Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 135

Thread: Accosted for open carry in Milwaukie, OR

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    I was pulled over for speeding on McLaughlin Blvd. According to my ticket he saw that i was going 60 in a 45 by vision. and not with any radar or laser.

    transcript to the best of my memory.

    officer: Do you know the speed limit here.
    me: no
    officer: its 45mph, do you know how fast you were going.
    me: no
    officer: 60... where are you coming from
    me: home
    officer: where are you going in such a hurry
    me: i'm not in a hurry
    officer: *sees pistol in center console, clicks radio* gun
    officer: i need to see your concealed permit, and license registration insurance
    me: *gave him everything
    officer: leave that gun where it is and i'll be back.
    me: ok

    after writing ticket, partner eying me down with hand on pistol

    officer: *with hand on pistol* here is your stuff. You need to conceal your gun, or at least tell us you have one, some guys aren't as forgiving as me. next time you're going to get a pistol pointed at your head.
    me: that sounds like a huge lawsuit
    officer: what
    me: pointing a gun at me after i've not done anything illegal.
    officer: concealed permit means concealed...
    me: *interrupts* you know thats not true
    officer: look, i don't know you, you might
    me: *interrupts* look, i'd rather just leave now.
    officer: ok *walks off*

    the entire time officer #2 had her hand on her pistol and staring down the window into my pregnant fiance's face.

    i felted very threatened by their attitudes, and i feared for my safety as i knew if i made any sort of move that could be contrived into a reach for my pistol i would be shot or at the very least arrested. and at the very worst my pregnant fiance shot.

    these officers were very rude, very condescending, and very authoritarian. i felt that i was threatened and assaulted by him saying next time i would get a gun pointed at my head.

    i know the officer knew exactly what he was doing and knew exactly what the law was, because he would've arrested me if he really believed concealed carry permit means concealed only. he deliberately lied to me in an attempt to force his opinions on me.

    does anyone here think i have any recourse against the city of Milwaukee and this officer for threatening me? I am going to file a FOIA request for everything having to do with the traffic stop and hopefully a audio recording or video recording of the traffic stop. I will also be sending a email later tonight to the chief of police.

    at the very least i will use the officers words against him in traffic court, calling his character and judgment into question and whether or not he should be trusted to visually see me doing "60 in a 45" in the flow of traffic after deliberately lying to me and threatening to point a gun at my head.


  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    is there anyone out there that can review this letter to the chief before i sent it. for any legal errors, or even for better ways to express what happened?

    --------------------------------------------

    **********
    **********
    **********
    **********

    February 1st, 2009

    Police Chief Bob Jordan
    Milwaukie Police Department
    Public Safety Building
    3200 SE Harrison Street
    Milwaukie, OR 97222


    Dear Chief Bob Jordan:

    At approximately 4:03pm on February 1st, 2009 I was stopped and detained while driving on Highway 99E in Clackamas County by one of your Officers by the name of L. Hall (ID: 35452). I was accused of violating ORS 811.111 (Violating a speed limit).
    While Officer Hall was at my window he noticed the pistol I was legally carrying in my car in the center console and called out in an alarmed way “gun” into his radio or to his partner I am not sure. (I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun under ORS 166.291 and 166.292). I presented my concealed carry license, driver’s license, insurance, and registration to Officer Hall and he warned me in a harsh tone to “leave the pistol where it is” and returned to his cruiser. In the meantime Officer Hall’s partner was standing beside my car with her hand on her pistol in a threatening manner.
    When Officer Hall returned to my car, he had his hand on his pistol in a threatening manner, and began to lecture me about how to carry a firearm. I am paraphrasing his words; he told me that I need to inform him that I was carrying a pistol, that I need to present my carry license as he comes to my window, and that concealed carry permits mean you must only conceal carry. He also told me that not everyone is as forgiving as he is, and that next time I would have a pistol pointed at my head. Which I took to mean that if he were come in contact with me again while I was lawfully carrying he would draw down on me with his pistol. He told all this to me in a very aggressive and condescending manner which I felt was a threat to me physically especially since he had his hand on his pistol at the time. I am particularly concerned about Officer Hall’s threats at the time because my pregnant fiancé was riding in the passenger seat, and I fear any motion by either of us that could possibly be construed into a reach for my pistol would result in my fiancé, our unborn child, or myself being killed or wounded. We both know that I am not required by law to inform an officer I am carrying, and having a concealed license does not mean you must carry concealed. I certainly hope I would not have a pistol pointed at my head for lawfully carrying a firearm.
    At the end of my detainment, after Office Hall told me I would have a pistol pointed at my head next time, I informed Officer Hall that we both knew what he told me was not true, and he further raised his voice in a threatening manner saying to me that he did not know who I was. I cut him off at that time and told him I would like to be on my way, and I drove off.
    I believe Officer Hall deliberately lied to me in an effort to impose his personal opinions. If he really believed that a concealed carry license meant you could only carry concealed and/or I am required by law to inform him I am licensed to carry concealed he would’ve arrested me.
    Officer Hall’s actions and words are very unprofessional, and I believe criminal under ORS 166.065, 163.190, and 163.275.
    I would appreciate a response pertaining to what sort of internal department actions will be taken against Officer Hall. I believe Officer Hall is a liability for the Milwaukie Police Department, I believe his attitude and actions will at the very least lead to lawsuits against the department and/or city, or perhaps to Officer Hall himself, and at the most cause an innocent person to be wounded or killed.
    I am particularly concerned about Officer Hall’s attitude and actions because it appeared to me that his partner was a rookie and I fear that Officer Hall will be teaching her very dangerous lessons.

