Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: 2 legal questions

  1. #1
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    I have tried searching, both here and on google. Maybe my web skills need to get better.


    Anyway, first thing I am trying to sort out the laws on recording police encounters. I know there are numerous relevant cases and MCL's, but I can't remember what they are, or find them online. Anyone know what they are off hand? I know it's complicated, which is why some lawyers don't even agree, but I can't remember any of the specifics.

    Also, I seem to remember that some have said that game laws, I think during hunting season, interfere with your right to carry a long gun, even where you can't hunt anyway, where it would otherwise be legal to carry. (For God's sake, this is not intended to be a long gun debate, I only want to understand the law) If I remember right, some have said you'd need a hunting license during deer season to carry a long gun in a city. Is this true? If so, what law makes it so?

    Any insight you guys can provide would be appreciated.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    Recording law:

    http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-539c

    Basically- if you're not a party to the private conversation, you cannot eavesdrop upon the conversation without consent of everyone involved.

    If it's not a private conversation, no consent needed.

    If you're a party to the conversation, no consent needed.

  3. #3
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    1st Legal Question - Recording Police Encounters (not a lawyer, just my thoughts with cites to law):

    Links:
    http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-539a
    http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-539c

    From what I gather, there is no law making it illegal to record a Police Encounter as long as that encounter is in Public Place or substantial group of the public has access to. Since Police Interactions are a part of the Public Record, I would generally believe that you may record a Police Encounters (since these are subject to FOIA).

    It appears that MCL 750.539a defines "private place" but does not define "private discourse" nor "private conversation" as used in MCL 750.539a and MCL 750.539c. There may be case law, but I have not yet researched this (limited time right now).

    I believe it best to discuss in terms of Scenarios for better understanding:

    Scenario A (clear-cut):
    Police stop you on a public sidewalk and have a discussion with you. Since this is not in a private place, you may record since you are party to the discussion.

    Scenario B (clear-cut):
    Police come to your house and have a discussion with you on your front porch. Since this is not in a private place, you may record since you are party to the discussion.

    Scenario C (Grey area):
    Police come to your house and have a discussion with you in your home. This may be deemed a private place and you may not record unless all parties in the discussion agreed.

    I am sure that further reading of case law would provide further clarification...
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    Regarding the second question:

    http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-324-43510

    324.43510 Carrying or transporting firearm, slingshot, bow and arrow, crossbow or trap; license required; exception; applicability to taking of wild animal.
    Sec. 43510.

    (1) Subject to subsection (2) and except as provided in section 43513, a person shall not carry or transport a firearm, slingshot, bow and arrow, crossbow, or a trap while in any area frequented by wild animals unless that person has in his or her possession a license as required under this part.

    (2) This act or a rule promulgated or order issued by the department or the commission under this act shall not be construed to prohibit a person from transporting a pistol or carrying a loaded pistol, whether concealed or not, if either of the following applies:

    (a) The person has in his or her possession a license to carry a concealed pistol under 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.421 to 28.435.

    (b) The person is authorized under the circumstances to carry a concealed pistol without obtaining a license to carry a concealed pistol under 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.421 to 28.435, as provided for under any of the following:

    (i) Section 12a of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.432a.

    (ii) Section 227, 227a, 231, or 231a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.227, 750.227a, 750.231, and 750.231a.

    (3) Subsection (2) does not authorize an individual to take or attempt to take a wild animal except as provided by law.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    PDinDetroit wrote:
    1st Legal Question - Recording Police Encounters (not a lawyer, just my thoughts with cites to law):

    Links:
    http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-539a
    http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-539c

    From what I gather, there is no law making it illegal to record a Police Encounter as long as that encounter is in Public Place or substantial group of the public has access to.* Since Police Interactions are a part of the Public Record, I would generally believe that you may record a Police Encounters (since these are subject to FOIA).

    It appears that MCL 750.539a defines "private place" but does not define "private discourse" nor "private conversation" as used in MCL 750.539a and MCL 750.539c.* There may be case law, but I have not yet researched this (limited time right now).

    I believe it best to discuss in terms of Scenarios for better understanding:

    Scenario A (clear-cut):
    Police stop you on a public sidewalk and have a discussion with you.* Since this is not in a private place, you may record since you are party to the discussion.

    Scenario B (clear-cut):
    Police come to your house and have a discussion with you on your front porch.* Since this is not in a private place, you may record since you are party to the discussion.

    Scenario C (Grey area):
    Police come to your house and have a discussion with you in your home.* This may be deemed a private place and you may not record unless all parties in the discussion agreed.

    I am sure that further reading of case law would provide further clarification...
    Your interpretation is not quite correct.

