Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 75

Thread: Voice Recording

  1. #1
    Regular Member Sparky508's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Graham, , USA
    Posts
    343

    Voice Recording

    Can y'all point me to the RCW about voice recorders, cameras and the like?

    Thank you, Gentlemen.

  2. #2
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    The RCW's prohibit the recording of private communications without the consent of all parties.

    What makes it legal for you to record any interaction with a Police Officer is the Washington State Court of Appeals ruling in State v. Flora that recordings made while police officers acting in their official capacity are not a violation of RCW 9.73.030

    Because the exchange was not private, its recording could not violate RCW 9.73.030 which applies to private conversations only. We decline the State's invitation to transform the privacy act into a sword available for use against individuals by public officers acting in their official capacity.
    If officers force you to stop recording, which is a legal act, they could be guilty of the State's Coercion statute which prohibits any actions by an official to prevent one from going about a lawful activity.

    http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/gunst...e_v_Flora.html
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  3. #3
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043
    Here is a good resource on the matter.

    http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

    Washington Specific...
    http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/washington.html

  4. #4
    Regular Member Sparky508's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Graham, , USA
    Posts
    343
    Thanks Amlevin,
    I think that case was enough ammo for my argument.
    Last edited by Sparky508; 02-11-2011 at 09:49 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    167

    Cool

    I seem to recall a thread in here someplace... can't find it just now.
    Anyways, you might find some info there, too.
    Hope this works: 8gb pen thread post #24
    Last edited by tony d tiger; 02-11-2011 at 01:58 PM. Reason: found the link

  6. #6
    Activist Member golddigger14s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lacey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,990

    Pen Video recorder

    Looking to buy a video recorder. Amazon has recorders (pen, key fob, eye glass, clip style, and watch) from $10-$120. I don't want a cheap POS, but I don't want to break the bank. Any sugestions?
    "The beauty of the Second Amenment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson
    "Evil often triumphs, but never conquers." Joseph Roux
    http://nwfood.shelfreliance.com

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    Quote Originally Posted by golddigger14s View Post
    Looking to buy a video recorder. Amazon has recorders (pen, key fob, eye glass, clip style, and watch) from $10-$120. I don't want a cheap POS, but I don't want to break the bank. Any sugestions?
    I just got 2 of these, and they are good.



    http://cgi.ebay.com/Mini-DV-Camcorde...eae176cff#shId

  8. #8
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    The RCW's prohibit the recording of private communications without the consent of all parties.

    What makes it legal for you to record any interaction with a Police Officer is the Washington State Court of Appeals ruling in State v. Flora that recordings made while police officers acting in their official capacity are not a violation of RCW 9.73.030



    If officers force you to stop recording, which is a legal act, they could be guilty of the State's Coercion statute which prohibits any actions by an official to prevent one from going about a lawful activity.

    http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/gunst...e_v_Flora.html


    For the last Mother*&$ing time. STATE VS FLORA HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH RECORDING POLICE OFFICERS AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE RECORDING OCCURRED IN PUBLIC!

    Here's your own damn quote...

    Because the exchange was not private, its recording could not violate RCW 9.73.030 which applies to private conversations only. We decline the State's invitation to transform the privacy act into a sword available for use against individuals by public officers acting in their official capacity.
    You're gonna get some people on felony charges because you tell them that they can record any cop, any time, any where....

    WHERE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY EXISTS, YOU MUST NOTIFY!

    During his conversation with the officers, Flora and Sherrin entered the house to retrieve the protective order in order to show the officers that the limit was 20 feet rather than 25 feet. They not only brought out the order but a pile of other papers as well. Hidden among them was a small tape recorder. Flora maintains that he wanted to record the conversation because he feared the deputies would assault him and use racial slurs as they had done in the past. He explains that he felt particularly apprehensive because the officers refused to look at the pictures he had taken, pictures which, he thought, would prove he had not been photographing his neighbor's house.

    When Flora and Sherrin came out of the house the officers proceeded with the arrest. The stack of papers was placed on the hood of the police car. After Flora was placed in the car, Sherrin picked up the papers and one of the officers saw the tape recorder. Sherrin was arrested and the tape recorder confiscated.


    (...)


    The conversation at issue fails this threshold inquiry; the arrest was not entitled to be private. Moreover, the police officers in this case could not reasonably have considered their words private. 1


    1 We note, incidentally, that the police officers testified at trial that they did not consider the conversation private.

    WHERE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY EXISTS, YOU MUST NOTIFY!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Tecnoweinie please give us some examples of where you think recording an officer would be lawful and where you think recording an officer would be unlawful.

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Orphan View Post
    Tecnoweinie please give us some examples of where you think recording an officer would be lawful and where you think recording an officer would be unlawful.
    He has, we've discussed this many times. I disagree with his position. I personally think this ruling reinforces in my mind that any public employee when dealing with the public has no expectation to privacy.

