recording LEO encounter?

I've read a ton about this topic in other state's forums (CA in particular) but what are the laws here in TX. Assuming OC does get through soon, I think it may be a hot topic, at least until the original excitement of OC dies down. I know LEO's can record me w/o my permission. Does that work the other way around??

Only one party has to consent, so if you are involved in the conversation, you can record it. Generally, anything happening in a public place can be recorded by anyone legally present. But IANAL, so don't quote me.

well if they can use unconsented recordings in trials and you can't then I would think that would be unfair therfore believe that would constitute a violation of your right to a fair trial however be carefull when recording not to hinder to officer in the preformace of his duty that may be considered obstruction of justice also their recordings can also be used as evidence in your favor and if they destroy, recycle, or alter it then you mite want to come back at them with obstruction of justice, tampering of evidence, and denial of rights to fair trial. worked on a seat belt ticket for me

jecsd1 said:

I've read a ton about this topic in other state's forums (CA in particular) but what are the laws here in TX. Assuming OC does get through soon, I think it may be a hot topic, at least until the original excitement of OC dies down. I know LEO's can record me w/o my permission. Does that work the other way around??

Click to expand...

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/texas.html

Blk97F150 said:

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/texas.html

Click to expand...

Texas is one party consent, that would be you as long as you are involved in the conversation. I don't think it even mentions LE, but I'll check. If not, then they would be the other party/parties.

rodbender said:

Texas is one party consent, that would be you as long as you are involved in the conversation. I don't think it even mentions LE, but I'll check. If not, then they would be the other party/parties.

Click to expand...

That's exactly correct. As far as an LEO is concerned, if he is acting in his official capacity as an LEO, then everything that happens is public information. Even if it weren't, the one party rule is still in effect.

An example of where that might come into play is if you overheard a conversation/interview (as a passenger in the car for instance). At least one party in that conversation/interview has to know about it unless it's already public information. Another way out of that is to simply involve yourself with a comment or question. Then you're involved and have every right to record it.

I don't know for sure but I think that you only need consent of one to video, record, or photo in private settings cause when you are out in the public nobody needs consent to record you unless they are going to use it for commerical,advertising or profit reasons.if we had to have consent to record/vid/pic people in public then wouldn't alot of celeberties have a field day at sue your ass court. how many times do we see people say don't record me or vid me and they still do it while informing them that they can record anything that they want in public ...and get away with it...so thats why I think the consent rule is ment for private settings sort of goes along with invasion of privacy measures....ie who got consent from the police or rodney king before the third uninvolved party started video on that shock and aww event that happened

Here are the state laws for recording

"Can We Tape?"
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states.html

Chap