    At anytime if you are a party to the conversation, you may legally record it.

    It is impossible to eavesdrop upon a conversation to which you are a party.

  6. #6
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    PDinDetroit wrote:
    1st Legal Question - Recording Police Encounters (not a lawyer, just my thoughts with cites to law):

    Links:
    http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-539a
    http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-539c

    From what I gather, there is no law making it illegal to record a Police Encounter as long as that encounter is in Public Place or substantial group of the public has access to. Since Police Interactions are a part of the Public Record, I would generally believe that you may record a Police Encounters (since these are subject to FOIA).

    It appears that MCL 750.539a defines "private place" but does not define "private discourse" nor "private conversation" as used in MCL 750.539a and MCL 750.539c. There may be case law, but I have not yet researched this (limited time right now).

    I believe it best to discuss in terms of Scenarios for better understanding:

    Scenario A (clear-cut):
    Police stop you on a public sidewalk and have a discussion with you. Since this is not in a private place, you may record since you are party to the discussion.

    Scenario B (clear-cut):
    Police come to your house and have a discussion with you on your front porch. Since this is not in a private place, you may record since you are party to the discussion.

    Scenario C (Grey area):
    Police come to your house and have a discussion with you in your home. This may be deemed a private place and you may not record unless all parties in the discussion agreed.

    I am sure that further reading of case law would provide further clarification...
    Your interpretation is not quite correct.

    At anytime if you are a party to the conversation, you may legally record it.

    It is impossible to eavesdrop upon a conversation to which you are a party.
    You are probably correct. It just appears that the definition or "private place" in MCL 750.539a seems out of place as it is not used in MCL 750.539a nor MCL 750.539c.

    Just one more thing to write my "congress-critter" about!
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    Regarding 324.43510 subsection 1, it would seem that if I had my SKS slung over my shoulder, and went past a squirrel in Ann Arbor, that I'd be liable to get popped by that law if I didn't have a hunting license. This is what other people have been concerned about, right?
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Niles & Lawton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    Recording law:

    http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-539c

    Basically- if you're not a party to the private conversation, you cannot eavesdrop upon the conversation without consent of everyone involved.

    If it's not a private conversation, no consent needed.

    If you're a party to the conversation, no consent needed.
    Public places are just that, public, and not considered private by any means. Just wanting to clarify


  9. #9
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    Michigander wrote:
    Regarding 324.43510 subsection 1, it would seem that if I had my SKS slung over my shoulder, and went past a squirrel in Ann Arbor, that I'd be liable to get popped by that law if I didn't have a hunting license. This is what other people have been concerned about, right?
    Well can you discharge and shoot the animal in the area you are in? If not then you can't hunt there but you should be allowed to OC a long gun.

    If you are in an area where the taking of game is allowed you may need the SG license.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    Thanks for the help so far gents.

    About 324.43510, it seems that one would be compliant with the act to go into a game area during deer season with a rifle solely under the authority of a CPL, provided the rifle was just for self defense. It doesn't say the CPL is only for pistols that I can see. Or am I missing something?
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    If you do decide to vaporise a squirrel with that sks, please get it on video.:P

  12. #12
    Regular Member Hyperion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    45

    Post imported post

    There were a few running threads on the topic of surreptitious recording of participant recordings on the MGO forum some years ago. I participated in those discussions, offered my position on the subject and provided some resources to review. MGO has one or two interesting forum participants that habitually interfered with intellectual discourse, so I don't post there anymore.

    You should keep in mind that different attorneys harbor different opinions on this topic.

    Here are some useful resources:
    State Bar of Michigan Bar Journal article October, 2008

    http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/da...0s/op06100.htm (atty general opinion on recording public meetings)


    http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...-recording-law


    Dickerson v Raphael (engineer for talk show surreptitiously records the "conversation of others")


    Sullivan v Gray: http://www.dadsnow.org/legal/sulliva...clnk&gl=us

    Edited to fix broken linky.



  13. #13
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Hyperion wrote:
    There were a few running threads on the topic of surreptitious recording of participant recordings on the MGO forum some years ago. I participated in those discussions, offered my position on the subject and provided some resources to review. MGO has one or two interesting forum participants that habitually interfered with intellectual discourse, so I don't post there anymore.

    You should keep in mind that different attorneys harbor different opinions on this topic.

    Here are some useful resources:
    State Bar of Michigan Bar Journal article October, 2008

    http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/da...0s/op06100.htm (atty general opinion on recording public meetings)


    http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...-recording-law


    Dickerson v Raphael (engineer for talk show surreptitiously records the "conversation of others")


    Sullivan v Gray: http://www.dadsnow.org/legal/sulliva...clnk&gl=us

    Edited to fix broken linky.

