• 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.

Recording a police encounter

mzbk2l

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
425
Location
Superstition Mountain, Arizona, USA
imported post

Saw this in the freep today:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080530/NEWS03/805300395

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. :)
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

mzbk2l wrote:
Saw this in the freep today:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080530/NEWS03/805300395

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.
 

warlockmatized

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
720
Location
Silverwood, Michigan
imported post

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

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080530/NEWS03/805300395

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.
 

Patrick

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
29
Location
Jackson, Michigan, USA
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.
 

mzbk2l

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
425
Location
Superstition Mountain, Arizona, USA
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.
 

dougwg

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
2,443
Location
MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
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."
 

Patrick

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
29
Location
Jackson, Michigan, USA
imported post

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



http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm

State%20Laws.jpg
 

ilbob

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
778
Location
, Illinois, USA
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.



[align=justify](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;
[/align]
[align=justify]Option (B) refers to judicially sanctioned eavesdropping.[/align]
 

ilbob

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
778
Location
, Illinois, USA
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.
 
Top