• 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.

Voice Recorders

Sheriff

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

Citizen wrote:
1) Its tactically not a good idea to inform the LEO. If he's touchy on the subject, or just a bad cop, your recording or recorder may "disappear". Also, as an extreme, a really bad cop might even be pushed into a corner--he's been recorded saying things that can get him harshly disciplined or fired (if he's been warned for earlier similar incidents). Now, backed into a corner, he has no choice but to arrest you on false charges so he can justify the search-incident-to-arrest thatalso just happens to let him get his hands on your recorder, which of course completely disappears by the time you get to the magistrate's office.
To take this one step further.... if a cop has made some pretty incriminating remarks on the police radio frequency to dispatch or a fellow cop, or if the the cop has received a transmission from dispatch that has ruined his day during a false arrest for example -- there's a pretty good likelihood that the 911 tapes will be "accidentally" destroyed. Been there, done that. Subpoena issued for tapes, tapes destroyed. We actuallyhad a 911 dispatcher who testified he was assigned to cut the tapes into pieces no longer than 1" each one day.
 

suntzu

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
1,230
Location
The south land
imported post

Sheriff wrote:
Citizen wrote:
1) Its tactically not a good idea to inform the LEO. If he's touchy on the subject, or just a bad cop, your recording or recorder may "disappear". Also, as an extreme, a really bad cop might even be pushed into a corner--he's been recorded saying things that can get him harshly disciplined or fired (if he's been warned for earlier similar incidents). Now, backed into a corner, he has no choice but to arrest you on false charges so he can justify the search-incident-to-arrest thatalso just happens to let him get his hands on your recorder, which of course completely disappears by the time you get to the magistrate's office.
To take this one step further.... if a cop has made some pretty incriminating remarks on the police radio frequency to dispatch or a fellow cop, or if the the cop has received a transmission from dispatch that has ruined his day during a false arrest for example -- there's a pretty good likelihood that the 911 tapes will be "accidentally" destroyed. Been there, done that. Subpoena issued for tapes, tapes destroyed. We actuallyhad a 911 dispatcher who testified he was assigned to cut the tapes into pieces no longer than 1" each one day.
Which brings up one question I have--is radio traffic during a traffic stop recorded? For example--if I were to get pulled over, or stopped during a walk, jog and so on--would the radio traffic from that stop be recorded? You said 911 tapes are recorded--which I can understand, but what about cross talk from the radio traffic--say between a LEO and dispatch, or between LEOs?
 

Sheriff

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

suntzu wrote:
Which brings up one question I have--is radio traffic during a traffic stop recorded? For example--if I were to get pulled over, or stopped during a walk, jog and so on--would the radio traffic from that stop be recorded? You said 911 tapes are recorded--which I can understand, but what about cross talk from the radio traffic--say between a LEO and dispatch, or between LEOs?

The actual conversation of the traffic stop between you and the cop is not recorded by 911 in any city or county that I am aware of. There's a chance a dashcam in a cop car is recording it though. And Godonly knows if you would ever get a copy if there's any incriminating evidence against a city or county on said recordings made by a vehicle's dashcam.

Most anycommunication tothe cop by 911 dispatchers, and communications from the cop back to 911 dispatchers are recorded . But, some departments still have side frequencies which aren't recorded for obvious reasons, things they don't want recorded.And most radio transmissions from car to car are recorded. Unless the cops are using a talk around frequency.

So........... as you can see, there's not really a simple answer to your question. Policy, equipment and the capabilities of said equipment vary from agency to agency statewide.

What prompted my original remark was the fact that right in your city 911 tapes were allegedly "accidentally" destroyed after a subpoena was issued for them. The tapes would have confirmed a county officer had indeed just made a very serious false arrest by jumping the gun and not listending to a word the "suspect" wastelling him. The 911 tapes were very incriminating to the department, the rookie cop, and the rookie cop's supervisor. The"suspect" was a sworn deputy sheriff in an adjoining county and had no reason whatsoever to lie to the cop.When the stuffhit thefan, and CYOA became an instantnecessity by the cops, the tapes were "accidentally" destroyed. Had the resulting lawsuits not settled out of court, there wasa dispatcher we located who would have testified he was assigned to cut the tapes into pieces no longer than 1". He had no interest in committing perjury for the county police since he had no dog in the fight. He had also gone on to become a director in another 911 center, so the 911 center he would have been testifying against couldn't have penalized him in the least.
 

