Minneapolis Police spokesman reacts to sight of legally holstered firearm.

Perhaps a Federal color of law issue, although not a strong one. At least if the state has sweeping preemption (perhaps the code he referenced?), and it can be proven that the cop knew he was wrong. And even then, I wouldn't expect a jury to find this worth much money. Legal fees, at best, I would imagine. How much money is it really worth to be disarmed for under 3 minutes by an idiot? The only way you could hope to get money from a situation like this is if it was backed by a long list of repeat offenses well after they should have known better.

In regards to the recording laws, considering that his rights were apparently violated, and considering that it's a public building, even not knowing state law there, I have an extremely hard time believing that he could be convicted of violating any recording laws. At worst I would imagine it would be won at the appellate level, yielding some good case law.

While I can navigate the Alabama code with ease, not so with the Minnesota code. I cannot find actual code sections. However, a cursory Google search has indicated that Rosenberg may be guilty of two crimes: He recorded the conversation of the receptionist on the phone (her half, anyway), to which he was not a part, and for which he had not consent from one of the participants. Second, it is unlawful in Minnesota to record using a hidden camera without the permission of the subjects to be recorded or viewed.

I assume these crimes are misdemeanors. Again, though, I cannot find the actual MN code sections.

eye95 said:

While I can navigate the Alabama code with ease, not so with the Minnesota code. I cannot find actual code sections. However, a cursory Google search has indicated that Rosenberg may be guilty of two crimes: He recorded the conversation of the receptionist on the phone (her half, anyway), to which he was not a part, and for which he had not consent from one of the participants. Second, it is unlawful in Minnesota to record using a hidden camera without the permission of the subjects to be recorded or viewed.

I assume these crimes are misdemeanors. Again, though, I cannot find the actual MN code sections.

Click to expand...

Cite there are only very few states were it is unlawful to record public officials in their duties or to record the public in view.

sudden valley gunner said:

Cite there are only very few states were it is unlawful to record public officials in their duties or to record the public in view.

Click to expand...

As I have said, I cannot find the applicable MN statutes. My post clearly states that I am only reporting what a Google search indicates. I am not quoting law, therefore I will not cite.

I have already requested that someone more familiar with MN law verify what I suspect to be true.

In my reading, the key to making the recording illegal was the expectation of privacy. IMO, a person who thinks they are alone in an office, even one open to the public, has an expectation of privacy when they are alone in that office. People should be able to feel free to pick their nose or scratch their ass, free from prying eyes, when they think they are alone, even in a pubic office.

The research on hidden cameras revealed no provision for public offices. It is that the camera is hidden that would seem to make its use illegal in this situation.

Disclaimer: I am making no claim to be representing MN law. I am relating what a cursory bit of research revealed to me. I am seeking the assistance of others verifying the actual nature of MN law.

Therefore, no cite will be forthcoming from me.

eye95 said:

As I have said, I cannot find the applicable MN statutes. My post clearly states that I am only reporting what a Google search indicates. I am not quoting law, therefore I will not cite.

I have already requested that someone more familiar with MN law verify what I suspect to be true.

In my reading, the key to making the recording illegal was the expectation of privacy. IMO, a person who thinks they are alone in an office, even one open to the public, has an expectation of privacy when they are alone in that office. People should be able to feel free to pick their nose or scratch their ass, free from prying eyes, when they think they are alone, even in a pubic office.

The research on hidden cameras revealed no provision for public offices. It is that the camera is hidden that would seem to make its use illegal in this situation.

Disclaimer: I am making no claim to be representing MN law. I am relating what a cursory bit of research revealed to me. I am seeking the assistance of others verifying the actual nature of MN law.

Therefore, no cite will be forthcoming from me.

Click to expand...

I don't believe the same if you are in public or a public official you have no right to to an expectation of privacy either while in public or in acting in your public duties.

Washington has ruled this in a few court decisions, so without a cite I wouldn't even propose that what you are saying is true.

State vs Flora (one dealing with cops in WA)

From my brief cursory search it looks like Minnesota is a on party state so as long as you are involved in the conversation you can tape and record it, even better than Washington were you have to inform you are recording don't have to stop if they don't want just inform.

As to the recording question here is what I've found is applicable:

Minn. Stat. § 626A.02: It is legal for a person to record a wire, oral or electronic communication if that person is a party to the communication, or if one of the parties has consented to the recording — so long as no criminal or tortious intent accompanies the recording.

Now I don't have a cite for this part but have been told by law enforcement and an attorney that it is legal to record any public employee that is in public view.

As to the statute Joel referenced here is a link to the statute. Subdivisions 17 and 23 are clear as to where permit holders can carry. There are very few exceptions for permit holders in Minnesota and those are covered by this statute in subdivisions 1d and 1g.

I don't know Joel but I do know the reputation of the MPD and they have a history of harassing permit holders for violations that do not exist. What the officer did in the video is uncalled for and illegal. Ignorance of the law is no excuse works on both side and that officers has been informed of the statute and should know that permitted carry is legal in the building. Even if he didn't know Joel had a permit the first thing he should have done is ask if he had a permit, not grab for the weapon. The officer did not handle it correctly and Joel's attitude during the encounter is irrelevant to the law in question.

At least that's my opinion as someone that lives in Minnesota.

kwikrnu said:

Sounds like Rosenberg is a cop basher and someone who is attempting to entrap a cop. Why else would he be armed with a couple of guns and several knives?

Click to expand...

