Video / Audio recording police in WA state.

I couldn't figure out how to directly search the WA section of this forum, so I apologize if this has been asked.

Am I legally allowed to record police on video/audio? Will I be charged with obstruction / something else? My goal is to legally protect myself in LEO encounters. I open carry everyday, everywhere, and I would not be surprised if eventually, I have a negative LEO encounter. Any information pertaining to the legally of A/V recording an officer would be appreciated.

Read state vs flora and johnson vs sequim.

I read them, and am still a bit confused, especially on understanding RCW 9.73.030. Can anyone simplify a bit for me? Legal-speak and I don't always get along...

theaero said:

I couldn't figure out how to directly search the WA section of this forum, so I apologize if this has been asked.

Am I legally allowed to record police on video/audio? Will I be charged with obstruction / something else? My goal is to legally protect myself in LEO encounters. I open carry everyday, everywhere, and I would not be surprised if eventually, I have a negative LEO encounter. Any information pertaining to the legally of A/V recording an officer would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

It's legal to record them, yes.

They can, and sometimes will, charge/accuse you of ANYTHING though right, wrong, or stupid. Just because it's legal to do does not mean you won't be cuffed, stuffed, charged, and/or harassed.

I thought Washington is a 2 person consent state meaning legally the officer would have to give you permission to record him. I also think this applies to us as well when being recored by the police. When a officer pulls us over and is wearing one of those cameras on their uniforms I think by law they have to have our permission to use it and have to turn them off if asked

fire suppressor said:

I thought Washington is a 2 person consent state meaning legally the officer would have to give you permission to record him. I also think this applies to us as well when being recored by the police. When a officer pulls us over and is wearing one of those cameras on their uniforms I think by law they have to have our permission to use it and have to turn them off if asked

Click to expand...

Since the police are in the employ of the state/are an agent of the state they are excluded from the 2 party consent rule, which is for civilian vs. civilian encounters. I think this ruling had a lot to do with the fact that the police didn't have to ask permission to record you with their dashcams. IANAL.

fire suppressor said:

I thought Washington is a 2 person consent state meaning legally the officer would have to give you permission to record him. I also think this applies to us as well when being recored by the police. When a officer pulls us over and is wearing one of those cameras on their uniforms I think by law they have to have our permission to use it and have to turn them off if asked

Click to expand...

Orange is trouble posted 2 deciding cases on that topic.

Then you should read the law. It only applies when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Cops on duty have no reasonable expectation of privacy when they are talking to you. Now if you were in your bedroom with like your friend(s)/loved one(s) (except on on duty cop) then you would need consent from all parties, or on the phone, etc. I am not going to list every exception just trying to give you an idea.

I even had to educate a lawyer about this. I don't think I will ever hire him again though.

OrangeIsTrouble

Read state vs flora and johnson vs sequim.

Click to expand...

Oh and this topic has been covered in depth on this forum more than once.

Freedom1Man said:

I even had to educate a lawyer about this. I don't think I will ever hire him again though.

Click to expand...

If you do, just be sure to deduct "Training Fee's" from his bill before you pay it

amlevin said:

If you do, just be sure to deduct "Training Fee's" from his bill before you pay it

Click to expand...

:banghead: I wish I had thought of that.


Thanks, will keep that in mind for next time.

fire suppressor said:

I thought Washington is a 2 person consent state meaning legally the officer would have to give you permission to record him. I also think this applies to us as well when being recored by the police. When a officer pulls us over and is wearing one of those cameras on their uniforms I think by law they have to have our permission to use it and have to turn them off if asked

Click to expand...

Wolfebane said:

Since the police are in the employ of the state/are an agent of the state they are excluded from the 2 party consent rule, which is for civilian vs. civilian encounters. I think this ruling had a lot to do with the fact that the police didn't have to ask permission to record you with their dashcams. IANAL.

Click to expand...

RCW 9.73.090
Certain emergency response personnel exempted from RCW 9.73.030 through 9.73.080 — Standards — Court authorizations — Admissibility.


(1) The provisions of RCW 9.73.030 through 9.73.080 shall not apply to police, fire, emergency medical service, emergency communication center, and poison center personnel in the following instances:
(2) It shall not be unlawful for a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of the officer's official duties to intercept, record, or disclose an oral communication or conversation where the officer is a party to the communication or conversation or one of the parties to the communication or conversation has given prior consent to the interception, recording, or disclosure: PROVIDED, That prior to the interception, transmission, or recording the officer shall obtain written or telephonic authorization from a judge or magistrate, who shall approve the interception, recording, or disclosure of communications or conversations with a nonconsenting party for a reasonable and specified period of time, if there is probable cause to believe that the nonconsenting party has committed, is engaged in, or is about to commit a felony: PROVIDED HOWEVER, That if such authorization is given by telephone the authorization and officer's statement justifying such authorization must be electronically recorded by the judge or magistrate on a recording device in the custody of the judge or magistrate at the time transmitted and the recording shall be retained in the court records and reduced to writing as soon as possible thereafter.

