Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Video taping

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    194

    Post imported post

    Ok, I know the laws concerning audio taping have been discussed here several times. But how about video taping? I ask because after the break in at my house in Feb. I had a video security system put in that should give me vid of anyone breaking into house or garage. Today a co-worker told me the video couldn't be used in court unless I posted the house with a warning that I had video security running. There is no audio on these cameras.

    I know this seems off topic but it does relate to keeping our firearms secure and out of the hands of the BG's

    Alan

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    I don't know. I would imagine inside your house if authorized persons are aware of it, then unathorized persons really don't have any rights, but I don't know.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    Misguided Child wrote:
    Ok, I know the laws concerning audio taping have been discussed here several times. But how about video taping? I ask because after the break in at my house in Feb. I had a video security system put in that should give me vid of anyone breaking into house or garage. Today a co-worker told me the video couldn't be used in court unless I posted the house with a warning that I had video security running. There is no audio on these cameras.

    I know this seems off topic but it does relate to keeping our firearms secure and out of the hands of the BG's

    Alan
    He is absolutely incorrect. You can record all you want. It's your home, not Nordstrom. A theif has no legal expectation of privacy whilst robbing your home. You can't broadcast it on TV without consent from the person on film, or you will have to blur his face.

  4. #4
    Regular Member ATCer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Iraq
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    Aditionally, wouldn't you be completly within your rights to audio record as well?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    ATCer wrote:
    Aditionally, wouldn't you be completly within your rights to audio record as well?
    Be very careful recording audio. I wouldn't risk the criminal charge for recording a "private conversation" without notification. Even if it is your house, and even if it is a theif, you aren't allowed to do that.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    194

    Post imported post

    I am pretty sure you can't record a phone call you make from inside your house so it follows I can't record someone else's conversation in my house. I deliberately didn't buy cameras with audio for that reason. What if they had audio and the BG's lawyer argued the tapes were inadmissible in court because of the illegal recorded conversation? I'd lose all benefit. Although my real purpose is just to identify the BG's to get my property back.



    Alan

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    SeaTac, Washington, USA
    Posts
    434

    Post imported post

    Just post a sign on the door of your house (business) warning that video and or audio are recorded for security.

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    He is absolutely incorrect. You can record all you want. It's your home, not Nordstrom. A theif has no legal expectation of privacy whilst robbing your home. You can't broadcast it on TV without consent from the person on film, or you will have to blur his face.
    Cite to authority? Why such an inconsistent rule set? We are talking about Washington state where folks taping police officers on official duty are being charged with crimes - the post above is not helpful.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    194

    Post imported post

    Posting a sign on my house is what I'm trying to avoid. I don't want them tearing the house up looking for the DVR.

    We have people recording Police being charged with crimes? Have I missed something lately? I know the guys in OR had a problem recently.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    expvideo wrote:
    He is absolutely incorrect. You can record all you want. It's your home, not Nordstrom. A theif has no legal expectation of privacy whilst robbing your home. You can't broadcast it on TV without consent from the person on film, or you will have to blur his face.
    Cite to authority? Why such an inconsistent rule set? We are talking about Washington state where folks taping police officers on official duty are being charged with crimes - the post above is not helpful.
    State vs Flora is the precedence for audio taping police. As long as the recorded party have been advised or it is recorded in a public place it is legal. I am with expvideo on this one, I am not sure it is legal to record audio on the basis that it is your house because it is a private setting.
    "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

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SW WA
    Posts
    127

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Cottonwood Heights, Utah, USA
    Posts
    545

    Post imported post

    irfner wrote:
    Just post a sign on the door of your house (business) warning that video and or audio are recorded for security.
    Wouldn't you want to post it on your window? I mean isn't that how he's getting in anyway?

    Lawyer: Your Honor this evidence clearly infringes on my clients rights to privacy. He was unaware he would be recorded.

    Me: Your honor this is a picture of the notice on my front door warning all who enter that they are on tape.

    Lawyer: As you can see your Honor, this notice is posted on the door, my client isn't in the habit of using doors as they are usually locked. In the great state of ___ the law clearly states that a notice shall be placed at all entrances. This was not followed, and since my client entered through the window, the evidence is inadmissible.

    Me:

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    194

    Post imported post

    bcp you are a GOD! thanks for finding that. Those are all excellent cites I will bookmark.

    Jared, actually they pried open the back door. It was probably quieter.

    All y'all should check out bcps' post.

    Alan

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    expvideo wrote:
    He is absolutely incorrect. You can record all you want. It's your home, not Nordstrom. A theif has no legal expectation of privacy whilst robbing your home. You can't broadcast it on TV without consent from the person on film, or you will have to blur his face.
    Cite to authority? Why such an inconsistent rule set? We are talking about Washington state where folks taping police officers on official duty are being charged with crimes - the post above is not helpful.
    State vs Flora is the precedence for audio taping police. As long as the recorded party have been advised or it is recorded in a public place it is legal. I am with expvideo on this one, I am not sure it is legal to record audio on the basis that it is your house because it is a private setting.
    Precisely. There is no law in WA state that prevents you from recording video, but there is a law that prevents you from recording audio of private conversations without notification.

