Exactly, and I did cite it's in the rulings read the posts carefully. The things you mention are in addition to the officers acting in their official capacity.
The officer while on duty has no expectation of privacy when dealing with the public, what "private" room or office is he bringing me too? The public one at the station we pay for?
You cited one sentence that has no bearing whatsoever on the case at hand.
Cite CASE LAW or CODIFIED LAW to support your statements.
I have.
The law says that it's illegal to record a private conversation without consent.
You say *unless it's a public official.
I say CITE the FACTUAL BASIS for it.. Either in case law, or codified law..
Lets break this down...
The State advances no persuasive basis for its contention that the conversation between the officers and Flora should be considered private.
The states argument that the recording of the officers was illegal, because the arrest and conversation were private, is bogus, and the court finds that there is no compelling argument for that to be true.
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.
The state cited cases involving PRIVATE affairs, when OBVIOUSLY a PUBLIC matter, on a PUBLIC road is NOT PRIVATE. They can NOT claim that PUBLIC actions are private JUST because they're police officers.
Rather, the question in those cases was whether the personal privacy of an individual was improperly invaded.
The states argument was based on PRIVATE affairs in a PRIVATE manner, not PUBLIC arrests on a PUBLIC street.
he 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.
AGAIN, the state wants to say that officers are acting in a private manner when effecting a PUBLIC arrest, and the court says it will not allow that.
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.
B e c a u s e
t h e y
w e r e
i n
p u b l i c !
Oh but wait.. There's more!
The State urges us to adopt the view that public officers performing an official function on a public thoroughfare in the presence of a third party and within the sight and hearing of passersby enjoy a privacy interest which they may assert under the statute. We reject that view as wholly without merit.
Oh wait, BECAUSE IT'S IN PUBLIC!
I'm
still waiting for a cite.
To all those that are saying 'I can record any public official whenever I want', I invite you to schedule a meeting with an officer behind closed doors, and secretly record him, then advertise afterwards that you recorded him..
Oh.. wait.. you mean there's no codified law or case law to back up your assertion and you'd probably be convicted? ohh.. yeah.. that little thing..
Why the hell do people insist on reading things the way they want to, to fit what they want, instead of reading it for what it is ?
