Recording Cops!!!,,, My Experiance!!!,,, My Failure!!!,,, My Shame!!!

DeltaOps said:

My guess is that the LEO did it to see what kind of reaction he would get from you, maybe even testing you to watch and see if you faulter. All so that he could gat a good laugh when you walk away.

Click to expand...

That's how I was reading it. He was up there on his high horse not at all happy that some mere citizen would be so bold as to carry a sidearm openly, and then to have the gall to speak to him as though they were equals. He was likely mocking the OP, all for laughs later or to elevate himself in the eyes of the other officers.

That's why I say call his bluff.

One of my favorite responses to this attitude is: "Officer, for a public servant you sure seem to have a problem serving the public." Sometimes they need to be reminded of what they are. Nonetheless, I still prefer not to argue.

Batousaii said:

I'd venture a guess, that most of us as gun owners, especially those of us who carry, have a similar mentality as many of the police. We visualize ourselves as the good guys, and have a natural inclination to protect those around us. At least thats how many of us through our raising view the police regardless of case law and examples that may be contrary to that image. To many, the cops are the good guys, and rubbing elbows with them in a positive encounter reinforces that we are all on the same side. It is also nice to encounter good police (the majority i believe) who remember what it was to be a citizen, and what the right to keep and bear arms meant to them before joining the empire. Some unfortunately fall under Darth Vader's spell, and those power hungry bully types give a bad name to the rest. Fact is, i have several that i consider friends on the force, would invite them to BBQ if i ever threw one, and those that keep my company believe strongly in the rights of the people, and respect their civic role. There really are good cops... but there really are some crappy bullies out there too... I myself do not approach an officer unless i really feel he/she is presenting friendly open minded posture, everything mentioned here on this board is the safe way to manage on self as an open carrier. If an officer gives me a positive supportive comment, then I am more than happy to chit-chat and exchange casual conversation. Otherwise.... "Am i being detained" stay in it's holster at the side of my tongue.

Be Smart out there peeps.

:dude: Bat

Click to expand...

Owning a firearm has nothing to do with my take on society. I feel it is my duty as a United States citizen to defend my fellow countrymen, and I would do so with or without a firearm in my possession; although it would be WITH because I never leave home without protection. I wish more people felt the same way, because it is extremely disheartening to watch the news and hear about another shooting or stabbing where there were numerous bystanders that could have done something and didn't. I could not set around and watch someone get hurt without trying to assist them in some way, and I will agree those that do carry firearms for personal protection are more aware of their surroundings, and probaly are more apt to help than those that don't. I don't understand how anyone could walk out of their house without the means to protect their family, because that is the most important thing in this life. As for officers, I do not feel a connection with them at all. I will be a protector of liberty and rights when I become a Peace Officer, and I will take it upon myself to report any type of misconduct that has become so popular in today's society. We are more likely to be approached by the bad apple today than the good, and that is truly sad. It used to be one bad apple out of the bunch, now we are lucky to get one good apple out of them. With the militirization of our officers it is no wonder why they have the attitude they do, and something needs to change. I will say there is a good man now in charge of KSP post 14 here in Ashland, and I will be proud to work under such a decent individual. I am proud of the State Police in my area, but I can't say the same for all the rest.

Folks, you might also want to look closely at all of RCW § 9.73.030 to find what I think is an important exception to the requirement of consent of all parties for recording conversations.

RCW 9.73.030.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:

(a) Private communication … without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication;

(b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, wire communications or conversations … (b) which convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests or demands, … whether or not conversation ensues, may be recorded with the consent of one party to the conversation.

I agree that State v. Flora is unambiguous in its holding that LEO does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they are performing their official duties (i.e., on duty).

The way I read 9.73.030, if a LEO threatens to arrest you for recording the conversation, they are making an “unlawful demand” (illegal act under color of the law -- RCW 9A.80.010(1)(a)) and, as such, the statute requires only that you give consent, although, I think that getting the consent on the recording is still required, as it also is required under 18 USC 2511 (the federal Wiretap Act requires that only one participant needs to give consent). HINT: I’d make the recorded consent on my recorder prior to entering into a conversation, and without stopping the recording between my giving my consent and my contact with the LEO.

Then, if they do demand that you stop recording, or that they are going to arrest you for making the recording, the way I read the statute, they are committing a gross misdemeanor for the violation of RCW 9.73.030. RCW 9.73.080(1).