Elkad

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2008
Messages
115
Location
Bluefield, West Virginia, USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
2. It shall not be a criminal offense under this chapter for a person to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.
Wouldn't that mean that if you recorded anything from the officers radio, you'd be breaking the law?

Even if he gave consent to record, if 3rd parties were talking, you'd still be wrong?

I can't give a cite, but I seem to remember a case of a cellphone video of alleged police brutality resulted in a charge of wiretapping, because police radio transmissions were recorded. I can't even say what state it happened in though.
 

Citizen

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

Elkad wrote:
Citizen wrote:
2. It shall not be a criminal offense under this chapter for a person to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.
Wouldn't that mean that if you recorded anything from the officers radio, you'd be breaking the law?

Even if he gave consent to record, if 3rd parties were talking, you'd still be wrong?

I can't give a cite, but I seem to remember a case of a cellphone video of alleged police brutality resulted in a charge of wiretapping, because police radio transmissions were recorded. I can't even say what state it happened in though.
Oh, I imagine it could be attempted.

Some jurisdictions have court cases saying there is no expectation of privacy in public, and others have court cases saying public officials or police aren't protected while performing official duties.

I don't know if we have any such rulings in this state or federal district.
 

Sheriff

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

I forget who, why and where, but there was a big political stink in Virginia not long ago with somebody recording cell phone conversations. It was strangehow many people used to think they had privacy on the old analog cell phone lines a few years back. The frequencies were amazingly easy and simple to intercept.
 

mobeewan

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
652
Location
Hampton, Va, ,
imported post

Elkad wrote:
Citizen wrote:
2. It shall not be a criminal offense under this chapter for a person to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.
Wouldn't that mean that if you recorded anything from the officers radio, you'd be breaking the law?

Even if he gave consent to record, if 3rd parties were talking, you'd still be wrong?

I can't give a cite, but I seem to remember a case of a cellphone video of alleged police brutality resulted in a charge of wiretapping, because police radio transmissions were recorded. I can't even say what state it happened in though.
AFAIK police radio transmissionsare in thepublic domain and can be recorded by anyone. I believe the cite listed above is in regard to private conversations and wiretapping. AFAIK apolice officer is a public servant and what he sayswhile in the performance of his duties is fair game for recording. That is why they don't like to be recorded because it can get them in trouble down the line.
 

Citizen

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

mobeewan wrote:
Elkad wrote:
Citizen wrote:
2. It shall not be a criminal offense under this chapter for a person to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.
Wouldn't that mean that if you recorded anything from the officers radio, you'd be breaking the law?

Even if he gave consent to record, if 3rd parties were talking, you'd still be wrong?

I can't give a cite, but I seem to remember a case of a cellphone video of alleged police brutality resulted in a charge of wiretapping, because police radio transmissions were recorded. I can't even say what state it happened in though.
AFAIK police radio transmissionsare in thepublic domain and can be recorded by anyone. I believe the cite listed above is in regard to private conversations and wiretapping. AFAIK apolice officer is a public servant and what he sayswhile in the performance of his duties is fair game for recording. That is why they don't like to be recorded because it can get them in trouble down the line.
Sounds like a good defense to me.
 

ccunning

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
115
Location
Manassas, Virginia, USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
2. It shall not be a criminal offense under this chapter for a person to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception. (emphasis mine)
What would constitute a "party" to the communication? Say you're confronted by an officer for open carrying and your buddy is with you and has a voice recorder. He does not participate in the discussion, but is well within earshot. What if it is not clear to the officer that he is your associate (for whatever reason). Can he legally record the conversation?
 

DHCruiser

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
199
Location
Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

If you consent, then yes he could record it (caveat: In states that allow one party approval, like VA). The key is given prior consent, so if you know you're buddy is recording and you've told him it's ok, you've given the required consent.
 

