Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Tape Recorder usage, Wash state law

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    There have been some discussion about using tape recorders during a LEO stop. I offer some helpful tips with the following: (of course please feel free to make corrections to any errors)

    Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030: All parties generally must consent to the interception or recording of any private communication, whether conducted by telephone, telegraph, radio or face-to-face, to comply with state law. The all-party consent requirement can be satisfied if "one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted." In addition, if the conversation is to be recorded, the requisite announcement must be recorded as well.

    for complete text: http://www.rcfp.org/taping/


  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    .45 1911 wrote:
    There have been some discussion about using tape recorders during a LEO stop. I offer some helpful tips with the following: (of course please feel free to make corrections to any errors)

    Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030: All parties generally must consent to the interception or recording of any private communication, whether conducted by telephone, telegraph, radio or face-to-face, to comply with state law. The all-party consent requirement can be satisfied if "one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted." In addition, if the conversation is to be recorded, the requisite announcement must be recorded as well.

    for complete text: http://www.rcfp.org/taping/
    Not to stick my nose into another state, but wasn't there a Washington court ruling that took into account an expectation of privacy, that is to say that police in public had no expectation of privacy?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    O-town, Washington, USA
    Posts
    59

    Post imported post

    As far as I know, yes Citizen. I briefly remember hearing something about that in the academy.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    It is State vs. Flora that deals with the taping of LEO.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  5. #5
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    There's no expectation of privacy in public, hence, not a
    'private conversation'.
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    State vs. Flora ruled that law enforcement are public officers, so their conversations are public conversations, and not applicable as "private", therefore they can be taped without their knowledge.



    ETA: without their knowledge

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    332

    Post imported post

    Anything YOU say can be used against you. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Was not State vs Flora an Ohio case?

    I looked it up quick; but didn't look far to see if it was a federal case that would cover Washington.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Was not State vs Flora an Ohio case?

    I looked it up quick; but didn't look far to see if it was a federal case that would cover Washington.
    You're thinking we're talking about this case:

    http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/ne...-ohio-5732.pdf


    But we are talking about this case:

    http://www.copwatch.org/statevflora.htm

    I couldn't find it using google, I had to go through some old threads on this board, so I can understand the confusion.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Marble, Washington, USA
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    I spoke with a local sheriffs deputy alittle while ago and my cell phone buzzed during the conversation. He asked if I was recording him and then said there was nothing wrong with doing it if I wanted.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Airway Heights, Washington, USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    I decided to carry a recored with me as OC does get attention and discussions going bot good and bad. I picked up a wrist watch MP3 player/recorder and have been testing it and making sure I know how to use it under stress.

    It seems to work OK and for $40 for over 20 hours of recordingI feel better knowing that the next conversation with a LEo or upset store manager can be captured.

  12. #12
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    Gray2Hairs wrote:
    I decided to carry a recored with me as OC does get attention and discussions going bot good and bad. I picked up a wrist watch MP3 player/recorder and have been testing it and making sure I know how to use it under stress.

    It seems to work OK and for $40 for over 20 hours of recordingI feel better knowing that the next conversation with a LEo or upset store manager can be captured.
    Don't worry about trying to learn how to use it under stress. If it has 20 hours capacity, set it to record when you get up in the morning and shut it off when you go to bed - erase it when you do that if nothing happened that day that you wish to keep.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    set it to record when you get up in the morning and shut it off when you go to bed
    Wouldn't that cause issues if it came to light you were recording, without notification, all the non-public conversations you were party to throughout the day?


  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Airway Heights, Washington, USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    only if I use it for some legal issue.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Gray2Hairs wrote:
    only if I use it for some legal issue.
    I believe that is false unless of course you are recording an LEO that is acting on his official duties.

    RCW 9.73.030 states in part;

    (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:

    (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.

    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    John Hardin wrote:
    SNIP...set it to record when you get up in the morning and shut it off when you go to bed...
    I'm thinking you'll also need a new category in your budget for batteries.