    Respectfully,
    **********










  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    sent the email

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Springfield, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    27

    Post imported post

    I can see the initial need of the officers to protect themselves until they can call in and verify there are no warrants out for you. After they checked and found nothing on you, though, they should have been more relaxed after that. If they never changed their aggressive stance, then that does not really seem right.

    As far as announcing that you have a gun and a concealed carry permit, that is probably smart to do. If the gun is visible, it is going to cause concern and alarm, and you will get asked for your concealed carry permit anyway.

    Proactively assuring the officer up front that you are a good guy, and have a concealed carry permit is probably a good thing to do, in my opinion.

    Besides emailing your letter, I would also recommend that you mail a hard copy of the letter Monday as well.

    In order to initiate an internal investigation into this incident, you probably need to fill out a form and lodge an official complaint against the officer. I doubt that they will take action based on just an email. Remember how recently Portland Metro Police said that they could not investigate the Mayor for sex abuse, since no one had filed any formal complaint against him.

    I'm also doubtful a complaint would accomplish much, other than to make you unpopular at the Milwaukie Police Department.



  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    ocman1991A1 wrote:
    officer: *sees pistol in center console, clicks radio* gun
    officer: i need to see your concealed permit, and license registration insurance
    me: *gave him everything
    Sounds like you more than bent over backwards for the officer as there was no reason for you to provide your concealed permit unless you had a concealed gun.

    In writing letters and communicating generally, it is important to write very concisely and to highlight the critical facts in your favor, and get to the point you want to the addressee to focus on. This takes time and many revisions.

    I would follow up with the Chief or hire a lawyer to write another letter, asking for an official statement that officer X is not in fact going to point a gun at your head for mere open carrying. You can always make an online poll or talk to city concil members/mayor - you have plenty of options but keep your theme simple - e.g., I was open carrying during a routine trfffic stop - I provided concealed license which I happenned to have as favor to officer even though not required - officer then responded by telling me next time he saw me he would point a gun at my head.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    LanceOregon wrote:
    I'm also doubtful a complaint would accomplish much, other than to make you unpopular at the Milwaukie Police Department.

    thats fine with me, i don't go to that **** hole very often. i was looking for a corvette

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Springfield, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    27

    Post imported post

    ocman1991A1 wrote:
    LanceOregon wrote:
    I'm also doubtful a complaint would accomplish much, other than to make you unpopular at the Milwaukie Police Department.

    thats fine with me, i don't go to that @#$% hole very often. i was looking for a corvette
    Alas, the one metro area where we have the greatest need to carry in, is also the most difficult one to carry in.

    .

  8. #8
    Regular Member Cremator75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    393

    Post imported post

    You very well could have refused to show him your CHL as you were not CC'ing. He had no need to see it and there was no requirement to show it for carrying in your car unless Milwaukee is one of those cities that requires a CHL to carry loaded.

    Also, next time they ask if you know how fast you were going, just say "Yes, do you?" Otherwise they can make up whatever speed they want.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    Cremator75 wrote:
    You very well could have refused to show him your CHL as you were not CC'ing. He had no need to see it and there was no requirement to show it for carrying in your car unless Milwaukee is one of those cities that requires a CHL to carry loaded.

    Also, next time they ask if you know how fast you were going, just say "Yes, do you?" Otherwise they can make up whatever speed they want.
    well what i was trying to do was not admit to violating any statute

    i got a response from Chief Bob Jordan

    _________________________

    Mr. ********, I am in receipt of your letter re the actions of Officer Hall of this Police Department. As the Chief of Police for the Department, I take seriously any allegation of unprofessional or threatening conduct on the part of any of our employees. I will cause an inquiry to be made relative to your allegation, and if appropriate, you will be contacted. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
    Bob Jordan
    Chief of Police
    Milwaukie Police Department
    3200 S.E. Harrison St.
    Milwaukie, OR 97222
    (503) 786-7405
    jordanr@ci.milwaukie.or.us

    [line] PUBLIC RECORDS LAW DISCLOSURE:
    This e-mail is a public record of the City of Milwaukie and is subject to public disclosure unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records law. This email is subject to the State Retention
    Schedule.



  10. #10
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    98

    Post imported post

    That's how cops are always to me, fortunantly I haven't had an encounter while open carrying (yet) but I always have my video recorder .

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    NaT805 wrote:
    That's how cops are always to me, fortunantly I haven't had an encounter while open carrying (yet) but I always have my video recorder .

    Do make sure you notify them of the recording, unless of course you do want to actually be guilty of something.

    -adamsesq


  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    adamsesq wrote:
    NaT805 wrote:
    That's how cops are always to me, fortunantly I haven't had an encounter while open carrying (yet) but I always have my video recorder .

    Do make sure you notify them of the recording, unless of course you do want to actually be guilty of something.

    -adamsesq
    whats your opinion on if my story is accurate, and there is proof.

    of the officer breaking ORS 166.065, 163.190, and 163.275

    seems to me like he did, and there are no exemptions for officers on official business or on duty

  13. #13
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    98

    Post imported post

    adamsesq wrote:
    NaT805 wrote:
    That's how cops are always to me, fortunantly I haven't had an encounter while open carrying (yet) but I always have my video recorder .

    Do make sure you notify them of the recording, unless of course you do want to actually be guilty of something.

    -adamsesq
    You do not have to notify them for video recording.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Springfield, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    737

    Post imported post

    Standard Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer...

    I believeNaT805is correct, you do not have to notify for video recording, but if you are recording video AND audio, you do have to notify.

    Note:Oregon law only states you must only notify,not get consent to obtain a recording of conversation. Notification is required by ORS 165.540 (1) (c)
    http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/165.html

    I'm hoping the legislature will allow audio recording of Law Enforcement without notification soon... I think I'll write my Legislator...

    ...Orygunner...

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    ocman1991A1 wrote:
    whats your opinion on if my story is accurate, and there is proof.

    of the officer breaking ORS 166.065, 163.190, and 163.275

    seems to me like he did, and there are no exemptions for officers on official business or on duty
    I don't mean to be rude but that specifically calls for a legal opinion that I am not willing to give here.

    Both Nato and Ory are correct, video ONLY is legal without notice but I don't think that is what was meant when someone suggested having their video camera handy... And I don't think it would help your situation very much in most cases to only have video and no audio.

    -adamsesq


  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Springfield, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    737

    Post imported post

    I'm not sure how to go about it, but you can request a copy of the officer's dashcam footage of your stop under the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA).

    Some notes about that, if the stop was recorded (or if the footage wasn't accidentally "erased"):

    1. It would provide evidence of the officer's alleged menacing & coercion against you, plus some good watching on YouTube.

    2. If the officer is using a dash-cam to record conversations, they are also supposed to notify YOU they are recording, otherwise they are in violation of 165.540 (5)(b) (a Uniformed, Badged LEO can record without notifying you unless the officer has reasonable opportunity to inform you they're recording).

    All that being said, If it were me, I'd perhaps just ask for a written apology from the police officer, and request that officers be better trained in the rights of law-abiding gun owners. See where that gets you...

    ...IANAL...
    ...Orygunner...

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    adamsesq wrote:
    NaT805 wrote:
    That's how cops are always to me, fortunantly I haven't had an encounter while open carrying (yet) but I always have my video recorder .

    Do make sure you notify them of the recording, unless of course you do want to actually be guilty of something.

    -adamsesq
    1. I'm not a lawyer, but under my reading of the law, informing is only required so long as it meets a bunch of very specific criteria that basically establishes a "private conversation."

    2. About 10 days before my arrest, local journalist/videographer Mike Tabor was given a misdemeanor citation for taping. His charges were dropped immediately (or, declined to prosecute), and his camera was given back right away. (Mine were only dropped after some slavery, and my recording device was outright stolen at gun point -- I still haven't received it back). He, being a left-leaning journalist and having a case that didn't involve guns as well, was able to find an attorney to take on the case pro-bono. They sued for $100 and a policy change on how Portland Police enforce the law -- and won. It makes me freaking sad I let my case go with some mild slavery, because the "exhibition that the communication was private" requirement comes directly from the definition of Oral Communication in ORS Chapter 122 -- some 40 chapters before the interception laws -- that even my lawyer was confused enough about to think were unrealted or easily argued away.

    http://www.joe-anybody.com/id116.html
    http://media.portland.indymedia.org/.../12/383133.pdf

    If you follow the flowchart in the bulletin, you hit, "Was the intercepted communication part of an event?" Since the police contact was part of our open carry event, the answer is yes. It then goes to, "Was the device concealed?" In my case, no, which flows to "no violation." In mikes case, "Yes," which flows to "Was the communication private?" The answer was no, which flows to "no violation."

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    The fact that a case was not prosecuted or was dropped does NOT mean that it was still not a crime.


    165.540 Obtaining contents of communications. (1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 133.724 or 133.726 or subsections (2) to (7) of this section, a person may not:[/b]

    (a) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a telecommunication or a radio communication to which the person is not a participant, by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, unless consent is given by at least one participant.

    (b) Tamper with the wires, connections, boxes, fuses, circuits, lines or any other equipment or facilities of a telecommunication or radio communication company over which messages are transmitted, with the intent to obtain unlawfully the contents of a telecommunication or radio communication to which the person is not a participant.

    (c) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained.

    (d) Obtain the whole or any part of a conversation, telecommunication or radio communication from any person, while knowing or having good reason to believe that the conversation, telecommunication or radio communication was initially obtained in a manner prohibited by this section.

    (e) Use or attempt to use, or divulge to others, any conversation, telecommunication or radio communication obtained by any means prohibited by this section.

    (2)(a) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(a), (b) and (c) of this section do not apply to:

    (A) Officers, employees or agents of a telecommunication or radio communication company who perform the acts prohibited by subsection (1)(a), (b) and (c) of this section for the purpose of construction, maintenance or conducting of their telecommunication or radio communication service, facilities or equipment.

    (B) Public officials in charge of and at jails, police premises, sheriffs’ offices, Department of Corrections institutions and other penal or correctional institutions, except as to communications or conversations between an attorney and the client of the attorney.

    (b) Officers, employees or agents of a telecommunication or radio communication company who obtain information under paragraph (a) of this subsection may not use or attempt to use, or divulge to others, the information except for the purpose of construction, maintenance, or conducting of their telecommunication or radio communication service, facilities or equipment.

    (3) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) of this section do not apply to subscribers or members of their family who perform the acts prohibited in subsection (1) of this section in their homes.

    (4) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(a) of this section do not apply to the receiving or obtaining of the contents of any radio or television broadcast transmitted for the use of the general public.

    (5) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(c) of this section do not apply to:

    (a) A person who records a conversation during a felony that endangers human life;

    (b) A law enforcement officer who is in uniform and displaying a badge and who is operating a vehicle-mounted video camera that records the scene in front of, within or surrounding a police vehicle, unless the officer has reasonable opportunity to inform participants in the conversation that the conversation is being obtained; or

    (c) A law enforcement officer who, acting in the officer’s official capacity, deploys an Electro-Muscular Disruption Technology device that contains a built-in monitoring system capable of recording audio or video, for the duration of that deployment.

    (6) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(c) of this section do not apply to persons who intercept or attempt to intercept with an unconcealed recording device the oral communications that are part of any of the following proceedings:

    (a) Public or semipublic meetings such as hearings before governmental or quasi-governmental bodies, trials, press conferences, public speeches, rallies and sporting or other events;

    (b) Regularly scheduled classes or similar educational activities in public or private institutions; or

    (c) Private meetings or conferences if all others involved knew or reasonably should have known that the recording was being made.

    (7) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(a), (c), (d) and (e) of this section do not apply to any:

    (a) Radio communication that is transmitted by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the amateur or citizens bands; or

    (b) Person who intercepts a radio communication that is transmitted by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public provided that the interception is not for purposes of illegal activity.

    (8) Violation of subsection (1) or (2)(b) of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

    (9) As used in this section:

    (a) “Electro-Muscular Disruption Technology device” means a device that uses a high-voltage, low power charge of electricity to induce involuntary muscle contractions intended to cause temporary incapacitation. “Electro-Muscular Disruption Technology device” includes devices commonly known as tasers.

    (b) “Law enforcement officer” has the meaning given that term in ORS 133.726. [1955 c.675 §§2,7; 1959 c.681 §2; 1961 c.460 §1; 1979 c.744 §9; 1983 c.693 §1; 1983 c.740 §35; 1983 c.824 §1; 1987 c.320 §87; 1989 c.983 §14a; 1989 c.1078 §1; 2001 c.104 §54; 2001 c.385 §4; 2003 c.14 §62; 2007 c.879 §1]

    None of these exceptions apply to the violation (in red) that would occur in an encounter with the police unless that encounter is at a rally.

    I'm going from memory here (which can be very dangerous) but I think there is a fairly recent ruling that held, in Oregon, it is illegal to audio tape a police officer even though that police officer is acting in their official capacity in public.

    -adamsesq


    PS - there is no ORS 122... I think you mean 133.721?


  19. #19
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887

    Post imported post

    adamsesq wrote:
    165.540 Obtaining contents of communications. (1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 133.724 or 133.726 or subsections (2) to (7) of this section, a person maynot: (except)...
    (b) A law enforcement officer who is in uniform and displaying a badge and who is operating a vehicle-mounted video camera that records the scene in front of, within or surrounding a police vehicle, unless the officer has reasonable opportunity to inform participants in the conversation that the conversation is being obtained...
    So... the police can record the conversation, but you can't?

    The STATE must have power over its subjects!

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    adamsesq wrote:
    The fact that a case was not prosecuted or was dropped does NOT mean that it was still not a crime.


    (c) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained.
    What is a conversation? A conversation is defined as "oral communications between two or more persons" (paraphrasing here). What are "oral communications"? We're left to guess, as there is no definition in Chapter 165.

    However, in Chapter 133, the definition is given, but not specifically applied to the words in Ch. 165. Nor to the words in 165 tell us to look to 133 for the definitions.

    So how can you charge me with intercepting "oral communications" between two or more persons if you don't define what an "oral communication" is? Do you pull a definition of oral and communication out of the dictionary and splatter them together in such a way as to further your cause? Which dictionary do you use? Do you just rely on the prosecutor to pull something out of their ass?

    I'd argue that, even though it's not specifically applied to Ch. 165, the states own definition of what an Oral Communication is in Ch. 133 is superior to whatever the prosecutor might find convenient to define it as for the purpose of putting your ass in jail.

    And the state defines it as (still paraphrasing from memory, I'm at work) an utterance where there person making the utterance has demonstrated an expectation that his communication is private (or not subject to interception), and where such expectation is justified under the circumstances!

    Furthermore, even though the definitions aren't clearly shared, they are clearly related bodies of law. Ch. 133 deals with legal intercept, and Ch. 165 deals with illegal intercept. Unless they specifically redefined a word later on, it's not exactly a huge leap of logic to assume that they might have meant for the definitions from 133 to apply to the sanctions in 165, and really, in any chapter coming after chapter 133.


    PS - there is no ORS 122... I think you mean 133.721?
    Sorry, yes, Chapter 133. The keys are right next to each other!
    [/quote]

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    So 6a should work (labor pains = public event)
    Also as long as you are talking to the wife, the 6c meeting.
    Myself I also have the (home schooling as classes are always in session)

    But most of all.... 5A - He did threaten your life, a felony can be recorded.:what:

    You might even try to argue 5C, that by shooting the tazer into the cop he is deploying it.
    Not the way he may want to but is involved in the deployment while on duty.

    Maybe a nice bumper sticker informing all persons approaching the car are consenting to recordings.





  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Springfield, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    737

    Post imported post

    SlackwareRobert wrote:
    So 6a should work (labor pains = public event)
    Also as long as you are talking to the wife, the 6c meeting.
    Myself I also have the (home schooling as classes are always in session)

    But most of all.... 5A - He did threaten your life, a felony can be recorded.:what:

    You might even try to argue 5C, that by shooting the tazer into the cop he is deploying it.
    Not the way he may want to but is involved in the deployment while on duty.

