Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Recording a police encounter

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Superstition Mountain, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    424

    Post imported post

    Saw this in the freep today:

    http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...WS03/805300395

    It's an article about the new in-car recording systems in Royal Oak, but a couple of paragraphs at the bottom caught my eye, as this topic seems to come up frequently:


    Officers on routine patrols can record virtually anyone who speaks with them because "Michigan is a one-party state; only one party has to give permission for this," Royal Oak Police Chief Ted Quisenberry said Monday.

    That's correct, said University of Michigan law professor Richard Friedman, an expert on evidence.

    "What happens between the officers and the people they're investigating is not private," so no search warrant is needed, he said.
    Obviously, this applies both ways, so feel free to carry a recorder in Michigan as long as you give yourself permission to record.

  2. #2
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    mzbk2l wrote:
    Saw this in the freep today:

    http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...WS03/805300395

    It's an article about the new in-car recording systems in Royal Oak, but a couple of paragraphs at the bottom caught my eye, as this topic seems to come up frequently:


    Officers on routine patrols can record virtually anyone who speaks with them because "Michigan is a one-party state; only one party has to give permission for this," Royal Oak Police Chief Ted Quisenberry said Monday.

    That's correct, said University of Michigan law professor Richard Friedman, an expert on evidence.

    "What happens between the officers and the people they're investigating is not private," so no search warrant is needed, he said.
    Obviously, this applies both ways, so feel free to carry a recorder in Michigan as long as you give yourself permission to record.
    I never give my self permission, I find I can't trust me.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Silverwood, Michigan
    Posts
    720

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    mzbk2l wrote:
    Saw this in the freep today:

    http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...WS03/805300395

    It's an article about the new in-car recording systems in Royal Oak, but a couple of paragraphs at the bottom caught my eye, as this topic seems to come up frequently:


    Officers on routine patrols can record virtually anyone who speaks with them because "Michigan is a one-party state; only one party has to give permission for this," Royal Oak Police Chief Ted Quisenberry said Monday.

    That's correct, said University of Michigan law professor Richard Friedman, an expert on evidence.

    "What happens between the officers and the people they're investigating is not private," so no search warrant is needed, he said.
    Obviously, this applies both ways, so feel free to carry a recorder in Michigan as long as you give yourself permission to record.
    I never give my self permission, I find I can't trust me.
    oh that rips....good to know. another printout for the book of knowledge.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jackson, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    Michigan is a two party state. However, I'm not sure how the law applies to coversations out in the public. (Traffic Stops)



    Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c: A private conversation legally cannot be overheard or recorded without the consent of all participants. Illegal eavesdropping can be punished as a felony carrying a jail term of up to two years and a fine of up to $2,000.
    In addition, any individual who divulges information he knows, or reasonably should know, was obtained through illegal eavesdropping is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to two years and a fine of up to $2,000. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539e. Civil liability for actual and punitive damages also are sanctioned. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539h.
    The eavesdropping statute has been interpreted by one court as applying only to situations in which a third party has intercepted a communication, an interpretation that makes it legal for a participant in a conversation to record that conversation without the permission of other parties. Sullivan v. Gray, 324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
    Patrick

    The state supreme court stated in a July 1999 ruling that a participant in a conversation "may not unilaterally nullify other participants' expectations of privacy by secretly broadcasting the conversation" and that the overriding inquiry should be whether the parties "intended and reasonably expected that the conversation was private." Therefore, it is likely that a recording party may not broadcast a recorded conversation without the consent of all parties. Dickerson v. Raphael, 601 N.W.2d 108 (Mich. 1999).
    Under the Michigan statute, a parent may not vicariously consent to a recording for a minor child. Williams v. Williams, 603 N.W. 2d 114 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
    It is a felony to observe, photograph or eavesdrop on a person in a private place without the person's consent. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539d. A private place is a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from intrusion or surveillance, but not a place where the public has access. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539a.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Superstition Mountain, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    424

    Post imported post

    Interesting point, Patrick; thanks. I'm guessing that the "private conversation" is what comes into play here. The statute you posted reads "A private conversation legally cannot be overheard or recorded without the consent of all participants."

    According to the article, " 'What happens between the officers and the people they're investigating is not private,' so no search warrant is needed, he said."

    That also seems to be the conclusion of the case laws you posted, but I wouldn't mind additional clarification if it's available.

  6. #6
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    Patrick,

    What you posted pertains to a third party recording a private conversation.

    It has nothing to do with YOU recording a conversation thatYOU are part of.



    "an interpretation that makes it legal for a participant in a conversation to record that conversation without the permission of other parties."


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jackson, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    I got my information from a website that advertises for sale a device to record telephone conversations.



    http://www.callcorder.com/phone-reco...aw-america.htm



  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    I don't like the table.

    Illinois is not a one party state. In fact, there is a specific exemption in the law allowing squad car cams to record without permission from all parties.



    (720 ILCS 5/14‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 14‑2)
    Sec. 14‑2. Elements of the offense; affirmative defense.
    (a) A person commits eavesdropping when he:
    (1) Knowingly and intentionally uses an eavesdropping device for the purpose of hearing or recording all or any part of any conversation or intercepts, retains, or transcribes electronic communication unless he does so (A) with the consent of all of the parties to such conversation or electronic communication or (B) in accordance with Article 108A or Article 108B of the "Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963", approved August 14, 1963, as amended;

    Option (B) refers to judicially sanctioned eavesdropping.

  9. #9
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    Patrick,

    That is law that pertains to "Private coversations"

    When you are talking to the police it's a PUBLIC coversation.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    dougwg wrote:
    Patrick,

    That is law that pertains to "Private coversations"

    When you are talking to the police it's a PUBLIC coversation.
    Illinois law does not differentiate between public and private. I don't know about other states.

  11. #11
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    Thats fine but we are not in the "general forum". We are in the MICHIGAN forum and thus we are discussing Michigan law.

Posting Permissions

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