Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Siezed Tape Recorders

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    Relevant to California, ALL parties must be informed that they are being recorded, but does this necessitate that they must consent?

    If I inform a LEO that he is being recorded during a detainment or e check, does he have the power to force me to deactivate it or erase a recording? The power to sieze it, or deactivate it himself?

    These are things that would be good to know, that at least, for me, aren't as well spelled out in terms of codes and laws to cite as are the actual OC laws.

  2. #2
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    California's wiretapping law does not apply to conversations in public where the persons being recorded do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, It also does not apply to police who are public officers in their official capacity. Only private conversations where an expectation of privacy exists require dual consent. It is perfectly legal for you to record a traffic stop for instance, and the cops are probably recording it anyway.

    California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which the participants have an expectation of privacy. A California court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (1989). If you are operating in California, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording any conversation that common sense tells you might be "private" or "confidential." In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, violating the California wiretapping law can expose you to a civil lawsuit for damages by an injured party. See Cal. Penal Code § 637.2.

    Conversations that occur in a public space or in an area where the parties do not have any expectation of privacy are not covered by the wiretapping statute. Therefore, you generally are free to record a conversation happening between people in a public place, such as a street, a park, or on the steps of a courthouse, even without consent. For example, a California court has upheld a television network's right to use a hidden camera to videotape a conversation that took place during a business lunch on an outdoor patio of a public restaurant. See Wilkins v. NBC, Inc., 71 Cal. App. 4th 1066 (1999). The court held that because the information being recorded was not secret or confidential, the statute was not violated, and the network was free to videotape.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    Sooo...
    I've been looking and I haven't been able to find any precedent where the seizure of a recording device by an officer is condemned.

    Thats very interesting and helpful to note, but does that necessitate that a police officer can deactivate the recorder at his will or request? Or seize it and put it in his car?

    And thanks so much wewd for posting those specific codes, its much appreciated.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    heliopolissolutions wrote:
    Sooo...
    I've been looking and I haven't been able to find any precedent where the seizure of a recording device by an officer is condemned.

    Thats very interesting and helpful to note, but does that necessitate that a police officer can deactivate the recorder at his will or request? Or seize it and put it in his car?

    And thanks so much wewd for posting those specific codes, its much appreciated.
    An officer at no time is allowed to seize your personal property without cause. Some may try, but that is also why some recommend having two recording devices. . . one they see. . . one they don't.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    ^
    This one is a thinker!
    I like that.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Fresno, California, USA
    Posts
    60

    Post imported post

    I agree with the recommendations to have two. If they find the first one, they may think it's a weapon(Last time I saw a weapon disguised as a tape recorder was on 24), and keep it away from you (rendering it temporarily useless).

    I wish this were a joke, but:
    "I had never seen such a recorder before and did not know if it was actually a recorder or contained a hidden compartment or potentially a weapon. I declined to return it to [him] and left it on the hood of the car."
    - From the police report from pullnshoot's latest detainment. He wasn't even carrying.



  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    I don't know if its worse to be that ignorant, or to feign that ignorance in order to seize a citizen's property.

    Either way.
    Did they really do that on 24?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    heliopolissolutions wrote:
    I don't know if its worse to be that ignorant, or to feign that ignorance in order to seize a citizen's property.

    Either way.
    Did they really do that on 24?
    It isn't the first time that has happened either...

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    You're killing my faith in reason.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Lots of gov't officials have been killing me softly for a while now...

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Fresno, California, USA
    Posts
    60

    Post imported post

    heliopolissolutions wrote:
    I don't know if its worse to be that ignorant, or to feign that ignorance in order to seize a citizen's property.

    Either way.
    Did they really do that on 24?
    Some guy brought in a working tape recorder with explosives inside into the presidential bunker, then left it on the president's podium. Put David Palmer in a coma.

    I think it's worse to feign ignorance. At least the former can be taught, and you might actually get an apology out of him, after which he probably won't do something like that again. If he gets away with pretending to be a moron-which I think is what's really going on - he'll keep stepping all over your rights over and over again.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    376

    Post imported post

    I've been looking and I haven't been able to find any precedent where the seizure of a recording device by an officer is condemned.

    I saw a couple of cases in PA where guys were arrested for videotaping the police and the cops got some 20kish smackdowns in Federal court. I can't find the link at the moment.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529

    Post imported post

    Im not trying to change the topic, but I would like to know if "Officers" can order a person around"?

    I got stopped yesterday by a woman sheriff, who pulled me over "Because a by trailer ball was ubstructing the view of my license plate, It was not really. Its been on there sence 1977. Anyway she got my license and ran a check, but taking so long I stepped out oif the truck to look over the ball on back, she then "oredered me back in the truck, 3 times , then said put your hands on the stearing wheel 3 times again as I was looking for my pocket watch to see what time it was. Also 3 other sheriffs showed up. This is the way they treat Seniors here in Susanville, Ca.

    My question is can they legally order a person around like that ?

    I was late going to look at a trailer I was going to buy.

    I was not OC-ing as I livein 2 school zones, and wanted to make a fast trip to look over the trailer. I wasn't speading either my truck does all it can just to get there.

    I didn't have a recorder on me either. Robin47









  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Yes, they can order you around.

    Do they have the legal right to? Not so sure...

    But bet that if you don't obey, they will find a reason (or fabricate one) to arrest you.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Folsom, , USA
    Posts
    389

    Post imported post

    Robin47 wrote:
    Im not trying to change the topic, but I would like to know if "Officers" can order a person around"?

    I got stopped yesterday by a woman sheriff, who pulled me over "Because a by trailer ball was ubstructing the view of my license plate, It was not really. Its been on there sence 1977. Anyway she got my license and ran a check, but taking so long I stepped out oif the truck to look over the ball on back, she then "oredered me back in the truck, 3 times , then said put your hands on the stearing wheel 3 times again as I was looking for my pocket watch to see what time it was. Also 3 other sheriffs showed up. This is the way they treat Seniors here in Susanville, Ca.

    My question is can they legally order a person around like that ?

    I was late going to look at a trailer I was going to buy.

    I was not OC-ing as I livein 2 school zones, and wanted to make a fast trip to look over the trailer. I wasn't speading either my truck does all it can just to get there.

    I didn't have a recorder on me either. Robin47







    They could argue in court that she ordered you inside your vehicle for your own safety. If she then tried to escort you to your vehicle and you resisted you could be arrested for disorderly conduct. It probably won't stick but you still went through the hassle. As for the hands on the wheel? That seems pretty ridiculous, I could see she might not want you fiddling around maybe reaching for a weapon of some sort for her own safetybut idk, pretty much a cop on a power trip in my eyes.

  16. #16
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    The revenue agents are getting desperate and are looking for any reason to hit you with a tax, so that is why she pulled you over for the trailer hitch and detained you for an unreasonable amount of time. She was probably digging through her code book to see if there was some health code violation to charge you with because of the rust on your hubcap. Somebody might catch a tetanus infection if you park too close to them.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529

    Post imported post

    Yes thanks guys,

    Yeah keeping your voice recorded at "All" times is right on !

    Robin

Posting Permissions

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