Any recording or interception of a communication or conversation incident to a lawfully recorded or intercepted communication or conversation pursuant to this subsection shall be lawful and may be divulged.

All recordings of communications or conversations made pursuant to this subsection shall be retained for as long as any crime may be charged based on the events or communications or conversations recorded.

(3) Communications or conversations authorized to be intercepted, recorded, or disclosed by this section shall not be inadmissible under RCW 9.73.050.

(4) Authorizations issued under subsection (2) of this section shall be effective for not more than seven days, after which period the issuing authority may renew or continue the authorization for additional periods not to exceed seven days.

(5) If the judge or magistrate determines that there is probable cause to believe that the communication or conversation concerns the unlawful manufacture, delivery, sale, or possession with intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell, controlled substances as defined in chapter 69.50 RCW, or legend drugs as defined in chapter 69.41 RCW, or imitation controlled substances as defined in chapter 69.52 RCW, the judge or magistrate may authorize the interception, transmission, recording, or disclosure of communications or conversations under subsection (2) of this section even though the true name of the nonconsenting party, or the particular time and place for the interception, transmission, recording, or disclosure, is not known at the time of the request, if the authorization describes the nonconsenting party and subject matter of the communication or conversation with reasonable certainty under the circumstances. Any such communication or conversation may be intercepted, transmitted, recorded, or disclosed as authorized notwithstanding a change in the time or location of the communication or conversation after the authorization has been obtained or the presence of or participation in the communication or conversation by any additional party not named in the authorization.

Authorizations issued under this subsection shall be effective for not more than fourteen days, after which period the issuing authority may renew or continue the authorization for an additional period not to exceed fourteen days.

fire suppressor said:

I thought Washington is a 2 person consent state

Click to expand...

That only applies to private communications. Interacting with a police officer acting in public in his official duties is not considered a private communication, which is what those rulings boil down to.

Some of the info here is great however i think we all need to get up to speed on the federal law that has trumps state law.
the SCOTUS has already ruled you have no right to privacy in public so long as it is not made with a “reasonable expectation of privacy”

KATZ VS US- “(a) that an enclosed telephone booth is an area where, like a home, and unlike a field, a person has a constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy; (b) that electronic as well as physical intrusion into a place that is in this sense private may constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment;"

The two-part test for this protection is introduced by J. Harlan. First, the person must have exhibited an actual expectation of privacy and, second, that expectation must be reasonable.

you may be video and audio recorded without concent so long as there is no expectation of privacy. futher in relation to law enforcement officers- glick VS commonwealth US 1st circuit court (boston) ruled (AUG 26 2011)
that-

"The First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame
it, fairly narrow: is there a constitutionally protected right to
videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First
Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other
circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative.
It is firmly established that the First Amendment's
aegis extends further than the text's proscription on laws
"abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and encompasses
a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of
information. As the Supreme Court has observed, "the First
Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the
self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting
(1st Cir. 1986))).
-8-
the stock of information from which members of the public may
draw." First Nat'l Bank v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 783 (1978); see
also Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969) ("It is . . .
well established that the Constitution protects the right to
receive information and ideas."). An important corollary to this
interest in protecting the stock of public information is that
"[t]here is an undoubted right to gather news 'from any source by
means within the law.'" Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 11
(1978) (quoting Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 681-82 (1972)).
The filming of government officials engaged in their
duties in a public place, including police officers performing
their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles.
Gathering information about government officials in a form that can
readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment
interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of
governmental affairs." Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966).
Moreover, as the Court has noted, "[f]reedom of expression has
particular significance with respect to government because 't is
here that the state has a special incentive to repress opposition
and often wields a more effective power of suppression.'" First
Nat'l Bank, 435 U.S. at 777 n.11 (alteration in original) (quoting
Thomas Emerson, Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment 9
(1966)). This is particularly true of law enforcement officials,
who are granted substantial discretion that may be misused to
-9-
deprive individuals of their liberties."

There is more but i think you get the point.

This topic is currently being discussed on theses threads:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ps!!!-My-Experiance!!!-My-Failure!!!-My-Shame!!!

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?105871-Another-quot-recording-quot-question