• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Voice Recording

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Every cite given references actions IN PUBLIC, none reference recording a private conversation.

The point is that any time a public servant (leo, judge, ect) is acting in an official capacity by definition it is a PUBLIC ACT. It don't matter if the LEO is arresting / conversing with you in a bathroom stall--- if it is a non-consensual encounter IT IS A PUBLIC ACT and the leo has absolutely no expectation of privacy--- it is the same logic the leo's use to justify recording their encounters with the public.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
Every cite given references actions IN PUBLIC, none reference recording a private conversation.

Oh really!?!?!

From Johnson v Sequim

Second, even where a conversation is not "public" in that it is not monitored or heard by the public, it may be "public" in that the subject of the conversation is strictly of a public business nature.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Hey more power to JP if he gets pulled into the back room or an officer starts to whisper to him and he wants to turn his recorder off. Me I am not going to be without that protection if I can help it, and personally think to think otherwise is not realizing the intent of the law (although Flora spell out the intent is to protect private citizens against Law Enforcement and not the other way around).

I have been through this with public officials before, building inspectors. I recorded them without telling them and than brought the recording to their boss at the time Jose Varga and the head inspector Tom McClaughlin(? spelling).

They tried to make the same argument JP is making they checked with legal, got back to me told me I was right and have had nothing but great inspections from the city of Bellingham since then.

Now my recording was not on a public place, was on private property in a house being built with no third party around. The simple fact that a public servant engaged in a public duty has no right to privacy when dealing with the public.

It's there in the rulings, the lawyers for the cops on Flora didn't try to argue that point because they knew they'd loose. Thats why the justices didn't even rule on that point, and use words like "morever".

Here's some similes for moreover: furthermore, also, further, in addition, too, as well, besides, likewise, what is more, to boot, additionally, into the bargain, withal (literary) There was a man behind her. Moreover he was observing her strangely.
 

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
Oh really!?!?!

From Johnson v Sequim

Second, even where a conversation is not "public" in that it is not monitored or heard by the public, it may be "public" in that the subject of the conversation is strictly of a public business nature.

Yes, really...

Please explain how you get 'I can record any public official I want, as long as he's on the clock' from 'private meetings are not private, but public, if they are of a public business nature' ? ? ? .
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
I know of no court case that specifiably deals with this, but I would say that any conversation between you and a police officer is recordable. Even if he pulls you aside and you are in a small room all alone.

This is the reasoning behind that conclusion:

Anything you say to a police officer can be used against you in open court; court records are public.
Anything you say to a police officer can be included in his police report; police reports are public record.
Anything a police officer says to you can be included in a witness or defendant statement; those are public record.
Anything a police officer says to you can be repeated in open court; again public record.

So I would argue that (in general) an on duty police officer has no expectation of privacy.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
Yes, really...

Please explain how you get 'I can record any public official I want, as long as he's on the clock' from 'private meetings are not private, but public, if they are of a public business nature' ? ? ? .

No not really...

You sir need to quit twisting words. I have never said I can record any public official as long as they are on the clock. I said I can record any public official that is acting in official capacity.
 

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
No not really...

You sir need to quit twisting words. I have never said I can record any public official as long as they are on the clock. I said I can record any public official that is acting in official capacity.

But surely, if he's on the clock, everything he's doing is 'official', is it not?
 

Badger Johnson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
1,213
Location
USA
If I can summarize:
1. If you're recording a LEO in his official capacity, and
2. You tell him you're recording him, and
3. He continues to talk, and
4. He's recording you on his dash cam, and
5. He is being truthful and has nothing to hide and is citing the law, then
6. There's nothing illegal, immoral or fattening about this.

The problem is that
1. LEOs can and do LIE about the illegality of recording them, being allowed and even enabled to do that, and
2. Are often not following the LAW in such cases where they protest the recording, and
3. Are afraid that if their behavior becomes public they could be sued or dismissed, and
4. Are trying to abuse you and your rights, and
5. Are in so deep already they can't turn it around, or they'd have to stop and let you go.

