2 legal questions

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.

Click to expand...

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...

Click to expand...

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...

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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)


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


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


Sullivan v Gray: http://www.dadsnow.org/legal/sullivan.doc+%22117+Mich+App+476%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Edited to fix broken linky.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...