Photographing police

It looks like the Department of Justice got involved in police photographer encounters and set some guidelines for the police to follow.

To sum it up, the Doj says that the police cannot take your property without a warrant, delete a picture or video without a hearing over it, or stop you from recording in any place you have a right to be. This is huge! It's the first time they have issued a statement on this issue, and it is all in our favor.

Read about it at www.hollyhillfreepress.com (my website) and look at the link to the actual letter at the bottom.

Oh, say hi when you're there.

So If I get pulld over in Miami dade I can now run a recorder ?

el rompe toto said:

So If I get pulld over in Miami dade I can now run a recorder ?

Click to expand...

Not at all. Or at least I would strongly advise against it. Nothing has changed, as yet, in Florida's consent requirements.

what can happen if they find me recording cuz um after my case i kinda run a recorder on my iphone every time i interact with leo

el rompe toto said:

what can happen if they find me recording cuz um after my case i kinda run a recorder on my iphone every time i interact with leo

Click to expand...

Then let em know somehow they are being recorded, and ask consent to do so- IF you prefer to be on the "right" side of the law on the matter. If caught with it, during an encounter, or after, there's the chance you could be charged for that as well, and end up with many months of even more fun and games in the courts/cops system.
Florida Statute section 934.03.

You'll get a lot of opinions on this topic- most/all are based on what folks would like the law to be, but that law hasnt changed. No matter what OTHER States have done. And no matter what OTHER courts have ruled, thus far. Personally, I would'nt take the chance of another encounter- and manage to get OFF on the Gun-related charges (a fine, perhaps?) , only to face the fines and prison time for the RECORDING charges.
A lot of folks will also try to point to whether anyone has been charged with it before, etc.

In which case- look back at the woman in Pinellas county who was charged for seceretly recording a county/city official during a conversation in his office- that case dragged on for months, and eventually didnt make it to trial- but NOT because of the validity of the charges, but because she accepted a plea bargain, because she got tired of the whole mess, and couldnt find a lawyer who was willing to touch her case with a ten-foot pole.

j4l said:

Then let em know somehow they are being recorded, and ask consent to do so- IF you prefer to be on the "right" side of the law on the matter. If caught with it, during an encounter, or after, there's the chance you could be charged for that as well, and end up with many months of even more fun and games in the courts/cops system.
Florida Statute section 934.03.

You'll get a lot of opinions on this topic- most/all are based on what folks would like the law to be, but that law hasnt changed. No matter what OTHER States have done. And no matter what OTHER courts have ruled, thus far. Personally, I would'nt take the chance of another encounter- and manage to get OFF on the Gun-related charges (a fine, perhaps?) , only to face the fines and prison time for the RECORDING charges.
A lot of folks will also try to point to whether anyone has been charged with it before, etc.

In which case- look back at the woman in Pinellas county who was charged for seceretly recording a county/city official during a conversation in his office- that case dragged on for months, and eventually didnt make it to trial- but NOT because of the validity of the charges, but because she accepted a plea bargain, because she got tired of the whole mess, and couldnt find a lawyer who was willing to touch her case with a ten-foot pole.

Click to expand...

To my knowledge, there hasn't been a single case in Florida that has been successfully prosecuted.

FL recording

Clarify please - do the various agencies in FL record as a matter of course, ie, traffic stops and the like?
It's my understanding the Florida is an 'all party' state as far as recording is concerned.

Rich7553 said:

To my knowledge, there hasn't been a single case in Florida that has been successfully prosecuted.

Click to expand...

And that falls more into the fact that they just havent bothered to try to prosecute very many cases of it. Still doesnt change the fact that the Statute is what it is.
It sounds all well and good for us to advise someone that "oh but they have/have not successfully prosecuted for X" when WE arent the guy who's going to have to go through 9-10 months of legal expenses and hassles as a result of maybe being "that guy" who they decide to try it out on, no?
Im not in favor of that Statute, so dont think Im somehow supporting it- Im just wishing folks would really really STOP advising folks to go out and such crap, when the advisee could very well end up being the guy who gets the 10 yr.s/ $10k penalty for a case that may otherwise have been a mere $50 fine, and loss of a CW permit. Is that not just a little bit reasonable?
They havent sucessfully prosecuted anyone for withcraft in a hundred yrs. or so, either, but why advise someone to take the risk of being the 1st in a long time, right?

And yes, Florida is a 2-party CONSENT State. Consent meaning- You ASK the other party if it is ok to record your conversation with them. And they have to say YES in order for that recording to be done legally, under the Statute.
Consent does NOT mean you merely telling them that you are recording.

j4l said:

And yes, Florida is a 2-party CONSENT State. Consent meaning- You ASK the other party if it is ok to record your conversation with them. And they have to say YES in order for that recording to be done legally, under the Statute.
Consent does NOT mean you merely telling them that you are recording.

Click to expand...

There is also implied consent and tacit agreememts. If a guy states I'm recording if you don't want to be recorded walk away. Then the person stays and continues the conversation. Even if they voiced their non consent, they implied their consent by staying. They were noticed, then agreed by continuing when they could freely walk away.

Like going to a doctors office and telling the receptionist I don't agree to pay the visit charges. But you stay and finish the visit. You walk into court and say but I said no...the judge will rule against you and say you accepted by staying.

j4l said:

It sounds all well and good for us to advise someone that "oh but they have/have not successfully prosecuted for X" when WE arent the guy who's going to have to go through 9-10 months of legal expenses and hassles as a result of maybe being "that guy" who they decide to try it out on, no?

