Shadow Bear
Michigan Moderator
But those clowns are in charge right?
Careful- let's stay on topic.
But those clowns are in charge right?
In situations such as this, there are a few things that I think are required to be said. Obviously we must remain silent. However, I think the following should be the script:
"I am exercising my 1st amendment right to record this interaction. I am exercising my 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. I am exercising my 4th amendment rights and not consenting to unlawful search and seizure. And I will now exercise my 5th amendment right to remain silent."
Its worked for me in the past, and may work for others. Some people dont say anything, period. And some are quite funny, like this.
Personally I would not mention the recording. Like the rest though.
All-Parties Consent Statutes States:Especially in a state like VA, I agree. Some states require that you inform the 2nd party. Not sure about MI.
I disagree and categorically so. The OP links to a video where a citizen (all of them?) was "proned" out, by a cop (more than one cop?) for lawful behavior. That act defines the individual who employed lethal force without justification.Individuals may be criticized for their behavior, but choice of words is important - no reason to call someone a th*g, A-h*l, b*itch, d*ick when a simple "unacceptable" or "egregious conduct" describes it quite well.
Categorizing or demonizing a group as such a manner is the biggest problem.
This friendly reminder is noted and will be heeded.On this forum, one will generally be given an explanation and frequently a warning when transgressions occur before other tools are utilized. There is no good reason to make yourself a target for administrative action detrimental to your ability to post here. We are all guests and should be responsibly adult enough to conduct ourselves in a manner acceptable to the wishes of John and Mike - positive public relations are most important - legislators, media, interested gun owners, antis et al read these pages.
All-Parties Consent Statutes States:
Michigan- Any person who willfully uses any device to overhear or record a conversation without the consent of all parties is guilty of illegal eavesdropping, whether or not they were present for the conversation. The eavesdropping statute has been interpreted by one court as applying only to situations in which a third party has intercepted a communication. This interpretation allows a participant in a conversation to record that conversation without the permission of other parties.
http://www.detectiveservices.com/2012/02/27/state-by-state-recording-laws/
750.539c Eavesdropping upon private conversation.
Sec. 539c.
Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs or procures another person to do the same in violation of this section, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(hc...g.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-539c
Understand that very well. My purpose was only to answer the question as to what the law/statute was in Michigan.And yet various Circuit Courts have held that recording public officials in the course of their official duties cannot be prohibited by state laws. eg 1st Circuit Court in Glik v. Cunliffe, 7th Circuit Court in ACLU v. Alvarez (Supreme Court refused to hear the state's appeal).
MI is in the 6th district, but these other cases would give application since the SCOTUS did not reverse the 7th's decision.
And yet various Circuit Courts have held that recording public officials in the course of their official duties cannot be prohibited by state laws. eg 1st Circuit Court in Glik v. Cunliffe, 7th Circuit Court in ACLU v. Alvarez (Supreme Court refused to hear the state's appeal).
MI is in the 6th district, but these other cases would give application since the SCOTUS did not reverse the 7th's decision.
This isn't complicated, you cannot eavesdrop on/overhear a conversation you are a party to. Thus, Michigan is a one party consent state for recording a conversation the person recording is a part of. It would be utterly foolish and misguided for an ocer in Michigan to avoid recording based on eavesdropping law fears.
This isn't complicated, you cannot eavesdrop on/overhear a conversation you are a party to. Thus, Michigan is a one party consent state for recording a conversation the person recording is a part of. It would be utterly foolish and misguided for an ocer in Michigan to avoid recording based on eavesdropping law fears.
If recording public officials was illegal in MI, myself and many other posters in this thread would be sitting in jail in MI!
Many police are honest, however some are less than. Not recording makes it your word against a bad officers word, usually a bad bet, seeing as the officers word is considered to be expert testimony by most courts. The amount of dash cam video & officer mic recordings that get " lost" is startling, without your own recording you are pretty much screwed IMHO.
The key is in the wording 'private conversation'.
The incident took place on public property, and regardless courts have ruled that police have no reasonable expectation of privacy while performing their duties. Don't have that cite right now... does someone?
In the specific cite of MI law, I read as:
Person #1 speaking, not recording
Person #2 speaking, and recording
Person #3 present but not part of conversation, and recording
Person #2 legal without asking permission from #1; Person #3 not legal without permission from both others.
Did I not provide 2 cites?
I completely agree with Michigander.
edit: I agree with your second post.
Categorizing or demonizing a group as such a manner is the biggest problem.
It's only a problem if one is miscategorizing. What if they aren't? What if the entire profession actually is thuggish?
What if the paychecks of police officers are funded almost exclusively by extortion (taxation)? One might classify extortion as thuggery.
What if the job requires (as in, it's not discretionary) the enforcement of legislation, often by means of initiatory force, and often against those who do not consent to being ruled by legislators- and in the course of that enforcement, violates the non-aggression principle. For example, arresting or fining individuals for victimless crimes, where the only complainant is government, and the only aggressor is the police officer. One might define this as thuggery as well.
What if it's largely overlooked or legitimized by society that has been taught that obeying authority is a virtue, and being a cop is an honorable duty? Does that mean the entire profession of "cop" isn't thuggery?
Can someone make the argument that they don't think it's possible to be a cop and not receive a paycheck largely funded by extortion, or to be a cop and not violate the non-aggression principle in the course of their daily duties?
In my shoes as an anarchist, the entire group of "cop" is categorized correctly as "thugs". In the shoes of a statist, it may not be.