Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Visited my local Police Department Today and recorded

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Orange County
    Posts
    10

    Visited my local Police Department Today and recorded

    Today I visited my local police department and talked to them about UOC.
    I was greeted fine, then we went into an interview room.
    Almost at the beginning of our conversation. The officer asked me if I was recording our conversation. He told me that It was a felony to record police officers' conversations, and that it was a felony if I was recording. So he would give me a second change to tell them if I was recording the conversation. I was a little concerned since I was in their office within their premises. I don't know if recording them inside their office without telling them is a felony for real. But, he told me to turn off my recorder. I agreed.
    Our conversation continued and they told me that if they saw someone UOC carry in this city they would do a felony arrest type of confrontation since they did not know if the gun was loaded or not.
    At the end of our conversation he asked in a friendly way if I could erase the part I had recorded since he did not want our conversation to appear on youtube or any other social media site.
    My main concern is, is it really a felony to record a police officer without informing them if I am in their office building and what can happen?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    974
    I don't know the answer...but why would it be. Actually I think I just read today that CA is a 2 party recording state. It's really stupid for them to not want to be recorded. I guarantee that you were being recorded. Why are they so scared to get recorded? (rhetorical) We could ask the same questions they do. What do you have to hide??? Conduct yourselves lawfully, and there are no problems. Sounds to me like he clearly stated they will violate and assault you for a lawful act of simply carrying.
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  3. #3
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    He is so full of crap his eyes are brown. If it was a felony, he would have arrested you on the spot. Did you ask him to cite the penal code about recording him?

  4. #4
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    So, you're sitting in the interview room at the police station...do you think you were being recorded? Did you ask? You probably passed a sign as you walked in that stated that. I can just about guarantee you that their recording is going to be placed in a nice little file with your name on it, just in case...they need to use it against you in the future.
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  5. #5
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    If you're having a conversation in a private place, then all parties need to consent to being recorded. If you're in public then there is no expectation of privacy.

    http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...-recording-law

    Hard to say if you were in a public or private place just from your post. It certainly isn't a felony to "record police officer's conversations" though, that's just nonsense.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Orange County
    Posts
    10

    check this n tell me what you think..

    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    He is so full of crap his eyes are brown. If it was a felony, he would have arrested you on the spot. Did you ask him to cite the penal code about recording him?
    check this...
    636. (a) Every person who, without permission from all parties to
    the conversation, eavesdrops on or records, by means of an electronic
    device, a conversation, or any portion thereof, between a person who
    is in the physical custody of a law enforcement officer or other
    public officer, or who is on the property of a law enforcement agency
    or other public agency, and that person's attorney, religious
    adviser, or licensed physician, is guilty of a felony.
    (b) Every person who, intentionally and without permission from
    all parties to the conversation, nonelectronically eavesdrops upon a
    conversation, or any portion thereof, that occurs between a person
    who is in the physical custody of a law enforcement officer or other
    public officer and that person's attorney, religious adviser, or
    licensed physician, is guilty of a public offense. This subdivision
    applies to conversations that occur in a place, and under
    circumstances, where there exists a reasonable expectation of
    privacy, including a custody holding area, holding area, or anteroom.
    This subdivision does not apply to conversations that are
    inadvertently overheard or that take place in a courtroom or other
    room used for adjudicatory proceedings. A person who is convicted of
    violating this subdivision shall be punished by imprisonment in the
    state prison, or in the county jail for a term not to exceed one
    year, or by a fine not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars
    ($2,500), or by both that fine and imprisonment.


    But since we agreed that I would not be recording I guess this does not apply to me. However, I saw them recording with a cel phone.
    Last edited by Toxic; 02-16-2011 at 02:25 AM.

  7. #7
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    Quote Originally Posted by Toxic View Post
    check this...
    636. (a) Every person who, without permission from all parties to
    the conversation, eavesdrops on or records, by means of an electronic
    device, a conversation, or any portion thereof, between a person who
    is in the physical custody of a law enforcement officer or other
    public officer, or who is on the property of a law enforcement agency
    or other public agency, and that person's attorney, religious
    adviser, or licensed physician, is guilty of a felony.
    (b) Every person who, intentionally and without permission from
    all parties to the conversation, nonelectronically eavesdrops upon a
    conversation, or any portion thereof, that occurs between a person
    who is in the physical custody of a law enforcement officer or other
    public officer and that person's attorney, religious adviser, or
    licensed physician, is guilty of a public offense. This subdivision
    applies to conversations that occur in a place, and under
    circumstances, where there exists a reasonable expectation of
    privacy, including a custody holding area, holding area, or anteroom.
    This subdivision does not apply to conversations that are
    inadvertently overheard or that take place in a courtroom or other
    room used for adjudicatory proceedings. A person who is convicted of
    violating this subdivision shall be punished by imprisonment in the
    state prison, or in the county jail for a term not to exceed one
    year, or by a fine not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars
    ($2,500), or by both that fine and imprisonment.
    Paragraph (a) applies to conversations between a person in custody and his lawyer, priest, or doctor.