AbNo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,805
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
imported post

MirkoCrocop wrote:
....if and when you are terry stopped do you leave the recorder in your pocket and press record, or do you hold it out in the open while the LEO is talking to you. And do you have to notify the LEO if you are indeed recording him?
I prefer to capture the moment in its purest form. Thankfully the H'burg PD has, usually, been pretty good when I've talked to them. :)

Virginia is a one-party-notification state. Just make sure to notify yourself that you are recording your own conversation, and you're fine. :D
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
imported post

Citizen wrote:
If 4400 posts and being a Founders Club member counts for anything, I want to throw my weight around a little.

WHY ARE THERE NO CITES FOR THE ASSERTIONS OF LAW IN SOME OF THE EARLIER POSTS?

Here ya go; the federal Eavesdropping, Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, passed as part of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 says about the same thing:
Text in effect from and after July 1, 2004

Title 19.2 Criminal Procedure
Chap. 6 Interception of Wire, Electronic or Oral Communications, §§ 19.2-61 — 19.2-70.3

§ 19.2-62. Interception, disclosure, etc., of wire, electronic or oral communications unlawful; penalties; exceptions. —

A. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who:

1. Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, electronic or oral communication;

2. Intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical or other device to intercept any oral communication;

3. Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or

4. Intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

B. 1. It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee or agent of a provider of wire or electronic communications service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service. However, a provider of wire communication service to the public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks. It shall not be a criminal offense under this chapter for providers of wire or electronic communications service, their officers, employees and agents, landlords, custodians, or other persons pursuant to a court order under this chapter, to provide information facilities or technical assistance to an investigative or law-enforcement officer, who, pursuant to this chapter, is authorized to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication.

2. It shall not be a criminal offense under this chapter for a person to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.

3. It shall not be a criminal offense under this chapter for any person:

(a) To intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

(b) To intercept any radio communication which is transmitted (i) by any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress, (ii) by any governmental, law-enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public, (iii) by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or (iv) by any marine or aeronautical communications system;

(c) To intercept any wire or electronic communication the transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any lawfully operating station or consumer electronic equipment, to the extent necessary to identify the source of such interference;

(d) Using the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of such system, if such communication is not scrambled or encrypted;

(e) To use a pen register or a trap and trace device pursuant to §§ 19.2-70.1 and 19.2-70.2; or

(f) Who is a provider of electronic communication service to record the fact that a wire or electronic communication was initiated or completed in order to protect such provider, another provider furnishing service toward the completion of the wire or electronic communication, or a user of that service, from fraudulent, unlawful or abusive use of such service.

C. A person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not intentionally divulge the contents of any communication, other than one to such person or entity or an agent thereof, while in transmission on that service to any person or entity other than an addressee or intended recipient of such communication or an agent of the addressee or intended recipient. However, a person or entity providing electronic communication service to the public may divulge the contents of any such communication:

1. As authorized in subdivision B 1 of this section or § 19.2-67;

2. With the lawful consent of the originator or any addressee or intended recipient of such communication;

3. To a person employed or authorized, or whose facilities are used, to forward such communication to its destination; or

4. Which were inadvertently obtained by the service provider and which appear to pertain to the commission of a crime, to a law-enforcement agency.

Conduct otherwise an offense under this subsection that consists of or relates to the interception of a satellite transmission that is not encrypted or scrambled and that is transmitted (i) to a broadcasting station for purposes of retransmission to the general public, or (ii) as an audio subcarrier intended for redistribution to facilities open to the public, but not including data transmissions or telephone calls, is not an offense under this section unless the conduct is for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain. Further, private viewing of a satellite video communication that is not scrambled or encrypted and interception of a radio communication that is transmitted on frequencies allocated under subpart D of Part 74 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission that is not scrambled or encrypted when the viewing or interception is not done for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain, shall not be offenses under this chapter.

Violation of this subsection shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor. (Code 1950, § 19.1-89.2; 1973, c. 442; 1975, c. 495; 1988, c. 889; 2004, c. 149.)
Virginia Code § 19.2-62
 
Top