Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: Informing LEO of recording.

  1. #1
    Regular Member hhofent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    142

    Informing LEO of recording.

    A lot of people on this forum recommend recording all interactions with LEOs, are we required to inform the officer that we are recording them?

    Sent from my SCH-R680 using Tapatalk 2
    Last edited by hhofent; 04-26-2014 at 06:39 PM.

  2. #2
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    Quote Originally Posted by hhofent View Post
    A lot of people on this forum recommend recording all interactions with LEOs, are we required to inform the officer that we are recording them?

    Sent from my SCH-R680 using Tapatalk 2
    Iowa appears to be a 1-party-consent state, meaning that so long as one party to a conversation (you) knows that the conversation is being recorded, you are legally in the clear. See http://www.vegress.com/index.php/can...ls-in-my-state.

    Some would say it's good to tell a LEO that you are audibly and visually recording the interaction because it puts the LEO on notice.

    You may also want to know that no matter what the law in your state may be, the LEO may decide that you "can't" do the recording and remove the recorder from your possession. The smartest thing may be to use a smartphone to do the recording, one that transmits the recording to the internet in real-time so that even if the LEO takes the phone from you, a record of the encounter will still exist.
    Air Force Veteran
    NRA Life Member
    VCDL Member
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety, Personal Protection
    Maryland Qualified Handgun Instructor
    Certified Instructor, Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc.
    Member, Mt. Washington Rod & Gun Club
    National Sporting Clays Association Certified Referee

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    Iowa appears to be a 1-party-consent state, meaning that so long as one party to a conversation (you) knows that the conversation is being recorded, you are legally in the clear. See http://www.vegress.com/index.php/can...ls-in-my-state.

    Some would say it's good to tell a LEO that you are audibly and visually recording the interaction because it puts the LEO on notice.

    You may also want to know that no matter what the law in your state may be, the LEO may decide that you "can't" do the recording and remove the recorder from your possession. The smartest thing may be to use a smartphone to do the recording, one that transmits the recording to the internet in real-time so that even if the LEO takes the phone from you, a record of the encounter will still exist.
    Not sure I would trust that site as they (and most others) are wrong about Florida in this context.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    Not sure I would trust that site as they (and most others) are wrong about Florida in this context.
    Agreed. Always best to get such information directly from the source
    727.8 ELECTRONIC AND MECHANICAL EAVESDROPPING.
    Any person, having no right or authority to do so, who taps into or connects a listening or recording device to any telephone or other communication wire, or who by any electronic or mechanical means listens to, records, or otherwise intercepts a conversation or communication of any kind, commits a serious misdemeanor; provided, that the sender or recipient of a message or one who is openly present and participating in or listening to a communication shall not be prohibited hereby from recording such message or communication; and further provided, that nothing herein shall restrict the use of any radio or television receiver to receive any communication transmitted by radio or wireless signal.

    808B.2 UNLAWFUL ACTS -- PENALTY.
    2.c. It is not unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic
    communication if the person is a party to the communication or if one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any state or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act.

  5. #5
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    Agreed. Always best to get such information directly from the source
    727.8 ELECTRONIC AND MECHANICAL EAVESDROPPING.
    Any person, having no right or authority to do so, who taps into or connects a listening or recording device to any telephone or other communication wire, or who by any electronic or mechanical means listens to, records, or otherwise intercepts a conversation or communication of any kind, commits a serious misdemeanor; provided, that the sender or recipient of a message or one who is openly present and participating in or listening to a communication shall not be prohibited hereby from recording such message or communication; and further provided, that nothing herein shall restrict the use of any radio or television receiver to receive any communication transmitted by radio or wireless signal.

    808B.2 UNLAWFUL ACTS -- PENALTY.
    2.c. It is not unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic
    communication if the person is a party to the communication or if one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any state or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act.
    So ... after all of that, the statutes agree with the cite I provided...
    Last edited by JamesCanby; 04-26-2014 at 09:03 PM.
    Air Force Veteran
    NRA Life Member
    VCDL Member
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety, Personal Protection
    Maryland Qualified Handgun Instructor
    Certified Instructor, Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc.
    Member, Mt. Washington Rod & Gun Club
    National Sporting Clays Association Certified Referee

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    No need to inform when recording police.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2201016.html

    I had an issue where I was having a meeting with a public official. That official had a cop present as a security precaution. I whipped out my camcorder. Cop would not let me record. I ended the meeting.

    I re-set up the meeting. I called the police chief and informed the chief that I was not allowed to video record the cop and this violated my 1st amendment rights and I would sue if it happened again.

    2nd meeting, no problem. No cop showed. But if one did, the chief agreed that I have the right to record.

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    No need to inform when recording police.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2201016.html

    I had an issue where I was having a meeting with a public official. That official had a cop present as a security precaution. I whipped out my camcorder. Cop would not let me record. I ended the meeting.

    I re-set up the meeting. I called the police chief and informed the chief that I was not allowed to video record the cop and this violated my 1st amendment rights and I would sue if it happened again.

    2nd meeting, no problem. No cop showed. But if one did, the chief agreed that I have the right to record.
    Painted with way too broad a brush. Over generalizing is fraught with problems.

