• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Tape Recorder usage, Wash state law

Preston1911

New member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
54
Location
, ,
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/
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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?
 

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
imported post

There's no expectation of privacy in public, hence, not a
'private conversation'.
 

expvideo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
1,487
Location
Lynnwood, WA, ,
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
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

expvideo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
1,487
Location
Lynnwood, WA, ,
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/newpdf/8/2006/2006-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.
 

charliecrusader

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
18
Location
Marble, Washington, USA
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.
 

Gray2Hairs

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
64
Location
Airway Heights, Washington, USA
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.
 

John Hardin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Snohomish, Washington, USA
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.
 

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
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?
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

John Hardin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Snohomish, Washington, USA
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.
 

irfner

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
434
Location
SeaTac, Washington, USA
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.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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.
 

nathan

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
227
Location
Vancouver, Washington, USA
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.
 
Top