Click to expand...

I simply made a statement. I advised no one of anything.

As to the rest of your post, I would submit that the reason that no case has seen prosecution is not because they haven't bothered, but because they know that the case would most likely be won in the trial court, but lost on appeal due to constitutionality issues and they don't want to set that precedent.

Rich7553 said:

I simply made a statement. I advised no one of anything.

As to the rest of your post, I would submit that the reason that no case has seen prosecution is not because they haven't bothered, but because they know that the case would most likely be won in the trial court, but lost on appeal due to constitutionality issues and they don't want to set that precedent.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Every time it's come up in other states they lose on constitutionality. Most recently in fascist Illinois.

Rich7553 said:

I simply made a statement. I advised no one of anything.

As to the rest of your post, I would submit that the reason that no case has seen prosecution is not because they haven't bothered, but because they know that the case would most likely be won in the trial court, but lost on appeal due to constitutionality issues and they don't want to set that precedent.

Click to expand...

Do you think, Rich, that the two-party consent system itself is unconstitutional, or some other aspect of the law?

Jojo712 said:

Do you think, Rich, that the two-party consent system itself is unconstitutional, or some other aspect of the law?

Click to expand...

In and of itself, no. But I don't believe the intent of the legislation was to include public interactions. For example, if a news organization tapes a street protest, and the voices of the protesters can be heard, then technically they violated the law if they don't get signed releases from anyone whose voice can be heard on the recording. I think the gist of the law was to protect individuals who are in what can reasonably be called private situations from being recorded. I cannot reconcile the law being applied to public officials on the public's dime as it appears to conflict with the obvious intent of Florida's Sunshine law.

My mother was right. I should have become a lawyer. Sigh!

Photography Is NOT A Crime

I don't know where some of you people are coming up with your information that you can't photograph/record police, but here's a web site you might want to check out, ie:

Carlos Miller - Photography Is NOT A Crime

FireStar M40

FireStar M40 said:

I don't know where some of you people are coming up with your information that you can't photograph/record police, but here's a web site you might want to check out, ie:

Carlos Miller - Photography Is NOT A Crime

FireStar M40

Click to expand...

There is at difference in how FL law treats visual as opposed to audio recording. Carlos has not, to my knowledge, been any kind of advocate re: audio recording - he seems to be all about the legalities of capturing the visual image.

So, I concur in part and dissenting in part with your judgement.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

There is at difference in how FL law treats visual as opposed to audio recording. Carlos has not, to my knowledge, been any kind of advocate re: audio recording - he seems to be all about the legalities of capturing the visual image.

So, I concur in part and dissenting in part with your judgement.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Images are one thing. Images (video) containing AUDIO of a conversation between 2 individuals, is something else, entirely. And is directly addressed in our Statutes. What one other State says or does on the matter, has ZERO bearing on Florida's Statues, anyway.

A lot of folks keep trying to point to: "well this State did this, or that State did that". Florida isnt ANY of those other States. Florida is normally quiet firm about making that point, quiet often.

We get a lot of cases, for example, of a married couple from Vermont, Hawaii, NY, Mass, etc. where gay marraige is legal, and accepted. In Florida it is not, and is not recognized. We get a lot of situations, which I deal with almost daily, where such a couple -by whatever means-has a pregnant parter. They deliberately come to Florida to give birth to the child, and when they go to try to complete the Birth record for that child- they try to get one of the "partners" entered onto the record as the "father".
When notified that, nope, not gonna happen, they launch into their "well we are legally married in X" etc. Sorry- still not going to happen. Have a nice day. Florida will not recognize a same-sex marraige on any Florida-generated Legal Instrument.

Same with deaths. We get the same situations,where a couple will come here, one of em will die- then they will raise hell trying to get their same-sex partner listed as the "spouse". Nope. Not gonna happen.
"But we have a marraige-license from State X"..mmm nope, not gonna happen. End story.

To base one's actions or potential actions on outcomes that resulted in other States, can be foolish, and expensive.

j4l said:

Images are one thing. Images (video) containing AUDIO of a conversation between 2 individuals, is something else, entirely. And is directly addressed in our Statutes. What one other State says or does on the matter, has ZERO bearing on Florida's Statues, anyway.

A lot of folks keep trying to point to: "well this State did this, or that State did that". Florida isnt ANY of those other States. Florida is normally quiet firm about making that point, quiet often.

....

To base one's actions or potential actions on outcomes that resulted in other States, can be foolish, and expensive.

Click to expand...

Thank you for 1) pointing out that we were/are talking about doing something in FL under FL laws, and what happens elsewhere has no relevancy.

Also, thank you for 2) the thread drift into the death of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause One day that will be resolved, but not on a forum dedicated to OC.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Thank you for 1) pointing out that we were/are talking about doing something in FL under FL laws, and what happens elsewhere has no relevancy.

Also, thank you for 2) the thread drift into the death of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause One day that will be resolved, but not on a forum dedicated to OC.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Was justing 2 examples that I most-commonly deal with. But it's near universal re: State statutes here. Florida courts, etc. get real edgy when some yahoo chimes in with "well, in State X..." 9 times out 10 they will side with what Florida's Statutes require, with little to no attempt at consideration of any nonsense going on elsewhere.