    Recording in a public location where no expectation of privacy exists is one thing. Doing the same thing in a private office/meeting may not meet the standard. Different states = different laws.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Painted with way too broad a brush. Over generalizing is fraught with problems.

    Recording in a public location where no expectation of privacy exists is one thing. Doing the same thing in a private office/meeting may not meet the standard. Different states = different laws.
    The 1st and 7th circuit decisions mean that it is now technically legal to record on-duty police officers in every state in the country. from Huff link above

    I've read the case ... and I think that the Huff conclusion is correct...as long as they are on-duty, you can record (except in very specific exceptions ~ like a small area of the airport security areas ~ while they are poo-ing etc)

    I have not seen any court cases where taping on-duty cops have resulted in convictions since SCOTUS decided not to hear the case...if you know of any please post .... I'm a learner...

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    306
    So in summary, you may record police in public / on duty without notification,
    and additionally, in IOWA you may record them in private and both on/off duty without notification as long as you are a party to the conversation.
    Last edited by amaixner; 04-27-2014 at 08:35 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153

    Radley Balko's conclusion and caution.

    The 1st and 7th circuit decisions mean that it is now technically legal to record on-duty police officers in every state in the country. Unfortunately, people are still being arrested for it. Police officers who want to make an arrest to intimidate would-be videographers can always use broadly written laws that prohibit public disorder, interfering with a police officer, or similar ordinances that give law enforcement wide discretion.

    The charges are almost always either subsequently dropped or dismissed in court, but by then the innocent person has been illegally detained, arrested, sometimes jailed, and possibly paid expensive legal fees.(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2201016.html)
    Balko is certainly trustworthy, and wise in his caution. One may beat the rap but you will not beat the ride.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    So ... after all of that, the statutes agree with the cite I provided...
    I know, imagine that! Some people must feel somewhat taken aback, I'd think.

  12. #12
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,275
    Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy? If not you are not required to notify in any state.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  13. #13
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    You may also want to know that no matter what the law in your state may be, the LEO may decide that you "can't" do the recording and remove the recorder from your possession.
    That would be very unwise of the officer. Thats theft
    714.1 THEFT DEFINED.
    A person commits theft when the person does any of the following:
    1. Takes possession or control of the property of another, or
    property in the possession of another, with the intent to deprive the
    other thereof.
    A citizen is permitted to use all reasonable force to prevent the loss of property as defined

    704.4 DEFENSE OF PROPERTY.
    A person is justified in the use of reasonable force to prevent or
    terminate criminal interference with the person's possession or other
    right in property. Nothing in this section authorizes the use of any
    spring gun or trap which is left unattended and unsupervised and
    which is placed for the purpose of preventing or terminating criminal
    interference with the possession of or other right in property.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    Agreed. Always best to get such information directly from the source
    727.8 ELECTRONIC AND MECHANICAL EAVESDROPPING.
    Any person, having no right or authority to do so, who taps into or connects a listening or recording device to any telephone or other communication wire, or who by any electronic or mechanical means listens to, records, or otherwise intercepts a conversation or communication of any kind, commits a serious misdemeanor; provided, that the sender or recipient of a message or one who is openly present and participating in or listening to a communication shall not be prohibited hereby from recording such message or communication; and further provided, that nothing herein shall restrict the use of any radio or television receiver to receive any communication transmitted by radio or wireless signal.

    808B.2 UNLAWFUL ACTS -- PENALTY.
    2.c. It is not unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic
    communication if the person is a party to the communication or if one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any state or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act.

    I'm trying to find a better link here but the Supreme Court has ruled at least once that police officers have no expectation of privacy for starters and secondly "justices left in place a federal appeals court ruling that found that the state's anti-eavesdropping law violates free-speech rights when used against people who audiotape police officers." (source)
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    That would be very unwise of the officer. Thats theft


    A citizen is permitted to use all reasonable force to prevent the loss of property as defined
    I know in my state, if a cop is doing what he tinks is his job, one cannot interfere...even if the actions are unlawful.

    Part of the retarded protect the cop syndrome.

    Suggest folks check and make sure sure before they jump a cop.

  15. #15
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I know in my state, if a cop is doing what he tinks is his job, one cannot interfere...even if the actions are unlawful.
    citation? I would have to look at the exact wording but I imagine every state has provision that allows you to lawfully protect yourself from assault, threat of assault and has similar reasonable force laws

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Suggest folks check and make sure sure before they jump a cop.
    Quite. Woe to the fool who gets it wrong as there will be serious penalty. We are talking specifically about lawful protection of oneself. Plus remember a cop can lie. He may say he's doing his job when in fact he is committing a crime.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  16. #16
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    I'm trying to find a better link here but the Supreme Court has ruled at least once that police officers have no expectation of privacy for starters and secondly "justices left in place a federal appeals court ruling that found that the state's anti-eavesdropping law violates free-speech rights when used against people who audiotape police officers." (source)
    Your memory and mine match, laws that prohibit the public from recording the actions of their public servants in the performance of their public duties on behalf of the public .... are not legal.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 04-29-2014 at 01:37 PM.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    citation? I would have to look at the exact wording but I imagine every state has provision that allows you to lawfully protect yourself from assault, threat of assault and has similar reasonable force laws
    Sec. 53a-167a. Interfering with an officer: Class A misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of interfering with an officer when such person obstructs, resists, hinders or endangers any peace officer, special policeman appointed under section 29-18b, motor vehicle inspector designated under section 14-8 and certified pursuant to section 7-294d or firefighter in the performance of such peace officer’s, special policeman’s, motor vehicle inspector’s or firefighter’s duties.