    Paragraph (b) applies to nonelectronic eavesdropping.

    That's the way I read it.
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  8. #8
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Toxic View Post
    Today I visited my local police department and talked to them about UOC.
    I was greeted fine, then we went into an interview room.
    Almost at the beginning of our conversation. The officer asked me if I was recording our conversation. He told me that It was a felony to record police officers' conversations, and that it was a felony if I was recording. So he would give me a second change to tell them if I was recording the conversation. I was a little concerned since I was in their office within their premises. I don't know if recording them inside their office without telling them is a felony for real. But, he told me to turn off my recorder. I agreed.
    Our conversation continued and they told me that if they saw someone UOC carry in this city they would do a felony arrest type of confrontation since they did not know if the gun was loaded or not.
    At the end of our conversation he asked in a friendly way if I could erase the part I had recorded since he did not want our conversation to appear on youtube or any other social media site.
    My main concern is, is it really a felony to record a police officer without informing them if I am in their office building and what can happen?
    The police officer was lying to you. It is not a felony to record a conversation that where there is no expectation of privacy or both parties consent. The grey area is that you were taken to another room where it may be construed that the conversation was intended to be private, BUT... you told him you were recording, both parties were informed that the conversation was being recorded and by continuing to converse with you while you are recording, he was a consenting participant in a recorded conversation. In order for them to revoke consent, he needed to tell you he didnt consent or stop speaking. Ordering you to stop recording isnt the same thing.

    As was already indicated, those interview rooms are wired for video and sound, so it was entirely possible that you were being audio and video recorded at the same time he was asking you to shut off the recorder.

    I think if presented with the same circumstance, I would have pulled out the hackneyed phrase usually used against those being investigated, "If you dont have anything to hide, you dont have anything to worry about..."
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  9. #9
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    I found this interesting. From the Kenosha Police department's Policy and Procedure Manual on the Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations and Confessions:

    The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines and procedures for electronic recording and the associated use, management, storage and retrieval of recordings of custodial questioning, interrogations, confessions and statements...


    Officers are not required to record non-custodial interviews with suspects, witnesses or victims, but are encouraged to do so whenever it would be beneficial to the investigative process...



    Officers do not have to inform the person being interviewed they are being recorded. Lack of consent to a recording does not affect the admissibility of a recorded statement. However, giving notice of recording can foster public trust in law enforcement. Further, if the person asks if the interview is being recorded, officers are obligated to inform the person correctly.

    Last edited by Sons of Liberty; 02-16-2011 at 02:36 AM.
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  10. #10
    Regular Member Badger Johnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,217
    This whole tale sounds like BS to me. Why would one go to a PD and secretly record a conversation about UOC?

    Were you trying to entrap him? Did you have a bad experience and want to try and get him to out himself?

    In CA, it is illegal to OC loaded, IIRC, so he didn't say anything that was over the top.

    Why not just take a buddy and ask the questions of the pubic information officer or look up the law? Sounds like you were asking for trouble, if, indeed, you really did this stupid stunt.

    Now you have a rep with them as being the guy who tried to entrap them and if you do OC it won't go well for you.

    If you are just trolling, I suggest you not do this and instead send the a letter asking the questions you wish answered, with a CC: to your lawyer so you'll get a proper response.

    HTH

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC KIMBER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Huntington beach, Ca
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by Badger Johnson View Post
    This whole tale sounds like BS to me. Why would one go to a PD and secretly record a conversation about UOC?

    Were you trying to entrap him? Did you have a bad experience and want to try and get him to out himself?

    In CA, it is illegal to OC loaded, IIRC, so he didn't say anything that was over the top.

    Why not just take a buddy and ask the questions of the pubic information officer or look up the law? Sounds like you were asking for trouble, if, indeed, you really did this stupid stunt.

    Now you have a rep with them as being the guy who tried to entrap them and if you do OC it won't go well for you.

    If you are just trolling, I suggest you not do this and instead send the a letter asking the questions you wish answered, with a CC: to your lawyer so you'll get a proper response.