    I'll let y'alladdressthe legalities, seeing as how I'm not familiar with Wash. laws.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    kparker wrote:
    set it to record when you get up in the morning and shut it off when you go to bed
    Wouldn't that cause issues if it came to light you were recording, without notification, all the non-public conversations you were party to throughout the day?
    Urk. Didn't think about that aspect. Good catch.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    SeaTac, Washington, USA
    Posts
    434

    Post imported post

    If recording a LEO during the performance of his duty were illegal the tv show COPS would be in real trouble. They often record suspect conversations without permission.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    irfner wrote:
    If recording a LEO during the performance of his duty were illegal the tv show COPS would be in real trouble. They often record suspect conversations without permission.
    No they wouldn't be because there is typically an exemption to people of the press. Washingtons exemption states:

    (4) An employee of any regularly published newspaper, magazine, wire service, radio station, or television station acting in the course of bona fide news gathering duties on a full-time or contractual or part-time basis, shall be deemed to have consent to record and divulge communications or conversations otherwise prohibited by this chapter if the consent is expressly given or if the recording or transmitting device is readily apparent or obvious to the speakers. Withdrawal of the consent after the communication has been made shall not prohibit any such employee of a newspaper, magazine, wire service, or radio or television station from divulging the communication or conversation.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    227

    Post imported post

    Sometimes COPS and shows of that nature will blur out someones face. Maybe those people didn't consent to being on the show and blurring out their face is enough to be in compliance with the law.


  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    nathan wrote:
    Sometimes COPS and shows of that nature will blur out someones face. Maybe those people didn't consent to being on the show and blurring out their face is enough to be in compliance with the law.
    That would be my guess.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  22. #22
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    nathan wrote:
    Sometimes COPS and shows of that nature will blur out someones face. Maybe those people didn't consent to being on the show and blurring out their face is enough to be in compliance with the law.
    That would be my guess.
    Right, COPS and other such shows still need to get a waiver stating they are allowed to show this person on TV before they air the program. If they did not get such a waiver, or the person flat out refused, that's when you see the faces blurred out and such.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    20

    Post imported post

    compmanio365 wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    nathan wrote:
    Sometimes COPS and shows of that nature will blur out someones face. Maybe those people didn't consent to being on the show and blurring out their face is enough to be in compliance with the law.
    That would be my guess.
    Right, COPS and other such shows still need to get a waiver stating they are allowed to show this person on TV before they air the program. If they did not get such a waiver, or the person flat out refused, that's when you see the faces blurred out and such.
    You know what the worst part about the COPS TV show is, though I love watching....They will actually do one of two things on a regular basis to give the suspects incentive to sign a waiver or disclaimer for using the footage on the show...

    Reduce the charges or pay the BG money in order to be able to use the footage on the show. I was on-site once in Lakewood while going to get a Subway sandwich for lunch while a COPS episode was being filmed.

    I pulled into the parking lot of the Subway on South Tacoma way and 512, I noticed in the parking lot that there were 14 LEO's on site and wondered what the heck could be the big deal. Apparently there was a man in the Mexican restaurant close by that was seen carrying a loaded handgun...I know you think....not again...he however, was also carrying a grenade and a few other articles that were not legal, such as a butterfly knife.

    I had the opportunity to get the sound guy to answer that question for me when I asked it; What kind of benefit do those guys get for being humiliated on TV? He replied with what I stated above...funny how law and order will be bent in order to get better ratings...we all know we want to see the 'face' of evil !!

    Anyhow, thought I would add that as a slight twist to the tv show, it think their methods are funked up but I still like the show...

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    I highly doubt the prosecutor is going to reduce charges in order to get a consent form signed, but I do not doubt that they get a nominal fee from the producers of the show. It sounds like the sound guy was blowing a little smoke.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    Stering back to the topic of personal recorders...

    Whole at Fry's the other day (OC of course ) I went in search of a small lapell microphjone to plug into my recorder so i wouldn't have to hold it in my hand to get decent sound. ( the pocket muffles sound something fierce). I couldn't even find an accessory mic for a camcorder letalone anything else. UNTIL I went into the PC area. on a lark I decided to see wha they had for PC microphones. I found [url=http://shop4.outpost.com/product/4979571;jsessionid=Pk3N9MuA3HF3gB54sSRktw**.node1? site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG]this little/url] gem for $10.

    It's not as unobtrusive as I'd like (about the size of a SMALL car remote), but it does the job. The mic istelf slides out of that little bracket and has a lapel clip on the back side, so I can leave the recorder in my pocket, and have just the mic showing.

Posting Permissions

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