    And Mike, I don't need to cite laws. It's clearly written in WA state law that you have to notify all parties for audio, and I can't refference the lack of a video recording law. If you want to prove me wrong, you cite something. Seriously, what am I supposed to cite to prove that a law doesn't exist?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    jaredbelch wrote:
    irfner wrote:
    Just post a sign on the door of your house (business) warning that video and or audio are recorded for security.
    Wouldn't you want to post it on your window? I mean isn't that how he's getting in anyway?

    Lawyer: Your Honor this evidence clearly infringes on my clients rights to privacy. He was unaware he would be recorded.

    Me: Your honor this is a picture of the notice on my front door warning all who enter that they are on tape.

    Lawyer: As you can see your Honor, this notice is posted on the door, my client isn't in the habit of using doors as they are usually locked. In the great state of ___ the law clearly states that a notice shall be placed at all entrances. This was not followed, and since my client entered through the window, the evidence is inadmissible.

    Me:
    So how's your career as a fiction writer coming along?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    So how's your career as a science fiction writer coming along?
    fixed it for you

    What planet does that hypothetical trial take place on, anyway?

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    So how's your career as a science fiction writer coming along?
    fixed it for you

    What planet does that hypothetical trial take place on, anyway?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    bcp wrote:AHA. Good call Bruce. I was unaware of that statute.
    "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

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    expvideo wrote:
    He is absolutely incorrect. You can record all you want. It's your home, not Nordstrom. A theif has no legal expectation of privacy whilst robbing your home. You can't broadcast it on TV without consent from the person on film, or you will have to blur his face.
    Cite to authority? Why such an inconsistent rule set? We are talking about Washington state where folks taping police officers on official duty are being charged with crimes - the post above is not helpful.
    State vs Flora is the precedence for audio taping police. As long as the recorded party have been advised or it is recorded in a public place it is legal. I am with expvideo on this one, I am not sure it is legal to record audio on the basis that it is your house because it is a private setting.
    Precisely. There is no law in WA state that prevents you from recording video, but there is a law that prevents you from recording audio of private conversations without notification.

    And Mike, I don't need to cite laws. It's clearly written in WA state law that you have to notify all parties for audio, and I can't refference the lack of a video recording law. If you want to prove me wrong, you cite something. Seriously, what am I supposed to cite to prove that a law doesn't exist?
    OK, so you were right, Mike. For the one time in history, there is a law saying that it's not illegal to do something.

  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    expvideo wrote:
    He is absolutely incorrect. You can record all you want. It's your home, not Nordstrom. A theif has no legal expectation of privacy whilst robbing your home. You can't broadcast it on TV without consent from the person on film, or you will have to blur his face.
    Cite to authority? Why such an inconsistent rule set? We are talking about Washington state where folks taping police officers on official duty are being charged with crimes - the post above is not helpful.
    State vs Flora is the precedence for audio taping police. As long as the recorded party have been advised or it is recorded in a public place it is legal. I am with expvideo on this one, I am not sure it is legal to record audio on the basis that it is your house because it is a private setting.
    Precisely. There is no law in WA state that prevents you from recording video, but there is a law that prevents you from recording audio of private conversations without notification.

    And Mike, I don't need to cite laws. It's clearly written in WA state law that you have to notify all parties for audio, and I can't refference the lack of a video recording law. If you want to prove me wrong, you cite something. Seriously, what am I supposed to cite to prove that a law doesn't exist?
    But you stated 3 rules of law, and did not cite to any authority for these rules, in the context of background knowledge that it is illegal in Wash at times to record audio. e.g., why can I not broadcast thief's face on TV? What law makes this true?

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SW WA
    Posts
    127

    Post imported post

    why can I not broadcast thief's face on TV?
    Sounds to me like "disclose" in the RCW below makes it OK.

    TV shows videotaped criminals in the news all the time.
    "Here is a video of a Hurry-Up-Mart being robbed. If you recognize the robber, please call the police."

