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?

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.

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?

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.

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-guide/california-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.

check this n tell me what you think..

Gundude said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Toxic said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Toxic said:

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?

Click to expand...

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..."

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.​

Click to expand...

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

Badger Johnson said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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 said:

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)

Click to expand...

mjones,

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

markm

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?

Toxic said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

MarkBofRAdvocate said:

mjones,

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

markm

Click to expand...

BS.

Toxic said:

He told me that It was a felony to record police officers' conversations"

Click to expand...

Double BS.

Thanks for your input.

BB62 said:

BS.


Double BS.

Click to expand...

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

BB62 said:

BS.


Double BS.

Click to expand...

Back it up with citations please... :cuss:

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.

Someone needs to send them the judges signing order from that San Fernando case.