Transmitting and recording OC police encounters to a secure remote location

 

I found this on the web. It suggests in first part that recording conversation where person is a participant is legal. In second part it suggests that broadcasting the same conversation is illegal:

 

"The eavesdropping statute has been interpreted by one court as applying only to situations in which a third party has intercepted a communication, an interpretation that makes it legal for a participant in a conversation to record that conversation without the permission of other parties. Sullivan v. Gray, 324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).

The state supreme court stated in a July 1999 ruling that a participant in a conversation "may not unilaterally nullify other participants’ expectations of privacy by secretly broadcasting the conversation" and that the overriding inquiry should be whether the parties "intended and reasonably expected that the conversation was private." Therefore, it is likely that a recording party may not broadcast a recorded conversation without the consent of all parties. Dickerson v. Raphael, 601 N.W.2d 108 (Mich. 1999)."

Click to expand...

To be precise, I am asking if my conversation with another party can be transmitted to remote location to be recorded via wirelessinternet (wi-fi) or through cellular phone?

zigziggityzoo wrote:

wardog6d wrote:

The FCC enforces all radio RF related incidents.

Click to expand...

Yes, but if michigan law is more restrictive than federal - they're not going to get involved.

So long as they're in compliance with FCC - the FCC won't come to investigate.

Besides, this is well off-topic at this point.

The question is whether he may legally broadcast a recording live over the internet.

According to Michigan law, I believe this to be legal.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

sasha601 wrote:

I found this on the web. It suggests in first partthat recording conversation where person is a participant is legal. In second part it suggests that broadcasting the same conversation is illegal:



"The eavesdropping statute has been interpreted by one court as applying only to situations in which a third party has intercepted a communication, an interpretation that makes it legal for a participant in a conversation to record that conversation without the permission of other parties. Sullivan v. Gray, 324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).

The state supreme court stated in a July 1999 ruling that a participant in a conversation "may not unilaterally nullify other participants’ expectations of privacy by secretly broadcasting the conversation" and that the overriding inquiry should be whether the parties "intended and reasonably expected that the conversation was private." Therefore, it is likely that a recording party may not broadcast a recorded conversation without the consent of all parties. Dickerson v. Raphael, 601 N.W.2d 108 (Mich. 1999)."

Click to expand...

So - what law would the transmitter be breaking? And what law would the viewer be breaking? That's the question.

It would appear that it may be illegal to view the transmission, but not to transmit it - therefore, the viewer may be charged with MCL 750.539c, but the transmitter, as far as I can tell, is breaking no law.

In addition - if a transmitter announces that they are broadcasting live - continuing a conversation after this fact is made known is implied consent to the broadcast, making all viewers in compliance with the law.

Click to expand...

Announce to LEO that you aretransmitting live might be problematic if you are dealing with a determined anti-OC officer. At this point, LEO can forcibly search you and remove the device. A bad aoole LEO might tdo it, especially if no witnesses around. From that point you got nothing to record with and a very, very angree LEO. I think stratigically it is better not to announce that you are recording

zigziggityzoo wrote:

sasha601 wrote:

I found this on the web. It suggests in first partthat recording conversation where person is a participant is legal. In second part it suggests that broadcasting the same conversation is illegal:



"The eavesdropping statute has been interpreted by one court as applying only to situations in which a third party has intercepted a communication, an interpretation that makes it legal for a participant in a conversation to record that conversation without the permission of other parties. Sullivan v. Gray, 324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).

The state supreme court stated in a July 1999 ruling that a participant in a conversation "may not unilaterally nullify other participants’ expectations of privacy by secretly broadcasting the conversation" and that the overriding inquiry should be whether the parties "intended and reasonably expected that the conversation was private." Therefore, it is likely that a recording party may not broadcast a recorded conversation without the consent of all parties. Dickerson v. Raphael, 601 N.W.2d 108 (Mich. 1999)."

Click to expand...

So - what law would the transmitter be breaking? And what law would the viewer be breaking? That's the question.

It would appear that it may be illegal to view the transmission, but not to transmit it - therefore, the viewer may be charged with MCL 750.539c, but the transmitter, as far as I can tell, is breaking no law.

In addition - if a transmitter announces that they are broadcasting live - continuing a conversation after this fact is made known is implied consent to the broadcast, making all viewers in compliance with the law.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

sasha601 wrote:

Announce to LEO that you are transmitting live might be problematic if you are dealing with a determined anti-OC officer. At this point, LEO can forcibly search you and remove the device. A bad aoole LEO might tdo it, especially if no witnesses around. From that point you got nothing to record with and a very, very angree LEO. I think stratigically it is better not to announce that you are recording 

zigziggityzoo wrote:

sasha601 wrote:

 

I found this on the web. It suggests in first part that recording conversation where person is a participant is legal. In second part it suggests that broadcasting the same conversation is illegal:

 

"The eavesdropping statute has been interpreted by one court as applying only to situations in which a third party has intercepted a communication, an interpretation that makes it legal for a participant in a conversation to record that conversation without the permission of other parties. Sullivan v. Gray, 324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).

The state supreme court stated in a July 1999 ruling that a participant in a conversation "may not unilaterally nullify other participants’ expectations of privacy by secretly broadcasting the conversation" and that the overriding inquiry should be whether the parties "intended and reasonably expected that the conversation was private." Therefore, it is likely that a recording party may not broadcast a recorded conversation without the consent of all parties. Dickerson v. Raphael, 601 N.W.2d 108 (Mich. 1999)."

Click to expand...

So - what law would the transmitter be breaking? And what law would the viewer be breaking? That's the question.

It would appear that it may be illegal to view the transmission, but not to transmit it - therefore, the viewer may be charged with MCL 750.539c, but the transmitter, as far as I can tell, is breaking no law.

In addition - if a transmitter announces that they are broadcasting live - continuing a conversation after this fact is made known is implied consent to the broadcast, making all viewers in compliance with the law.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You are not required to inform the person according to Michigan law. Some youtube open carries actually have 2 recording devices just in case this were to occur.

Click to expand...

To be certain - any official encounter with police is by definition not a private conversation - so any recording and subsequent broadcast is lawful.

Click to expand...

I carry multiple spy cams which are not easily identified, and can only be erased by smashing them or hooking them to a computer. I also have an unregistered phone to call 911 in case I get detained.

911 is a secure off site recording, that's for sure. And it would be tough for a judge to find a reason not to allow the 911 recording in as evidence. is also good, because you can ask the dispatcher to send state troopers.

Click to expand...

Boy Hombre you've been a member all of 48 hours and I already grit my teeth every time I see a post from you! Are you sure your not my wife in disguise? Welcome aboard, may you post 10 million times before the devil nows your dead-OR- the moderator cuts you off permanently.

Click to expand...