Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Recording LEO encounters

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    San Jose, California, USA
    Posts
    121

    Post imported post

    My reading of CPC 632 seems to indicate that recording an LEO encounter without consent would be illegal. I don't see any exceptions that would pertain to recording a LEO.

    632. (a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment...

    (c) The term "confidential communication" includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.
    Now, I am not sure if a police officer talking to you would be considered a "confidential communication", but it seems at best this is on shaky ground.

    Thoughts?

    Code:
    
    

  2. #2
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Rusty wrote:
    My reading of CPC 632 seems to indicate that recording an LEO encounter without consent would be illegal. I don't see any exceptions that would pertain to recording a LEO.


    632. (a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment...

    (c) The term "confidential communication" includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.
    Now, I am not sure if a police officer talking to you would be considered a "confidential communication", but it seems at best this is on shaky ground.

    Thoughts?
    Anything but shaky ground.

    Any communication between a citizen and a police officer while the police officer is conducting official business is a public conversation where the police officer has no expectation of privacy.

    If this were not the case, then the person who recorded the police beating Rodney King, would have been charged with illegally recording the police officers.

  3. #3
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979

    Post imported post

    Rusty wrote:
    My reading of CPC 632 seems to indicate that recording an LEO encounter without consent would be illegal. I don't see any exceptions that would pertain to recording a LEO.


    632. (a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment...

    (c) The term "confidential communication" includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.
    Now, I am not sure if a police officer talking to you would be considered a "confidential communication", but it seems at best this is on shaky ground.

    Thoughts?
    You answered it yourself, its not confidential communication. An officer in the performance of his duties has no expectation of privacy.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Harrah, Oklahoma
    Posts
    769

    Post imported post

    Is there any case law or laws to cite this? Just curious.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...
    Stolen from ConditionThree because it can't be stressed enough.

  5. #5
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979

    Post imported post

    chewy352 wrote:
    Is there any case law or laws to cite this? Just curious.
    Not that I'm aware of. The only cite I could provide would be anecdotal...think of things like the Rodney King videos, LA Riots, Rampart Tapes, etc.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    Making Blacks sit in the back of the bus was a crime until Rosa Parks decided not to give up her seat.

    Having an arrest record used to imply that you were not a good person with good moral character, yet Marthin Luther King was arrested approximately 30 times.

    We currently live in a world with technology everywhere, and the laws will eventually catch up andbenefitall concerned.

    It's no different than my belief that if EVERYONE carried a weapon openly or concealed, people would pay more attention to treating others with respect.

    Using a tape recorder to memorialize conduct of public officials in the performance of their duty may subject an individual to arrest, but I personally don't believe that any jury will vote to convict.

    I currently use a tape recorder when I believe statements or actions of public employees or officials need to be documented. I am well aware of what the law says and really don't care. I believe that the TRUTH and FACTS trump any legislative attempt to criminalize documenting the facts.

    The list of audio and video technology being used to solve crimes is now endless.

    Every time there is a major crime committed, the first thing every investigator does is look for public and private surveillance cameras.

    Audio and Video records of events are the BEST evidence and should be allowed in every case wherethey are made in anticipation of confrontation.

    Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead.


    Everyone should stop guessing,taking, whining, wonderingand just start recording.



  7. #7
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    Here's something to think about: police know most of us are recording them, some of them will ask if they are being recorded, and when open carriers are "shaken down" by the police, they usually find the recorders. But nobody has been charged with a crime for recording police, because it's not a crime to do so.
    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"

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    San Jose, California, USA
    Posts
    121

    Post imported post

    I have looked into this a bit more, and from what I can tell, there is no case law relating to this.

    However based on the fact that most police officers are taping encounters (ubiquitous use of dash cams, with sound) I cant see how they could have any expectation of privacy.

    In fact in the memo that posted from the Sunnyvale (I believe) police department, police are instructed to record 12031e encounters. (Cant seem to link to it here, but you can find it on the FAQ page at californiaopencarry.org)

    It would be interesting to see some case law on this however.



  9. #9
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    You are correct that they will record encounters. At least, that is the instruction they are given in OC. During my detainment at an OC shopping mall, the LEOs turned off my recorder first thing, but before letting me go made sure their last few statements were recorded on their recorders.

    Rusty wrote:
    In fact in the memo that posted from the Sunnyvale (I believe) police department, police are instructed to record 12031e encounters. (Cant seem to link to it here, but you can find it on the FAQ page at californiaopencarry.org)
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  10. #10
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    http://openjurist.org/388/f3d/676/jo...v-wj-hawe-1-10 this is a case in washington that says police have no expectation of privacy.

    the cop was prossicuted for arresting the kid for vidio taping the cop on duty.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  11. #11

    Post imported post

    There is no crime in recording a conversation with LEO. In fact, it has been upheld that there is no expectation of privacy regarding your conversation with LEO. I have always encouraged the LEOs that work for me to record any contact with the public to use in the case the citizen attempts to avoid prosecution by fabricating or exagarating the facts during the contact. I have personally seen several false complaints on LEOs where a recording made it very obvious the complainant was lying. Unforturnately most agencies will not pursure criminal charges on these people for filing a false report. The decision not to file charges is from administration, but that is just how it goes.

    There is nothing wrong with recording an LEO contact and it should serve to keep both people honest. Most motor cops run a recorder on every stop due to high amount of complaints they can generate just by writing tickets.

  12. #12

    Post imported post

    I should clarify, if the LEO is conducting an internal affairs investigation the person in the conversation must be advised of the recording and they need to agree to it. I always make sure the advisement of the recording and the person's agreement are on the tape so every thing is clean. Gov Code 3300 sets this standard. All other matters with LEO can be recorded.

Posting Permissions

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