    Very helpful references. A lot of interesting reading. Thanks!!!









    The UFO is coming.


  14. #14
    Regular Member Taurus850CIA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,071

    Post imported post

    Michigander wrote:
    Thanks for the help so far gents.

    About 324.43510, it seems that one would be compliant with the act to go into a game area during deer season with a rifle solely under the authority of a CPL, provided the rifle was just for self defense. It doesn't say the CPL is only for pistols that I can see. Or am I missing something?
    The concealed pistol license is for a pistol, unless you're reading something much deeper than I've seen. I would think that the authority of a concealed pistol license would stop at anything past a pistol.



    28.421a Concealed pistol licenses; issuance; creation of standardized system.
    Sec. 1a.
    It is the intent of the legislature to create a standardized system for issuing concealed pistol licenses to prevent criminals and other violent individuals from obtaining a license to carry a concealed pistol, to allow law abiding residents to obtain a license to carry a concealed pistol, and to prescribe the rights and responsibilities of individuals who have obtained a license to carry a concealed pistol. It is also the intent of the legislature to grant an applicant the right to know why his or her application for a concealed pistol license is denied and to create a process by which an applicant may appeal that denial.

    "Fault always lies in the same place, my fine babies: with him weak enough to lay blame." - Cort

    Gun control is like trying to reduce Drunk Driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

    Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.

    The answer to "1984" is "
    1776"

    With freedom comes much responsibility. It is for this reason so many are loathe to exercise it.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    Taurus850CIA wrote:
    Michigander wrote:
    Thanks for the help so far gents.

    About 324.43510, it seems that one would be compliant with the act to go into a game area during deer season with a rifle solely under the authority of a CPL, provided the rifle was just for self defense. It doesn't say the CPL is only for pistols that I can see. Or am I missing something?
    The concealed pistol license is for a pistol, unless you're reading something much deeper than I've seen. I would think that the authority of a concealed pistol license would stop at anything past a pistol.



    28.421a Concealed pistol licenses; issuance; creation of standardized system.
    Sec. 1a.
    It is the intent of the legislature to create a standardized system for issuing concealed pistol licenses to prevent criminals and other violent individuals from obtaining a license to carry a concealed pistol, to allow law abiding residents to obtain a license to carry a concealed pistol, and to prescribe the rights and responsibilities of individuals who have obtained a license to carry a concealed pistol. It is also the intent of the legislature to grant an applicant the right to know why his or her application for a concealed pistol license is denied and to create a process by which an applicant may appeal that denial.
    750.234d is a law that prohibits firearms (of all types) on certain premises, but exempts CPL holders.

    This is the type of thing he's talking about.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Taurus850CIA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,071

    Post imported post

    NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT (EXCERPT)
    Act 451 of 1994

    324.43510 Carrying or transporting firearm, slingshot, bow and arrow, crossbow or trap; license required; exception; applicability to taking of wild animal.Sec. 43510.
    (1) Subject to subsection (2) and except as provided in section 43513, a person shall not carry or transport a firearm, slingshot, bow and arrow, crossbow, or a trap while in any area frequented by wild animals unless that person has in his or her possession a license as required under this part.
    (2) This act or a rule promulgated or order issued by the department or the commission under this act shall not be construed to prohibit a person from transporting a pistol or carrying a loaded pistol, whether concealed or not, if either of the following applies:
    (a) The person has in his or her possession a license to carry a concealed pistol under 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.421 to 28.435.
    (b) The person is authorized under the circumstances to carry a concealed pistol without obtaining a license to carry a concealed pistol under 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.421 to 28.435, as provided for under any of the following:
    (i) Section 12a of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.432a.
    (ii) Section 227, 227a, 231, or 231a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.227, 750.227a, 750.231, and 750.231a.
    (3) Subsection (2) does not authorize an individual to take or attempt to take a wild animal except as provided by law.

    Michigander suggested that one may (possibly) carry a long gun under the authority of a cpl in an area populated by game animals in accordance with this law. I don't read it that way. It specifies pistol, and I see no way a long gun would fall under the authority of a cpl.


    eta: Unless my brain is mushier than normal today. I admit that you are sharper than I am, Zig.
    "Fault always lies in the same place, my fine babies: with him weak enough to lay blame." - Cort

    Gun control is like trying to reduce Drunk Driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

    Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.

    The answer to "1984" is "
    1776"

    With freedom comes much responsibility. It is for this reason so many are loathe to exercise it.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    In Michigan, as of 2/22/2010, we can CC a pistol with CPL,OC pistols and rifles without CPL in National Parks.

Posting Permissions

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