• 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.

Siezed Tape Recorders

H

heliopolissolutions

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
542
Location
, ,
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.
 
wewd

wewd

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
664
Location
Oregon
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.
Click to expand...
 
H

heliopolissolutions

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
542
Location
, ,
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.
 
T

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
C

Captain_Awesome

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
60
Location
Fresno, California, USA
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.
 
H

heliopolissolutions

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
542
Location
, ,
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?
 
P

pullnshoot25

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
1,139
Location
Escondido, California, USA
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?
Click to expand...

It isn't the first time that has happened either...
 
C

Captain_Awesome

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
60
Location
Fresno, California, USA
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
C

codename_47

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
376
Location
, ,
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.
 
R

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
545
Location
Susanville, California, USA
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 :banghead:
 
S

Streetbikerr6

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
389
Location
Folsom, , USA
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 :banghead:
Click to expand...
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.
 
wewd

wewd

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
664
Location
Oregon
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. :uhoh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top