If I wanted to really call their bluff, if other LEOs are present and have heard the demand, I would request one of the other LEOs to effect an arrest of the LEO for violating 9.73.030, or at a minimum, have them cite that officer for the violation. Then, I would follow through and turn a copy of the recording along with my statement over to the appropriate prosecutor.

and, don't you think that they read this board, too?

rapgood said:

and, don't you think that they read this board, too?

Click to expand...

I know for a fact they read these boards, especially when they have an "encounter"

sudden valley gunner said:

I know for a fact they read these boards, especially when they have an "encounter"

Click to expand...

I must say those that watch the forum do not seem to learn anything from it. Where is rodney king when you need him......"why can't we all just get along???"

MSG Laigaie said:

I must say those that watch the forum do not seem to learn anything from it. Where is rodney king when you need him......"why can't we all just get along???"

Click to expand...

Rodney may be a little tough to get a quote from these days.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King

Sent by Droid

sudden valley gunner said:

I agree with most of this except I am not turning my back voluntarily to cops........

Click to expand...

Isn't that what your "don't Birk me" shirt is for?

tombrewster421 said:

Isn't that what your "don't Birk me" shirt is for?

Click to expand...

Hahahaha...:lol:

Sorry for my late comment 1245A. Sorry that happened to you.

Anyway WA's wiretapping law only applies to private conversations. I doubt a conversation in public with 5 people in earshot is "private"

Speaking of calling bluffs and remaining silent, here's an exchange I had with a senior member of the Gwinnett County Police Department in Georgia.

Chapel: Here’s one for you, here’s one for you, allright… You have a permit that says you live in Forsyth County, allright? Did you walk all the way here from Forsyth County?
CAP: I have a permit that was issued in Forsyth County. Am I restricted to the bounds of Forsyth County?
(silence)
Chapel: Did you drive down here?
Chapel: You know, your permit is a privilege as well as a right. It can be taken away from you as well.
Cap: By the Probate Court Judge, would you like the number?
Chapel - we have the number
Chapel .. and when you’re given a permit you’re expected to cooperate a little bit with law enforcement.
CAP: Actually, I’m required to cooperate; as required by law.
Chapel: Why aren’t you?
CAP: What am I not doing that’s required?
(silence)
CAP: What am I not doing that’s required, Sergeant Chapel?
(silence)
Chapel: Did you drive here, sir, or did you walk here?
CAP: What am I not doing that’s required, Sergeant Chapel?
Chapel: Did you drive here, or did you walk here?
CAP: What am I not doing that’s required, Sergeant Chapel?
Chapel: There you go, right there.

At that point I think the good Sergeant wondered off, perhaps distracted by a butterfly or something shiny.

I agree that State v. Flora is unambiguous in its holding that LEO does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they are performing their official duties (i.e., on duty).

Click to expand...

Then you need to read it again.

The recording was made in public, on the street. The courts clearly noted that a recording made in public, in listening range of others, was not private.

Had nothing to do with them being officers, or acting in official capacity.

Had EVERYTHING to do with the conversation NOT being private because it was IN PUBLIC.

Flora and Sherrin entered the house to retrieve the protective order in order to show the officers that the limit was 20 feet rather than 25 feet. They not only brought out the order but a pile of other papers as well. Hidden among them was a small tape recorder. Flora maintains that he wanted to record the conversation because he feared the deputies would assault him and use racial slurs as they had done in the past. He explains that he felt particularly apprehensive because the officers refused to look at the pictures he had taken, pictures which, he thought, would prove he had not been photographing his neighbor's house.

When Flora and Sherrin came out of the house the officers proceeded with the arrest. The stack of papers was placed on the hood of the police car. After Flora was placed in the car, Sherrin picked up the papers and one of the officers saw the tape recorder. Sherrin was arrested and the tape recorder confiscated.


.....

The State urges us to adopt the view that public officers performing an official function on a public thoroughfare in the presence of a third party and within the sight and hearing of passersby enjoy a privacy interest which they may assert under the statute. We reject that view as wholly without merit.


The conversation at issue fails this threshold inquiry; the arrest was not entitled to be private. Moreover, the police officers in this case could not reasonably have considered their words private. We note, incidentally, that the police officers testified at trial that they did not consider the conversation private.

Click to expand...

As I've said. It's all about PUBLIC actions and expectations of privacy.