    Maybe a nice bumper sticker informing all persons approaching the car are consenting to recordings.



    I've thought about a shirt or hat that says "You are being audio recorded." A bumper or window sticker would be good, too for traffic stops.Remember, the only requirement is notification, not consent.

    A big fear of mineis telling an officer that I'm audio recording the conversation then they (wrongly) decide I can't do that. Why is ignorance of the law no excuse for us, but LEOs can get away with it scott-free?

    ...Orygunner...

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    grishnav wrote:
    What is a conversation? A conversation is defined as "oral communications between two or more persons" (paraphrasing here). What are "oral communications"? We're left to guess, as there is no definition in Chapter 165.

    Actually we are not left to guess at all. While one may argue as you have that a statute somewhere else that appears to define should control I think you will not get very far with that.

    Oregon has a wonderful case (sometimes) called PGE v. BOLI that in very loose paraphrase means that the words of the legislature are to be given their plain clear everyday meaning. Oral communications has a pretty standard plain clear everyday meaning of two people talking to each other. And that is even more clear when read in context of the rest of the statute talking about "Radio"and "Telephone" and "Video" forms of communication.

    Now you look at the definition you want to use, which starts out:

    133.721 Definitions for ORS 41.910 and 133.721 to 133.739. As used in ORS 41.910 and 133.721 to 133.739, unless the context requires otherwise:
    I don't think there is any plain reading of that statute that in any way implies that one of those definitions is intended to apply to ORS 165... as it very clearly limits itself to a specific set of statutes.

    -adamsesq

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    Orygunner wrote:
    SlackwareRobert wrote: A big fear of mineis telling an officer that I'm audio recording the conversation then they (wrongly) decide I can't do that. Why is ignorance of the law no excuse for us, but LEOs can get away with it scott-free?

    ...Orygunner...
    That is why you use a second recorder, you are not required to tell the leo that
    he only grabbed the primary recorder.
    This is why I am workng on putting one in my handgrip, they will never even think
    to look there, and should get some great audio while it is in 'custody'.
    Making a fake mag with contacts to make the connection for downloading
    data, as any pigtail would give it away and interfere with the primary function.

    I am now learning the fun of video, and it's a whole new ball game for that.
    But I will eventually crack it so I can add the pictures. Of course which
    way do you point the lens? These 360 view ones are way to large to hide.
    Of course I do need to find out about infrared video for night time use,
    I feel this is more important than color at this time. Haven't looked at the
    byte size for infrared, but I think it would be small like b&w.

    Fortunatly AL is a one side only needs to know, but I do get around and need to worry about
    less enlightened places.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    adamsesq wrote:
    grishnav wrote:
    What is a conversation? A conversation is defined as "oral communications between two or more persons" (paraphrasing here). What are "oral communications"? We're left to guess, as there is no definition in Chapter 165.

    Actually we are not left to guess at all. While one may argue as you have that a statute somewhere else that appears to define should control I think you will not get very far with that.

    Oregon has a wonderful case (sometimes) called PGE v. BOLI that in very loose paraphrase means that the words of the legislature are to be given their plain clear everyday meaning. Oral communications has a pretty standard plain clear everyday meaning of two people talking to each other. And that is even more clear when read in context of the rest of the statute talking about "Radio"and "Telephone" and "Video" forms of communication.
    If the plain everyday meaning of "oral communications" is "two people talking," then why is there a separate definition for conversation? And if the conversation requires two people exchanging oral communications, then isn't the requirement for a "conversation" then 4 people talking, at least?

    Or is the "plain everyday" meaning of "oral communications" something else... more like one person, making an utterance, perhaps with an expectation that it not be recorded... and thereby a conversation can be two people making these utterances toward each other...

    I mean, in all seriousness, I don't expect that conversations I have wondering around the city are private unless I take specific means, such as whispering in the other persons ear, to make them so. Isn't that pretty much everyone's understanding?

    You're right that my theory probably won't go very far, but I find it interesting that the attorneys that drafted memos and flowcharts for PPD to follow, both in 1991 and again just a few months ago, pulled out more or less the exact language that I'm referring to. I'd be curious as to your thoughts.

    Also, if the plain, everyday meaning isn't clear (you seem to have a different idea of what Oral Communications means than even what 165 implies without considering 133), and the law happens to define the words elsewhere, doesn't it make sense that they would control?

Page 1 of 6 123 ... 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
  •