    HTH
    In California it is not uncommon for UOCers to go and talk to the PD to see if they have had any training on OC and to maybe break the ice and meet some of the supervisors at that PD and get there buisness cards.The leo in this incident was obviously trying to scare the crap out of him and get him to not OC and make his life easier.There is no statue in Ca that says you cannot record a leo in public that said I don't know how that applies in a private interrogation room I guess the best thing to do would have been to tell the officer that if the conversation could not be recorded then there was nothing to talk about. He was not in there custody and could have ended it and left. And as far as having a rep with this department if the OP did not give up any personal info they have no idea who it was that was asking questions.

  12. #12
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979
    CA is an all-party consent state for recording in a situation where there is confidential communication. Violation is a 'wobbler'

    This is defined in PC 632(c)
    The term "confidential communication" includes any
    communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate
    that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the
    parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public
    gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or
    administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other
    circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably
    expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.

    Since you were in private and the officer clearly indicated to you that he didn't consent - had you continued to record I think you were indeed prosecutable.

    Its interesting in that he may have been in fact recording you...it'd be interesting to see what a PRAR turns up (Public Records Act Request)

    That same section clearly indicates that in public there isn't an expectation of privacy.

    On officer on the job out in public - no consent for recording is needed...


    636(a) makes it a felony to electronically record a conversation with someone in custody while involving an attorney, religious adviser, or licensed physician if there isn't consent from everyone. So that definately doesn't apply.

    636(b) makes it a 'wobbler' for eavesdropping under the conditions in (a)
    Last edited by mjones; 02-16-2011 at 01:49 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by mjones View Post
    CA is an all-party consent state for recording in a situation where there is confidential communication. Violation is a 'wobbler'

    This is defined in PC 632(c)
    The term "confidential communication" includes any
    communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate
    that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the
    parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public
    gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or
    administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other
    circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably
    expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.

    Since you were in private and the officer clearly indicated to you that he didn't consent - had you continued to record I think you were indeed prosecutable.

    Its interesting in that he may have been in fact recording you...it'd be interesting to see what a PRAR turns up (Public Records Act Request)

    That same section clearly indicates that in public there isn't an expectation of privacy.

    On officer on the job out in public - no consent for recording is needed...


    636(a) makes it a felony to electronically record a conversation with someone in custody while involving an attorney, religious adviser, or licensed physician if there isn't consent from everyone. So that definately doesn't apply.

    636(b) makes it a 'wobbler' for eavesdropping under the conditions in (a)
    mjones,

    +1, I think your interpretation and suggestions are right-on!

    markm

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oakley, California, United States
    Posts
    637
    if in public, recording are legal.

    if in, as this case, between 2 people, in a private room, both must consent. (from above, which I agree with)
    ok, so how about in a station, in the meeting room, with more then just two people present?
    would all need to agree? or is it considered public if more then 2 are present?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by Toxic View Post
    Today I visited my local police department and talked to them about UOC.
    I was greeted fine, then we went into an interview room.
    Almost at the beginning of our conversation. The officer asked me if I was recording our conversation. He told me that It was a felony to record police officers' conversations, and that it was a felony if I was recording. So he would give me a second change to tell them if I was recording the conversation. I was a little concerned since I was in their office within their premises. I don't know if recording them inside their office without telling them is a felony for real. But, he told me to turn off my recorder. I agreed.
    Our conversation continued and they told me that if they saw someone UOC carry in this city they would do a felony arrest type of confrontation since they did not know if the gun was loaded or not.
    At the end of our conversation he asked in a friendly way if I could erase the part I had recorded since he did not want our conversation to appear on youtube or any other social media site.
    My main concern is, is it really a felony to record a police officer without informing them if I am in their office building and what can happen?
    Hello Toxic,

    I need to know more about your conversation.

    Did you have a letter or talking points prepared with case law citations?

    When I discuss these issues with LEO, I have citations ready, or actual copies of case law handy for their review.

    Did you ask LEO about Terry v. Ohio?

    Did you ask LEO about Hibel v. Nevada?

    How about US v. Ubilles?

    US v. King?

    Duran v. Douglas?

    Michigan v. Chestnut?

    Did you have a copy of Diaz v. San Fernando?

    People v. Delong?

    Elsensei v. San Diego Police Department?

    St. John v. Officer McColley?

    Did you discuss 42 USC section 1983?

