• 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.

Police taping you

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

As long as the recording isn't "creatively edited" or "accidently" lost after an incident, I'm all for it. Recording interactions between officers and the public seems to be a good idea for all parties. It reduces uncertainty of the events, and it leads to more professional police officers.

Spying, on the other hand, is different, and should be distinguished from encounter recordings. If you get stopped by a cop in traffic or wherever, you should assume that you are being recorded and really can't complain about being spied on, unless of course the cop is just stopping people for the purpose of getting photos and voice recordings of people, for the purpose of targeting and intimidating protesters or something. Even then, when you are in public you really have no expectation of privacy.

I have a theory that an active citizenry is a good way to keep a police force sharp and professional. I also think camera recordings help.
 

longwatch

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
4,327
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

Well if you properly use your right to remain silent why would it matter if the police have a recorder?
 

longwatch

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
4,327
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

Tomahawk wrote:
longwatch wrote:
Well OK but I'll have my own copy from my recorder.
What recorder? You mean the one that disappeared right around when your tail light broke?;)
That's what the other one is for. Two is one, one is none.
 

sraacke

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
1,214
Location
Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
imported post

It's good to have your own recorder. Audio and video. I used to keep a VCR camcorder in my car and had it mounted on the dash when I was in the Volunteer Fire Department and responded with lights and siren to the station when paged out. The recorder documented that I was driving within department polices and not endangering the public. Over the years I had at least 2 complaints from citizens of reckless driving which were dismissed after presenting my video to my Fire Chief.

Sometimes police officers can get a bit...enthusiastic in their jobs. It's a good thing to be able to have video tape evidance to back yourself up should something happen.

Just google the name "Brett Darrow" . Like many of us here at OCDO, he was a guy who just wanted to be left alone and asserted his rights. The cops did not like it and it got to the point where they were activly stalking him. His video tapes and media exposure showed just how far some departments and their officers will go to harrass a citizen.

Darrow was stopped and harrased at a DWI check point. The media got his tape and story which can be read here. ->

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1522.asp

Another time he was harrassed while waiting for a friend in a commuter parking lot. The copthreatened Darrow and was suspended without pay after the video came out.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1961.asp

Next we find out that a online forum for cops has posts clearly threating to harm and even kill Mr Darrow.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1967.asp

Finally the cops start parking down the street from Darrows home, staking out his house and trying to intimidate him.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1988.asp

You're not paraniod if they really are out to get you. :uhoh:
 

Jizzzle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
394
Location
Holloman AFB, , USA
imported post

I dunno if you guys have read about the suit I'm going through right now but man I wish i had a DVR at that time.. I have one now and i take it everywhere. In NM it is totally legal to record a conversation as long as one participant in the conversation is aware that it is being recorded. and that includes phone calls. good times.
 

rmodel65

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
488
Location
, ,
imported post

after my leo run in for OCing i bought one, i have a sony ICD-P620 with rechargeable batteries i juice up every night. GA is a one party consent state, and I always give myself permission:celebrate:celebrate
 

Sheriff

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
1,968
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

rmodel65 wrote:
after my leo run in for OCing i bought one, i have a sony ICD-P620 with rechargeable batteries i juice up every night. GA is a one party consent state, and I always give myself permission:celebrate:celebrate

Ahh, a guinea pig to lay my most recent puzzling and mind boggling questions upon. And give it some serious thought before answering please, I want your honest opinion. (Anybody else who wants to play can answer too please)

1) After you are (falsely) arrested, booked into the jail, and incarcerated until bond is posted...... do you feel you will ever see your tape recorder again?

2) If you do get it back, do you think the recording(s) will still exist?

.
 

Citizen

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

Sheriff wrote:
rmodel65 wrote:
after my leo run in for OCing i bought one, i have a sony ICD-P620 with rechargeable batteries i juice up every night. GA is a one party consent state, and I always give myself permission:celebrate:celebrate

Ahh, a guinea pig to lay my most recent puzzling and mind boggling questions upon. And give it some serious thought before answering please, I want your honest opinion. (Anybody else who wants to play can answer too please)

1) After you are (falsely) arrested, booked into the jail, and incarcerated until bond is posted...... do you feel you will ever see your tape recorder again?

2) If you do get it back, do you think the recording(s) will still exist?

Thank you for the kind invitation. :)

No to both 1 and 2.

A voice recorderdoesn't have to be a sure thing in all possible scenarios to be useful in many.

Its one of the tools. Thatsall.

The important thing is not to anger the cop so badly that he unlawfully frisks you or falsely arrests you. Preserve the recording by keeping it.

As Sheriff points out, once its discovered through an improperfrisk or search-incident-to-arrest, there is a real good chance the recording or the recorder itself will disappear. About the only way it would be safe is if a police officer was totally, but incorrectly, certain he had conducted himself well.

There are more angles to this, but lunch break is over, so I'll sign off here.
 

codename_47

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
376
Location
, ,
imported post

1) After you are (falsely) arrested, booked into the jail, and incarcerated until bond is posted...... do you feel you will ever see your tape recorder again?

2) If you do get it back, do you think the recording(s) will still exist?


That is why my recorders look like normal, everyday objects that won't generally raise suspicions.
 

SlackwareRobert

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
1,338
Location
Alabama, ,
imported post

Yes, because they do not need to know it exists, and they will not find it.
It may take a while to access the audio, but it will be there till I delete it.

Isn't it amazing how many have to have that first encounter to learn to carry
a recorder. I had mine the next morning when I went to file the complaint,
chief was irate when he saw it, saying you can't record without his consent.
Law says otherwise. Old walkman has been replaced by digital a long time now.

Still looking at video systems. Only want to remove the dash one time, it is such a pain getting those harness brackets back on with those 7mm nuts.
 

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

AbNo wrote:
None. It may be your equipment, but it has to do with the user of said equipment at the time of the offense.

Same reason why you don't get charged with murder (typically:exclaim:) if someone breaks into your car, steals it, and tries to break the current mass vehicular homicide record.

But here in Cali I have been told that if my gun is stolen and I don't have a gun lock on it I am partially liable for what the criminal does with the gun.

Only because it wasn't locked...

A little off topic, but...thouht it was relevant.
 

Sheriff

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
1,968
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

SlackwareRobert wrote:
...... when I went to file the complaint, chief was irate when he saw it, saying you can't record without his consent. Law says otherwise.....
Bingo! We have a winner! The first words out of the chief's mouth are the same opinion some officers have. Therefore, there's a darn good possibility of hearing "what recorder? He didn't have a recorder when I arrested him!"

Ya see, it's OK for the police to record you. And it's OK for them to deny a recording even exists if it's in their best interest to do so. But recording them without their knowledge is often looked upon as"contemt of cop".

We had a local rookie who obtained a stalking warrant for another police officer when the police officer, with cause,whipped up on the rookie in court. (Yes, cops fight amongst themselves too!) This rookie had video cameras in thefront and rear windsheilds of his patrol car. But at the actual stalking trial he could not produce 1 second of video to back up his claim that the police officer was stalking him. We believe in this particular case that the video/audio was intentionally destroyed because it would have actually shown the rookie stalking the police officer. Interestingly enough, at the same time this rookie was accused of stalking a local prominent business man who beat a traffic charge against him. If the loss or destructionof police audio/video from a police car can take place, don't ever assume your recording as a citizen will survive whatever encounter.

Under any circumstances though, having a video or audio recording is better than not having one.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

Theseus wrote:
AbNo wrote:
None. It may be your equipment, but it has to do with the user of said equipment at the time of the offense.

Same reason why you don't get charged with murder (typically:exclaim:) if someone breaks into your car, steals it, and tries to break the current mass vehicular homicide record.

But here in Cali I have been told that if my gun is stolen and I don't have a gun lock on it I am partially liable for what the criminal does with the gun.

Only because it wasn't locked...

A little off topic, but...thouht it was relevant.
"Hello, officer? Yes, my gun was stolen. Yes, it was a ______, serial number XXXXXX with a black trigger lock on it." Every time. Who the hell would say it didn't have a trigger lock on it??
 

Jizzzle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
394
Location
Holloman AFB, , USA
imported post

at what point do the LEO's get held to the same standards as everyone else? or hey wait here's a thought... a higher standard than everyone else... wow i just blew my own mind..
 

MetalChris

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
1,215
Location
SW Ohio
imported post

yale wrote:
Darrow was stopped and harrased at a DWI check point. The media got his tape and story which can be read here. ->

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1522.asp

Another time he was harrassed while waiting for a friend in a commuter parking lot. The copthreatened Darrow and was suspended without pay after the video came out.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1961.asp

Next we find out that a online forum for cops has posts clearly threating to harm and even kill Mr Darrow.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1967.asp

Finally the cops start parking down the street from Darrows home, staking out his house and trying to intimidate him.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1967.asp

You're not paraniod if they really are out to get you. :uhoh:
Wow, that cop is the definition of douche bag.
 

Sheriff

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
1,968
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

In one of the links posted there.....

quote: "The videotape from Kuehnlein's police cruiser is currently missing ..."

I rest my case. Again. If video/audio magically disappears from official police cruisers, the video or audio anybody here records could well disappear too once in custody and incarcerated while awaiting bond. So nobody can rely on any type of video or audio. So, be forewarned is all I am saying I suppose. Video and/or audio is great stuff, if it survives whatever encounter youmay have.
 
Top