    Here's some excerpts from That decision some are quotes they used from other cases. But are still found in Flora decision.

    [QUOTE]..a legislative intent to safeguard the private conversations of citizens from dissemination in any way. The statute reflects a desire to protect individuals from the disclosure of any secret illegally uncovered by law enforcement.[/QUOTE] State v. Fjermestad, 114 Wn.2d at 836.

    [4, 5] The State advances no persuasive basis for its contention that the conversation between the officers and Flora should be considered private. We note in particular that in none of the cases it cites as controlling were public officers asserting a privacy interest in statements uttered in the course of performing their official and public duties. Rather, the question in those cases was whether the personal privacy of an individual was improperly invaded. See State v. Cunningham, 23 Wn. App. 826, 843-44, 598 P.2d 756 (1979), rev'd, 93 Wn.2d 823, 613 P.2d 1139 (1980); State v. Grant, 9 Wn. App. 260, 265, 511 P.2d 1013, review denied, 83 Wn.2d 1003 (1973), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 849 (1974); State v. Caliguri, 99 Wn.2d 501, 506, 664 P.2d 466 (1983); State v. Wanrow, 88 Wn.2d at 228-32. The State now urges us to distort the rationale of those cases to support the proposition that police officers possess a personal privacy interest in statements they make as public officers effectuating an arrest.


    Our research into other legal sources, in which a literature on the notion of privacy may be said to exist, has produced no cases which support the State's position. In Fourth Amendment analysis, and tort theory, for example, the question whether a matter is private occasions a threshold inquiry into whether the matter at issue ought properly be entitled to protection at all:

    It is clear, however, that there must be something in the nature of prying or intrusion, . . . It is clear also that the thing into which there is intrusion or prying must be, and be entitled to be, private.


    We note, incidentally, that the police officers testified at trial that they did not consider the conversation private

    The conversation at issue fails this threshold inquiry; the arrest was not entitled to be private. Moreover, the police officers in this case could not reasonably have considered their words private.

    (Notice how the arrest, the public action is not private,this is the Public officials acting in public duty, period. Then it says Moreover, so on top of the fact they were public officials with not expectation of privacy they also didn't meet any of the other criteria John mentions.)

    Because the exchange was not private, its recording could not violate RCW 9.73.030 which applies to private conversations only. We decline the State's invitation to transform the privacy act into a sword available for use against individuals by public officers acting in their official capacity. The trial court erred in denying Flora's motion to dismiss. Flora's conviction is reversed and the case dismissed.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    More thoughts and considerations....

    Washington State Constitution

    Article 1
    SECTION 7 INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR HOME PROHIBITED. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.

    Public officials while on the clock are not private.

    From State vs. Clark

    The Privacy Act,(RCW 9.73), is designed to protect private conversations from governmental intrusion. The conversations here were not private for purposes of that Act where they were brief, involved strangers on a public street, and concerned the terms of routine drug transactions. Some of the conversations actually took place in the presence of third persons. We are unprepared to rule that the Legislature intended to provide privacy protection to street-level illegal narcotics sellers under these market-place circumstances.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    If in a private setting and you notify that you are recording, and the notification and acknowledgement or refusal is included in the recording, You do not have to turn off the recorder if ordered to do so. If you leave the recorder turned on and after being notified they have 2 options.
    1. stop talking.
    2 continue talking, knowing that they are being recorded, which is considered implied consent.

  13. #13
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Orphan View Post
    Tecnoweinie please give us some examples of where you think recording an officer would be lawful and where you think recording an officer would be unlawful.
    Easy.

    If the conversation can easily be overheard by others, even if others are not present (ie, in public)

    Where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, Ie a person is in an enclosed area not readily audibly observable by the public. A 'private' room, bathroom (depending on circumstances), etc

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoWeenie View Post
    Easy.

    If the conversation can easily be overheard by others, even if others are not present (ie, in public)

    Where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, Ie a person is in an enclosed area not readily audibly observable by the public. A 'private' room, bathroom (depending on circumstances), etc
    What about an officer that pulls a car over on the side of the highway and is recording? The conversation is not audibly observable by the public.

    How about you are recording a conversation with a detective that is in a room that only you and him are in? He is in official capacity at that point and you are giving a statement. Is that private?
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Edge of the woods
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by joeroket View Post
    What about an officer that pulls a car over on the side of the highway and is recording? The conversation is not audibly observable by the public.
    But it could be observable and overheard by the public. You are out in public, on a public thoroughfare. No reason to expect privacy on the side of a road. Stop and pee along side the freeway and see if you'll get a urinating in PUBLIC citation.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339
    Quote Originally Posted by dadada View Post
    But it could be observable and overheard by the public. You are out in public, on a public thoroughfare. No reason to expect privacy on the side of a road. Stop and pee along side the freeway and see if you'll get a urinating in PUBLIC citation.
    You are confusing hearing and seeing. One can see something from 20 yds away but not hear anything. A person in a car is not in a position to be capable of hearing the conversation between the officer and vehicle operator.