    (b) Interfering with an officer is a class A misdemeanor.

    You can read the case "State of Connecticut v. Anthony J. Brocuglio 264 conn. 778, 2003" if you want a read that will drive you crazy.

    Police are special ...
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 04-27-2014 at 10:35 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Sec. 53a-167a. Interfering with an officer: Class A misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of interfering with an officer when such person obstructs, resists, hinders or endangers any peace officer, special policeman appointed under section 29-18b, motor vehicle inspector designated under section 14-8 and certified pursuant to section 7-294d or firefighter in the performance of such peace officer’s, special policeman’s, motor vehicle inspector’s or firefighter’s duties.


    (b) Interfering with an officer is a class A misdemeanor.
    Duties though. If a police officer commits a crime he is not doing his duty and reasonable force laws apply.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    You can read the case "State of Connecticut v. Anthony J. Brocuglio 264 conn. 778, 2003" if you want a read that will drive you crazy.

    Police are special ...
    aaah http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-suprem...t/1005899.html


    ....under federal case law, “[i]f a suspect's response to an illegal search is itself a new, distinct crime ․ the police constitutionally may arrest the [suspect] for that crime․
    clearly.... which is why you don't draw and fire your gun if you are sworn at for example. That would not fall under reasonable force laws whatsoever. Even in this case one could not draw and fire a gun at officers for a ticket. While wrong of the officers no lives were in danger. It could be argued though the assault and kidnap (arrest and being taken to the police station) Would have been grounds enough for extreme action to protect oneself from harm. As for some of the rest of that lot it read like a load of trash and I'd have loved to give that fool judge a piece of my mind.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  19. #19
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    Duties though. If a police officer commits a crime he is not doing his duty and reasonable force laws apply.



    aaah http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-suprem...t/1005899.html




    clearly.... which is why you don't draw and fire your gun if you are sworn at for example. That would not fall under reasonable force laws whatsoever. Even in this case one could not draw and fire a gun at officers for a ticket. While wrong of the officers no lives were in danger. It could be argued though the assault and kidnap (arrest and being taken to the police station) Would have been grounds enough for extreme action to protect oneself from harm. As for some of the rest of that lot it read like a load of trash and I'd have loved to give that fool judge a piece of my mind.
    Define "extreme action" to avoid being arrested.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    Duties though. If a police officer commits a crime he is not doing his duty and reasonable force laws apply.


    aaah http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-suprem...t/1005899.html


    clearly.... which is why you don't draw and fire your gun if you are sworn at for example. That would not fall under reasonable force laws whatsoever. Even in this case one could not draw and fire a gun at officers for a ticket. While wrong of the officers no lives were in danger. It could be argued though the assault and kidnap (arrest and being taken to the police station) Would have been grounds enough for extreme action to protect oneself from harm. As for some of the rest of that lot it read like a load of trash and I'd have loved to give that fool judge a piece of my mind.
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Define "extreme action" to avoid being arrested.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Caution suggested - slippery road.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Caution suggested - slippery road.
    Understood.



    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  22. #22
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Define "extreme action" to avoid being arrested.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Caution suggested - slippery road.
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Understood.

    The problem here is that if a citizen is being assaulted by armed officers then that person could argue they were in fear of their life, citing past cases where officers have shot dead people and animals for nothing. I know where Grapeshot is going here and understand. However one is certainly allowed to use whatever force is necessary to protect ones life. If an officer tries to steal your weapon you know he will either do it or murder you. Perhaps it may be best simply to reiterate the law as quoted earlier

    704.4 DEFENSE OF PROPERTY.
    A person is justified in the use of reasonable force to prevent or
    terminate criminal interference with the person's possession or other
    right in property
    . Nothing in this section authorizes the use of any
    spring gun or trap which is left unattended and unsupervised and
    which is placed for the purpose of preventing or terminating criminal
    interference with the possession of or other right in property.

    I don't duck and dodge easily and i'm not going to continue a discussion when I have to tread on eggshells. I either say it how I see it or don't say anything
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  23. #23
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611
    The problem is best understood in the perspective of where you are and what the forum intends to be. It is not all things for all people.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Fayetteville NC
    Posts
    751
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    Your memory and mine match, prohibiting the public from recording the actions of their public servants in the performance of their public duties on behalf of the public .... isn't illegal.

    I believe I understand, and agree with, what you meant. The words just don't match.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by bc.cruiser View Post
    I believe I understand, and agree with, what you meant. The words just don't match.
    D'oh! That's like the third time this week I've done that.
    Corrections shall be made, coffee shall be drunk.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •