Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: voice recorder

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    591

    Post imported post

    notice everyone says they didnt turn on your voice recorder.



    do you notify that you are recording them?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Boo Boo wrote:
    notice everyone says they didnt turn on your voice recorder.



    do you notify that you are recording them?
    You don't have to. There is no expectation of privacy for a conversation taking place in a public location. Moreover, they're public officers acting in an official capacity.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    591

    Post imported post

    except that rcw 9.73 states you need consent to record

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030

    would like clarification though

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Correct me if I am wrong Tawnos, wich I know you love to do. That law pertain to any public official acting in their official duties. I have recorded inspectors who weren't doing their jobs correctly and being rude and disrespectfulthey refused to come back out saying I was creating a hostile workplace by recording thier actions. I had a meeting with the head inspector and his boss, the next day they came out and were very polite and professional and did their job correctly.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    Boo Boo wrote:
    except that rcw 9.73 states you need consent to record

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030

    would like clarification though
    Washington courts have held that public employees working in their official capacity DO NOT have an expectation of privacy, therefore neither notification nor 'permission' is required.




  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
    Posts
    753

    Post imported post

    Boo Boo wrote:
    except that rcw 9.73 states you need consent to record

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030

    would like clarification though
    That law refers to private communications, talking to someone out in public is not private.

  7. #7
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    Anyone have a Olympus VN-4100PC and getting the ERR message on the screen? I found the fix for it, the bad news is that anything recorded on it will be lost in fixing it.

    The ERR message can only be corrected by holding in the DISP/MENU and STOP buttons for two seconds, which results in all the material on the recorder being erased. It will say (FOR) for a few minutes while it is erasing everything, then will work again. Solution found at http://www.amazon.co.uk/Olympus-VN-2.../dp/B000V3NTEU

    EDIT - This fix seems to work for all Olympus recorders

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    591

    Post imported post

    but 2 people taking in a public area is considered a private conversation. thus requiring consent.



    washington is a consent to record state

    Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
    Posts
    753

    Post imported post

    Boo Boo wrote:
    but 2 people taking in a public area is considered a private conversation. thus requiring consent.
    According to what RCW?

    My understanding is if you are in public, you are subject to being photographed, filmed, or recorded.

  10. #10
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    Washington

    All parties generally must consent to the interception or recording of any private communication, whether conducted by telephone, telegraph, radio or face-to-face, to comply with state law. Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030. The all-party consent requirement can be satisfied if “one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted.” In addition, if the conversation is to be recorded, the requisite announcement must be recorded as well. Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030.

    A party is determined to have consented to recording if he is aware that the recording is taking place. Washington v. Modica, 149 P.3d 446 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).

    Consent to recording of real-time conversation using online discussion software is implicit because participants know the conversations will be recorded on the other party’s computer. Washington v. Townsend, 20 P.3d 1027 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

    Moreover, an employee of a news organization engaged in newsgathering is deemed to have the requisite consent to record and divulge the contents of conversations “if the consent is expressly given or if the recording or transmitting device is readily apparent or obvious to the speakers.” Wash. Rev. Code § 0.73.030(4). Anyone speaking to an employee of a news organization who has been deemed to have given consent cannot withdraw that consent after the communication has been made. Wash. Rev. Code § 0.73.030(4).

    Statutory liability exists only for nonconsensual recording or intercepting, not divulging, of private conversations. Kearney v. Kearney. 974 P.2d 872 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). The statutory terms “record” and “intercept” do not encompass the meaning of divulge.

    Whether a communication is considered “private” under the statute depends on the factual circumstances. Washington v. Townsend, 57 P.2d 255 (Wash. 2002). The state Supreme Court has identified three factors bearing on the reasonable expectations and intent of the parties: (1) duration and subject matter of the conversation, (2) location of conversation and presence or potential presence of a third party, and (3) role of the non-consenting party and his or her relationship to the consenting party. Lewis v. State Dept. of Licensing, 139 P.3d 1078 (Wash. 2006).

    Edit:
    State by State summary: http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states.html

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SW WA
    Posts
    127

    Post imported post

    State of Washington v. Flora


    From:
    http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/gunstuff/legal/State_v_Flora.html.

    ...
    The State urges us to adopt the view that public officers performing an official function on a public thoroughfare in the presence of a third party and within the sight and hearing of passersby enjoy a privacy interest which they may assert under the statute. We reject that view as wholly without merit.
    ....
    It is clear, however, that there must be something in the nature of prying or intrusion, . . . It is clear also that the thing into which there is intrusion or prying must be, and be entitled to be, private.
    ...
    The conversation at issue fails this threshold inquiry; the arrest was not entitled to be private. Moreover, the police officers in this case could not reasonably have considered their words private. «1»
    [line]«1» We note, incidentally, that the police officers testified at trial that they did not consider the conversation private.
    [line] Because the exchange was not private, its recording could not violate RCW 9.73.030 which applies to private conversations only. We decline the State's invitation to transform the privacy act into a sword available for use against individuals by public officers acting in their official capacity. The trial court erred in denying Flora's motion to dismiss. Flora's conviction is reversed and the case dismissed.


  12. #12
    Regular Member swatspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    If you are out in public, there is no expectation of privacy!

    Washington is a one party consent state.

    You can record anything you want when out in public, such as parks, streets, sidewalks.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    swatspyder wrote:
    If you are out in public, there is no expectation of privacy!

    Washington is a one party consent state.

    You can record anything you want when out in public, such as parks, streets, sidewalks.
    WRONG

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    584

    Post imported post

    If you record an officer's conversation with you and you don't tell them they're on record you have a chance to catch them saying something incriminating, if you tell them they're on record you have a chance to be taken down searched and have your recordings found and deleted (very rare but has happened). This is all assuming your dealing with a bad cop which let's face it is the only time have a recorder would be helpful.

  15. #15
    Regular Member swatspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    Trigger Dr wrote:
    swatspyder wrote:
    If you are out in public, there is no expectation of privacy!

    Washington is a one party consent state.

    You can record anything you want when out in public, such as parks, streets, sidewalks.
    WRONG
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030

    (b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.

    (3) Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter, consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted: PROVIDED, That if the conversation is to be recorded that said announcement shall also be recorded.

    Washington IS a one party consent state, all you have to do is record yourself stating to that person that they are being recorded. They DO NOT HAVE TO CONSENT!

    Please check before just stating that someone is wrong.

    BTW, a private conversation is not private in the presence of a third party. If you are in the open and someone is near you, you are having a public conversation, it is not private.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    You are correct in that all you have to do is notify that you are recording and that notification is included in the recording.If there is a third party included in the conversation the privacy is still there and they must be included in the notification. But if the third party is NOT a part of the conversationand iswithin normal hearing range then and only thenthe conversation loses the privacy aspect. However your statement that when in public you have no reasonable expectation of privacy is not entirely correct. The doctrine of plain view allows for photography, etc but that does not cover voice recording.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    208

    Post imported post

    swatspyder, WA is a two party consent state. When one person announces that they are recording, it is understood that the other parties consent to be recorded when they continue to speak.

    I believe... Being in public does not make all conversations public. You must still notify the other party of recording. However, if the other party is a public official performing public duties, their consent is not required. You MAY record conversations between yourself and an officer, while he is acting in a public capacity.
    IBTL

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SW WA
    Posts
    127

    Post imported post

    Washington State v Flora mentioned in another case.


    http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-...33/972/603089/


    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 333 F.3d 972

    1 Tony Alford spent the night in jail for tape recording a traffic stop. Since taping police officers during the performance of their public duties is not illegal under the Washington Privacy Act, the charge was dismissed by a state court.
    .....