    I am just presenting an argument to technoweenie and his statement of "If the conversation can easily be overheard by others, even if others are not present (ie, in public)"

    There is a fault in his argument. Just because you are in public does not make it a public conversation if others cannot hear it. If you are 30 yds away from everyone else in a park you would have the expectation that your words are not being heard by anyone else and are therefore private.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    If you thoroughly read the decisions they draw a distinctive line about public employees and the state and private individuals. I don't think we can record an officer taking a dump or tap his phone when they are in a private conversation with spouse.

    But while on duty it is all fair game. They can not try get around this by whispering, as mentioned before. In the Clark case it mentions that if someone doesn't think you will keep it private there is no expectation of privacy. So when an officer is on duty we have no obligation to keep anything he says to us private , this would mean we can also record what he says.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    If you thoroughly read the decisions they draw a distinctive line about public employees and the state and private individuals. I don't think we can record an officer taking a dump or tap his phone when they are in a private conversation with spouse.

    But while on duty it is all fair game. They can not try get around this by whispering, as mentioned before. In the Clark case it mentions that if someone doesn't think you will keep it private there is no expectation of privacy. So when an officer is on duty we have no obligation to keep anything he says to us private , this would mean we can also record what he says.
    That is my take on it also. Official business requires no notification of recording.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Olympia
    Posts
    539
    If officers force you to stop recording, which is a legal act, they could be guilty of the State's Coercion statute which prohibits any actions by an official to prevent one from going about a lawful activity.


    How is that not a contradictory statement..or law?

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by Lovenox View Post
    If officers force you to stop recording, which is a legal act, they could be guilty of the State's Coercion statute which prohibits any actions by an official to prevent one from going about a lawful activity.


    How is that not a contradictory statement..or law?
    The recording is a legal act - not the officer forcing you to stop recording. If the officer prevents you (forces you to stop) from going about a legal activity (recording), they could be guilty of coercion.

    RCW 9A.36.070
    Coercion.
    (1) A person is guilty of coercion if by use of a threat he compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from, or to abstain from conduct which he has a legal right to engage in.
    (2) "Threat" as used in this section means:
    (a) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time; or
    (b) Threats as defined in *RCW 9A.04.110(25) (a), (b), or (c).
    (3) Coercion is a gross misdemeanor.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Olympia
    Posts
    539
    The recording is a legal act - not the officer forcing you to stop recording. If the officer prevents you (forces you to stop) from going about a legal activity (recording), they could be guilty of coercion.


    Yup. My misterpetation.

  22. #22
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by joeroket View Post
    What about an officer that pulls a car over on the side of the highway and is recording? The conversation is not audibly observable by the public.
    Sure it is, anyone walking by is free to hear it, it is in public, where NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY EXISTS.

    How about you are recording a conversation with a detective that is in a room that only you and him are in? He is in official capacity at that point and you are giving a statement. Is that private?
    Don't overthink it.

    Would a reasonable person think that the conversation was private? If someone said 'we need to talk', and proceeded to go into a room, where the door was closed behind me, I would damn well say that the intent was to keep the conversation private. In cases where you're at a police station interrogation room, there are warnings that you are on tape, if you don't want to be recorded, don't say anything.

    Implied consent - read up on it.

  23. #23
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by joeroket View Post
    You are confusing hearing and seeing. One can see something from 20 yds away but not hear anything. A person in a car is not in a position to be capable of hearing the conversation between the officer and vehicle operator.

    I am just presenting an argument to technoweenie and his statement of "If the conversation can easily be overheard by others, even if others are not present (ie, in public)"

    There is a fault in his argument. Just because you are in public does not make it a public conversation if others cannot hear it. If you are 30 yds away from everyone else in a park you would have the expectation that your words are not being heard by anyone else and are therefore private.
    Except when you thought no one else was around, you didn't see my wife sitting in my car, or the guy crouching down by his car checking a scratch.

    REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. None exists in public.

    public - not private; open to or concerning the people as a whole; "the public good"; "public libraries"; "public funds"; "public parks"; "a public scandal"; "public gardens"; "performers and members of royal families are public figures"

  24. #24
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    But while on duty it is all fair game. They can not try get around this by whispering, as mentioned before. In the Clark case it mentions that if someone doesn't think you will keep it private there is no expectation of privacy. So when an officer is on duty we have no obligation to keep anything he says to us private , this would mean we can also record what he says.
    Cite?

    It's illegal to record a private conversation without consent. Show me the case or law that says you can record private conversations of public officials without consent.

    I'm waiting.

  25. #25
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoWeenie View Post
    Cite?

    It's illegal to record a private conversation without consent. Show me the case or law that says you can record private conversations of public officials without consent.

    I'm waiting.
    If that public official is performing his "Public Duties" the conversation is not private. Even meetings of public officials can't be "private" unless discussing items of personnel or non public legal information.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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