    Bruce
    -----------------------------------------
    RCW 9.73.110
    It shall not be unlawful for the owner or person entitled to use and possession of a building, as defined in RCW 9A.04.110(5), or the agent of such person, to intercept, record, or disclose communications or conversations which occur within such building if the persons engaged in such communication or conversation are engaged in a criminal act at the time of such communication or conversation by virtue of unlawful entry or remaining unlawfully in such building.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    expvideo wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    expvideo wrote:
    He is absolutely incorrect. You can record all you want. It's your home, not Nordstrom. A theif has no legal expectation of privacy whilst robbing your home. You can't broadcast it on TV without consent from the person on film, or you will have to blur his face.
    Cite to authority? Why such an inconsistent rule set? We are talking about Washington state where folks taping police officers on official duty are being charged with crimes - the post above is not helpful.
    State vs Flora is the precedence for audio taping police. As long as the recorded party have been advised or it is recorded in a public place it is legal. I am with expvideo on this one, I am not sure it is legal to record audio on the basis that it is your house because it is a private setting.
    Precisely. There is no law in WA state that prevents you from recording video, but there is a law that prevents you from recording audio of private conversations without notification.

    And Mike, I don't need to cite laws. It's clearly written in WA state law that you have to notify all parties for audio, and I can't refference the lack of a video recording law. If you want to prove me wrong, you cite something. Seriously, what am I supposed to cite to prove that a law doesn't exist?
    But you stated 3 rules of law, and did not cite to any authority for these rules, in the context of background knowledge that it is illegal in Wash at times to record audio. e.g., why can I not broadcast thief's face on TV? What law makes this true?
    This is why faces are blurred in "Cops". You have to get a written disclosure from the person, just as you would in filming anything else, or they can sue you. I don't know what law that is, it's just common knowledge.



    If it's any help, I went to film school at Montana State University, so when I say "somebody told me", I mean a professor at MSU, not some guy on YouTube.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    OK, so you were right, Mike. For the one time in history, there is a law saying that it's not illegal to do something.
    It's actually not that unusual, as this section is merely permitting, in a very specific circumstance, what is otherwise banned by RCW 9.73.030.

  24. #24
    Regular Member thebastidge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd, Vancouver Washington, USA
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    "I don't know what law that is, it's just common knowledge."

    It's common knowledge that you can't openly carry a pistol on your belt in a holster too. I don't see any justification for being defensive when someone asks for a citation. If you can't prove it, why claim it as a solid fact and then defend yourself, rather than just saying, "I have no basis on which to claim this. I may be wrong"?
    Be prepared. Be very prepared.

    http://swwsurplus.com/ *** 2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd Vancouver WA 98661 *** 360.314.6687
    http://www.facebook.com/SouthWestWashingtonSurplus *** https://twitter.com/SWWSurplus

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    thebastidge wrote:
    "I don't know what law that is, it's just common knowledge."

    It's common knowledge that you can't openly carry a pistol on your belt in a holster too. I don't see any justification for being defensive when someone asks for a citation. If you can't prove it, why claim it as a solid fact and then defend yourself, rather than just saying, "I have no basis on which to claim this. I may be wrong"?
    Because I don't want to take the time and energy to back up what should be an obvious statement. Here's a quote from Google Answers, and that's as much research as I want to do, since again, this is to me at least a very obvious, common knowledge statement.




    Code:
    Hi, thank you for submitting your question to Answers.Google, I hope I
    can provide the information you are seeking.
    
    I need to preface this by stating that I am a former PBS employee and
    some of the information I am providing is from personal experience.
    
    But, to the point, there is definitely a law, actually several laws,
    but the most important one in this case is actually the one involved
    with model releases:
    
    First, unless the people involved sign a “model release” you can’t
    show their images in a way which actually identifies them clearly
    unless you meet some rather vague conditions, none of which the
    producers probably want to have adjudicated every few days.
    You can show images of crowds but not individuals in most circumstances.
    
    Second, some of these individuals are later discovered to be juveniles
    and it is illegal in most jurisdictions to give out any information
    whatever about juveniles involved in any crimes, even if convicted,
    unless they are adjudicated as adults.
    
    Thirdly, there is the law of libel/slander which would open the
    producers and possibly the stations showing the program to civil suit
    because the presentation suggests strongly that the person shown has
    done something criminal. The video you see is only a tiny amount of
    that actually shot and the editing is designed to make the person
    appear to be guilty and also to make things as exciting as possible.
    
    The situation with surveillance videos shown from stores and such is
    different because the store usually has a posted surveillance policy.
    
    COPS and other similar programs not only need to cover their butts,
    they must also abide by any special rules imposed by the local
    jurisdictions and protect the stations which broadcast the images.
    
    These contracts are extremely complex and vary from situation to situation.
    
    For more information see:
    
    
    
    http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002kze
    
    http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/ShowMainServlet/showid-2941/COPS/
    
    
    
    Google search terms: COPS model release
    
    Google search terms: COPS TV show
    
    Thank you again for turning to Answers.Google for help I hope this
    answers your specific question. As an aside, there is no such thing as
    "obvious" when you are talking about either the law or the courts.
    Anyway, if you want to know more about model releases and slander, go ahead and look it up yourself. If I'm wrong you can rub my face in it, but since I'm not wrong you can just save yourself the time. I know I will.

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
  •