Because it's legal in MN?

eye95 said:

The difference being that we get into a discussion with the person here (unless he is a one-hit wonder or a troll) and can judge his credibility. In this case we have some shills reposting "press releases" that have been plastered all over the Internet word-for-word, as if any credible journalist would touch it with a ten-foot pole.

Clearly, we are being used by this guy to get his story out as widely as possible before an unbiased version or the opposing version can see the light of day.

If this guy has any stones, he comes on here personally and talks with us instead of sending others touting his "press release."

"Press release," what a freakin' joke!

BS

Click to expand...

Normally I'd rather run my face through a cheese grater for an hour rather than read what eye95 has to say, but you have to give it to him when he's right. In this case, he's 100% correct.

Very well written, eye

Some commentary about the issue here:

http://mzmadmike.livejournal.com/88567.html

Michael Z. Williamson is, in my opinion, a pretty trustworthy source, and Mr. Rosenberg himself actually seems quite kind to the officer and seems interested in fixing the procedural problem, not castigating individual officers.

YMMV.

I do not dispute the legality of recording the officer while he was dealing with Rosenberg and while Rosenberg was there.

I am pointing out the possibility that allowing the recording to continue to run after he left and while the receptionist thought she was alone would not qualify for recording a public official dealing with a member of the public in her official capacity. I believe that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Also, I am pointing out that the mere placement of the camera, where it was clearly intended to go unnoticed and did, in fact go unnoticed, qualifies as "hidden." Per my cursory research (again, I am making no authoritative claim regarding MN law) using a hidden camera to record folks without their knowledge is unlawful. I found no exception for recording public officials at all. In this case, it is not the recording that is unlawful, but hiding the recording device which runs afoul of the law.

Again, can someone more versed in MN law verify or debunk what I seem to have found out about MN law?

On edit: I did not notice the second page before posting this. So, if any of it makes it seem as though I ignored those posts, I didn't (save for the one deliberately ignored). I will read those as soon as I finish this edit. Sorry 'bout that.

tietorneau: Thanks for the information.

I still wonder about the legality of the recording in Rosenberg's absence and the hidden nature of the camera.

PavePusher: The only problem I have with Rosenberg's behavior on the scene was his manner of surreptitiously recording the events. He seemed to be trying to entrap whatever officer he ended up dealing with. He was indeed as polite as should be expected, as was the officer.

My main objection is to how Rosenberg handled the situation afterward, sending out minions with his "press release" and accusing the officer of "assault." His blog indicates (particularly the story about the hotel clerk) that he likes to play "gotcha" games and "win" encounters with other people. He likes to threaten them with assassination by press, even though his being a member of the press is somewhat laughable.

Combining the above with his irresponsible description of the incident means he has zero credibility with me.

COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Attacking other gun rights supporters

As I suspect you already know, I seriously doubt Mr Rosenburg would subject himself to any serious questioning concerning the matter here on this forum. Even if he did, I imagine he'd only come with pre-manufactured concoctions which would leave everyone feeling like they just tried to get a straight answer about Watergate from Nixon.

eye95 said:

tietorneau: The only problem I have with Rosenberg's behavior on the scene was his manner of surreptitiously recording the events. He seemed to be trying to entrap whatever officer he ended up dealing with. He was indeed as polite as should be expected, as was the officer.

Click to expand...

Care to explain how this is 'entrapment'?

I see this situation as being no different in application than a camera equipped 'bait car' employed to catch car thieves.

As for you laughing off his claim of assault...How would you react if a non-'only one' lunged without warning and stripped you of your sidearm? I don't think there's a single person on this site that would NOT call that an assault, and/or robbery.:uhoh:

Phssthpok said:

Care to explain how this is 'entrapment'?

I see this situation as being no different in application than a camera equipped 'bait car' employed to catch car thieves.

As for you laughing off his claim of assault...How would you react if a non-'only one' lunged without warning and stripped you of your sidearm? I don't think there's a single person on this site that would NOT call that an assault, and/or robbery.:uhoh:

Click to expand...

It is not legal entrapment. Only LEOs can be guilty of that. Morally, it is repugnant as entrapment. Clearly, it was Rosenberg's intent to set an officer up to do something Rosenberg thought would be unlawful.

I would never do such a thing, so I wouldn't be in a position to have my weapon snatched in a situation I set upengineered. However, routinely carrying openly, I run the risk of having my weapon unlawfully seized. Wait...that has actually happened to me. My case was far more egregious than Rosenberg's, and, if I claimed "assault," I hope you'd laugh at me.

Assault is assault regardless of shiny baubles or funny hats.

Phssthpok said:

Assault is assault regardless of shiny baubles or funny hats.

Click to expand...

What a silly statement. Moving on.

assault is intent on causing bodily harm or serious injury. there was no intention of that for which I could witness. unlawful detainment of person or property....maybe, but assault? come on now.

Coded-Dude said:

assault is intent on causing bodily harm. there was no intention of that for which I could witness.

Click to expand...

Good point.

Coded-Dude said:

assault is intent on causing bodily harm or serious injury. there was no intention of that for which I could witness. unlawful detainment of person or property....maybe, but assault? come on now.

Click to expand...

Tell that to the person arrested for 'assaulting an officer' when his arm brushed the officers' as he walked past.

As you can see in the video (@3:25) he even rotated slightly AWAY from the officer he contacted as he tried to squeeze through the small opening between him and the other officer.

Some assault.

Joel Rosenberg is legit. He is the former owner of TwinCitiesCarry, and one of the gun rights leadership in Minnesota. He is not a "cop basher" in any sense of form.