    I hope you gave that LEO a good education, or at least opened his eyes to the legal trouble he may create for himself if he violates "clearly established" enumerated rights.

    thanks,
    markm

  16. #16
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkBofRAdvocate View Post
    mjones,

    +1, I think your interpretation and suggestions are right-on!

    markm
    BS.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toxic View Post
    He told me that It was a felony to record police officers' conversations"
    Double BS.
    Last edited by BB62; 02-16-2011 at 06:21 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    Thanks for your input.

    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    BS.


    Double BS.
    BB62,

    Please include your citations. I am interested to learn why we are wrong. Do you have SCOTUS case law or circuit rulings?

    I enjoy reading case law.

    markm

  18. #18
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    BS.


    Double BS.
    Back it up with citations please...

  19. #19
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Thumbs down

    In Orange County?

    What City?

    If it is the one I am thinking of... Yes, they will do a felony hot-stop. They blatantly disregard the information provided to them.
    Last edited by demnogis; 02-16-2011 at 08:34 PM.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    Someone needs to send them the judges signing order from that San Fernando case.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140
    It is not a felony to record a cop. However, in certain instances it is illegal to record anyone, e.g. private room without mutual consent.

    Since you were not being interrogated, you should have not been recorded (if you were actually recorded).

  22. #22
    Regular Member Lawful Aim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    129
    Public building.
    Public officer on duty.
    Public gathering/meeting. (Was no one else allowed? Was the door locked? Was there a sign saying "PRIVATE"?)
    No expectation of privacy under the circumstances. (Interview rooms are reasonably expected to have communication in which they are overheard or recorded.)
    Statutes do not imply a violation.
    Lawful to record even without consent.

    PC 632(c)
    The term "confidential communication" includes any
    communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate
    that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the
    parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public
    gathering
    or in any legislative, judicial, executive or
    administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other
    circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably
    expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.


    The officer is a public employee on duty and gets no expectation of privacy. His actions and communication represent the department and are public. If the officer wanted his communication private then he can meet off duty in private.



    For those interested about interrogation room recording equipment; http://www.martelelectronics.com/Pol...equipment.html
    Last edited by Lawful Aim; 02-17-2011 at 12:43 AM.
    The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it. -Albert Einstein
    Liberty that was diminished in increments has never been restored by the same. -Lawful Aim
    One who compromises in steps toward freedom will always be compromising. -Lawful Aim
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

  23. #23
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    Quote Originally Posted by pullnshoot25 View Post
    It is not a felony to record a cop. However, in certain instances it is illegal to record anyone, e.g. private room without mutual consent.

    Since you were not being interrogated, you should have not been recorded (if you were actually recorded).
    PC 633 seems to imply that recordings that police could legally make prior to this statue becoming effective are not affected by PC632. Would that cover conversations in an interview room between the police and the citizen? If not, what is PC633 covering?

    633. Nothing in Section 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, or 632.7 prohibits the Attorney General, any district attorney, or any assistant, deputy, or investigator of the Attorney General or any district attorney, any officer of the California Highway Patrol, any chief of police, assistant chief of police, or police officer of a city or city and county, any sheriff, undersheriff, or deputy sheriff regularly employed and paid in that capacity by a county, police officer of the County of Los Angeles, or any person acting pursuant to the direction of one of these law enforcement officers acting within the scope of his or her authority, from overhearing or recording any communication that they could lawfully overhear or record prior to the effective date of this chapter.
    Nothing in Section 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, or 632.7 renders inadmissible any evidence obtained by the above-named persons by means of overhearing or recording any communication that they could lawfully overhear or record prior to the effective date of this chapter.
    Last edited by Sons of Liberty; 02-17-2011 at 12:51 AM.
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  24. #24
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    Quote Originally Posted by Badger Johnson View Post
    This whole tale sounds like BS to me. Why would one go to a PD and secretly record a conversation about UOC?

    Were you trying to entrap him? Did you have a bad experience and want to try and get him to out himself?

    In CA, it is illegal to OC loaded, IIRC, so he didn't say anything that was over the top.

    SNIP
    In Kali, the police are just about the biggest road block to freedom in the entire government structure. This has been the case since they successfully beat the anti war/counter culture folks into submission in the early 70's. They've never come down off of their high and mighty thuggish power trip, and they are deeply entrenched into their us against them attitude. The fact folks like yourself offer little to try to stop them from oppressing you is why it continues.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oakley, California, United States
    Posts
    637
    The helpful interview you were trying to give them should have been over as soon as the LEO said no recording.

    LEO, ".... turn off the recorder. its a felony...."

    You, " sorry this meeting is over, good-day to you"

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •