new to trying to interpret the wording of the law but from what I got out of it was all we have is an illegal wiretapping law which does not include video/audio recording in public.
Use this and don't testify against yourself where you got it when you use the video in court:
Steve Silverman? I thought that name sounded familiar. He's connected to one of our favorite websites: FlexYourRights, the folks who did the videos on how to deal with police contacts.
FlexYourRights seems to have expanded quite a bit, too.
Way to go Flex! Keep it up!
I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.
If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?
There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.
Hazek Please don't take this the wrong way because it is not my intention to cause you any grief whatsoever. I reckon this is my version of CYOA if you get my meaning.
I only watched almost half of this video. As a 55+year old man I was confused as all get out before I was 2 minutes into this video. It is at times like this I wish I knew WAY MORE about recent technology advances whether it be video cameras, computers or cell phones. This would be a great video cam for me to have but I am a dinosaur when it comes to basically anything Hi Tech.
I keep an eye out on the Open Carry Movement from time to time and especially enjoy the Ridley Report out of New Hampshire. That Ridley guy is a characters character is he not??? He's got my respect and admiration the way he goes toe to toe with LEO when they continually violate the Civil Rights of Open Carriers in his state. But I digress.
If I could figure out how to work a video cam like that I would and then I would OC from time to time. Not having any type of video cam or cell w/cam is exactly why I don't OC. I do CCW whenever I go out mainly cuz we live in a dangerous world.
All the same tho Hazek I thankyou for putting this out there for all the young people that are hip to this stuff and grew up with Hi Tech. Used correctly this is more ammo for OC folks who continue to get hassled or arrested by jack booted SS type LEOs.
I grew up when my first Tonka Truck was more than a foot long, made of steel and Made in America.
Although I have looked, I am unable to find any case that supersedes this one. Might be one out there though. It would seem that Nevada is and is not a '2-party' state... depends on who's who and what's what.
(or you or I for that matter)Using these statutory construction rules, it leads me to the conclusion that the statutory definition of “person” as contained in NRS 200.620 should be interpreted to apply only to public officials and law enforcement personnel, and not to private citizens such as Lane.
Once I was told that nevada was a 2-party state i started digging into the law and interpreted it just how the judges did, but never knew for sure till now.I therefore conclude that Lane did not violate any law in recording telephone conversations to which he was a party. Accordingly, this case should be reversed, and Lane should be permitted to pursue his claim against Allstate in district court.
Thanks for the link usmcmustang, that was a long but informative read
Using these statutory construction rules, it leads me to the conclusion that the statutory definition of “person” as contained in NRS 200.620 should be interpreted to apply only to public officials and law enforcement personnel, and not to private citizens such as Lane.Somewhat confusing topic. But very interesting!I therefore conclude that Lane did not violate any law in recording telephone conversations to which he was a party. Accordingly, this case should be reversed, and Lane should be permitted to pursue his claim against Allstate in district court.
So, did the case get reversed?
Am still not 100% sure what can and cannot be done.
"...we (the majority) conclude that the district court correctly held that Lane violated the provisions of NRS 200.620 when he tape-recorded telephone conversations with employees of his former employer."
However, NRS 200.620 speaks directly to telephone recordings... and the majority went on to say "In NRS 200.650, the legislature prohibited surreptitious intrusion upon in-person, private conversations by means of any listening device, but specifically added the language “unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation.” \
So there one pretty much has it... Nevada is and remains a 2-party consent state for the purpose of telephone recordings, but is a 1-party state for the purpose of in-person recordings.
But... all bets are off when it comes to recording public officials in the performance of their public duties. I do believe that the courts have held repeatedly that public officials performing public duties have no expectation of privacy and therefor audio and video recordings of their actions/behaviors does not fall within any wiretap/recording/photographing, etc., statutes.
Last edited by OC-moto450r; 08-02-2012 at 06:35 PM.