    Here, the jury was instructed that Washington law permitting the tape recording of a traffic stop was clearly established: "It is not a violation of the Washington Privacy Act to tape-record a police officer in the performance of an official function on a public thoroughfare. Such conversations are not `private' under the Privacy Act. This rule of law was clearly established by Washington Courts in 1992 in the case of State of Washington v. Flora."

    -------------------
    And another case:

    http://openjurist.org/388/f3d/676/jo...v-wj-hawe-1-10


    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
    388 F3d 676 Johnson v. Wj Hawe 1-10
    No. 03-35057

    ...
    After Johnson had spent three days in county jail, prosecutors filed a criminal complaint against him, charging one count of recording communication without permission, in violation of the Privacy Act,
    ...
    First, the Privacy Act does not criminalize the recording of a "police officer in the performance of an official function on a public thoroughfare." Alford, 333 F.3d at 977(citing the district court's jury instructions). The district court's limitation of Flora's application to communications "involv[ing] the arrest subject ... made in the presence of third parties with no expectation of privacy" was in error. Flora's underlying principle is that the Privacy Act is not to be "transform[ed] ... into a sword available for use against individuals by public officers acting in their official capacity." Flora, 845 P.2d at 1358. The language "public officers acting in their official capacity" does not exclude any conduct other than an actual arrest, but encompasses other conduct that is public and official. See id. at 1357("The State urges us to adopt the view that public officers performing an official function on a public thoroughfare in the presence of a third party and within the sight and hearing of passersby enjoy a privacy interest which they may assert under the statute. We reject that view as wholly without merit."). In Alford itself, we applied Flora to the recording of statements made by police in public during a traffic stop and found there was not probable cause to arrest under the Privacy Act. 333 F.3d at 976, 978. It is undisputed that Johnson recorded Chief Nelson while he was on duty performing an official function in a public place. Under Flora and Alford, Johnson did not violate the Privacy Act when he recorded this official, public activity.




  19. #19
    Regular Member swatspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    AFAIK, if you host your own blog or website where you can post news stories for people to read, as long as you have the video camera or audio recording device in plain view, you can record anything you want out in public areas.

    I believe the supreme court said something on this about bloggers being protected under the same "rules" news reporters abide by. Don't quote me on this though.

  20. #20
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    Wow.

    State law outlaws recording of PRIVATE conversations.

    There is NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN PUBLIC, however there are exceptions, say for example you're leaning in and whispering to someone so that only they may hear, in that instance, privacy is expected, so if you were to record that, then it may be a violation.

    Same goes for places where privacy is expected.. Break rooms, bathrooms, phone booths/picture booths, etc etc.

    Standard IANAL disclaimer applies, but I think it's pretty black/white.

    If it's in public, where others can see/hear, it's not private, and not covered by the PRIVACY act.



    Get a voice recorder, video recorder, SOMETHING, and carry more than one.. Wear one that's completely overt, so if they take it, you still have your backup hidden one.

    There are multiple recorders out there that look like everyday objects that will even fool people when closely examined. Find them, use them, DO NOT TELL PEOPLE WHAT THEY ARE! (I learned that on this board the hard way, people don't know when to keep #(%*& to themselves).

    If you have a Windows Mobile based device. You can download/use QIK for free... It streams audio/video from your cellphone/PDA camera and mic, and saves it on a webpage along with GPS coords if your phone supports it. In addition, you can select EXACT GPS coords, fuzzy coords (a few blocks) or city, where it just mentions the city you are in. The system itself gets the exact GPS coord, but fuzzies it depending on your account settings. That way it isn't readily viewable but can be retrieved via subpoena.

    With technology nowadays, more and more corrupt officers are going to be caught on tape, and the agencies that support/defend their officers actions will come under greater scrutiny.
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    If the state and their officers don't want to be recorded during encounters than they need to remove all the cameras they have in thier cars on building , light poles etc.


    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

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