Why can't cops just BE A MAN and admit when they are wrong and stop? I mean they like to be calle 'THE MAN', but they act like criminals in virtually all the cases I see here and in the news.

I was discussing this with my partner and said 'why would you EVER call the cops? You're inviting armed individuals with ego problems to come into your house and possibly plant evidence and make up charges and investigate YOU instead of handling your complaint and helping you. These people are used to dealing with the criminal element and lying and cheating and stealing due to that exposure (and low pay). Calling the cops is the LAST thing you should do. The best thing is to video everything as it happens, hire a competent lawyer (oh boy), and defend and protect yourself.'

I don't see how even a LEO can argue with that statement.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
But surely, if he's on the clock, everything he's doing is 'official', is it not?

Your argument has reached the point of ridiculous. If the public official is interacting with a member of the public in an official capacity it's public business. If he's talking to his wife on the phone it's not. How hard is that to understand.

As I stated earlier, courts are more and more deciding in favor of citizens who have been charged with "unlawful recording" and the rulings are pretty clear that public officials are pretty much just that, public.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
But surely, if he's on the clock, everything he's doing is 'official', is it not?

Nice try but you fail.

Here I will share something with you. One day I went in with my son to give some info on a burglary. The detective took us into a meeting room. I could have recorded the conversation up to the point when we started talking about Wally's retirement, yes I know the detective. At the point when we ceased the interview and started discussing non-official business, ie. his retirement plans and how each of us have been, it would have been unlawful for me to record. Prior to that when we were giving the interview about the burglary it would have been lawful for me to record. Yes even though we were behind closed doors it would have been lawful, again up until the point that the actual interview ended and we started a personal discussion.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
Nice try but you fail.

Here I will share something with you. One day I went in with my son to give some info on a burglary. The detective took us into a meeting room. I could have recorded the conversation up to the point when we started talking about Wally's retirement, yes I know the detective. At the point when we ceased the interview and started discussing non-official business, ie. his retirement plans and how each of us have been, it would have been unlawful for me to record. Prior to that when we were giving the interview about the burglary it would have been lawful for me to record. Yes even though we were behind closed doors it would have been lawful, again up until the point that the actual interview ended and we started a personal discussion.

Why was Wally discussing non official business on the clock, he was still on the job he should have been working.
 

Lovenox

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
538
Location
Olympia
Nice try but you fail.

Here I will share something with you. One day I went in with my son to give some info on a burglary. The detective took us into a meeting room. I could have recorded the conversation up to the point when we started talking about Wally's retirement, yes I know the detective. At the point when we ceased the interview and started discussing non-official business, ie. his retirement plans and how each of us have been, it would have been unlawful for me to record. Prior to that when we were giving the interview about the burglary it would have been lawful for me to record. Yes even though we were behind closed doors it would have been lawful, again up until the point that the actual interview ended and we started a personal discussion.


But even the FBI is allowed to record "non-criminal" conversation for a while. I dont know the length, but a certain amount is allowed for contunitys sake. Different circumstance, this I know. In any event being on the clock is being on the clock. IMHO
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
But even the FBI is allowed to record "non-criminal" conversation for a while. I dont know the length, but a certain amount is allowed for contunitys sake. Different circumstance, this I know. In any event being on the clock is being on the clock. IMHO

It was not for me to say if he was on or off the clock during our personal conversation. All I can say is that it was immediately after the interview, which certainly was on the clock.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
A cop is never off the clock....lol. The second you bring up some drug dealing in your private conversation, I bet you will find yourself in cuffs pretty quickly. (sarcasm and meant in humor....well kinda)
 

johnfenter

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
209
Location
, ,
A cop is never off the clock....

UNLESS... he is out of his home state and not on official business. A cop in FL on vacation from NYC, even if he's carrying under LEOSA, has no more enforcement authority in FL than the guy dressed in the Donald Duck costume at WDW. Nor can he call for backup, or expect his union to take care of him if he does something stupid. Something they sometimes forget...
 
Top