Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Felony to record

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    pottsboro,texas
    Posts
    200

    Felony to record

    I was trashing around on the internet and came across these videos to where at one point they said that it is now a class 1 felony to video police and you can get from 4 to 15 yrs if convicted. maryland is one, does anyone know what the other three are or if there has been more that has jumped on to the jackwagon. ( not knowing how old these vids are but one was around seven months old)

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,182
    Quote Originally Posted by bushwacker View Post
    I was trashing around on the internet and came across these videos to where at one point they said that it is now a class 1 felony to video police and you can get from 4 to 15 yrs if convicted. maryland is one, does anyone know what the other three are or if there has been more that has jumped on to the jackwagon. ( not knowing how old these vids are but one was around seven months old)
    The issue in Maryland (with the LEO and the motorcyclist) didn't specifically relate to video taping as much as it did AUDIO taping... which put it into a totally different category under 'wire tap' laws.

    The short version, as I recall it, the motorcyclist had a helmet camera on and encountered what could have been interpreted as improper police actions against him. His camera was running. Later, after that incident, he posted the video.. complete with audio... on the internet. The LEOs saw it, and decided it was a wire-tap law violation ('felony') because the audio of the officer was recorded without his consent (illegal in MD). Had the motorcyclist not posted the video online, or not posted the audio portion of the video... he probably wouldn't have been charged (speculation).

    At least thats my understanding, and recollection of that incident... it may have been slightly different then that.

    Here is a good resource for recording laws by state:
    http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states.html

    Edit to add: Its important to note that audio reording laws vary by state. Some states are a 'one party' state.. you can record as long as you are a party to the conversation. Everyone in the conversation does not need to give consent. Other states, are 'all parties' must know/consent. Check the above listed website for details

    Typical disclaimer.... not a lawyer, not legal advice, didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn last night.... lol
    Last edited by Blk97F150; 02-27-2011 at 08:40 AM. Reason: addition

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300
    That's the biggest bunch of BS I've ever heard. How can you "wire tap" someone when there were no phones involved? Also, the officer was in a public street talking with a citizen, where's the reasonalble expectation of privacy?

  4. #4
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Texas is a one party consent state. That's a nonissue here.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,182
    Quote Originally Posted by mustangkiller View Post
    That's the biggest bunch of BS I've ever heard. How can you "wire tap" someone when there were no phones involved? Also, the officer was in a public street talking with a citizen, where's the reasonalble expectation of privacy?
    <shrug> Got me. But thats what they charged him with. Here is one article. You can Google MANY more if you are interested.

    http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news...otorcycli.html

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    pottsboro,texas
    Posts
    200
    yeah but there is suppose to be three other states that are doing it too and surely it"s not from the maryland event i was trying to find out which other three or more states it was anyone know?

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Blk97F150 View Post
    The issue in Maryland (with the LEO and the motorcyclist) didn't specifically relate to video taping as much as it did AUDIO taping... which put it into a totally different category under 'wire tap' laws.
    Most video also records audio, eliminating this distinction.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by bushwacker View Post
    maryland is one
    False false false!

    Maryland Judge Oks Recording Police

    Recording police likely not illegal in Md.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    pottsboro,texas
    Posts
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    hey thanks for the info but the big case was about this incident in maryland . glad to see it go the other way

  10. #10
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    They will try to charge and convict you of wiretapping in Illinois also.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by bushwacker View Post
    hey thanks for the info but the big case was about this incident in maryland . glad to see it go the other way
    I know, I wasn't trying to single you out or anything.

    I just wanted everyone to be clear that those cops in Maryland were lying from the get-go.

  12. #12
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506
    US supreme Court " the law of the land " has repeatedly ruled that any officer is not subject to privacy. Doesnt not matter what state it is

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Prince William Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    105
    From what I've been able to find, it varies from state to state. Most states have a state court decision or statutory exception for recording public servants in the performance of their duties, but some do not and have a clear prohibition on any conversation including face-to-face instances.

    I can't find a US Supreme Court case that offers a blanket nationwide case law ruling on recording police. Got something we can look at?

  14. #14
    Regular Member Guido's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wilder, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    46
    I know Illinois is one as they have two cases pending against different people for recording the police, I will try to find links to them so that I can be more specific on this.


    http://www.switched.com/2011/01/24/r...ars-in-prison/

    This article mentions one of the people but does not give any info on the second person, it also mentions the other two states that bar people from recording the police.

  15. #15
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506
    He was exercising his constitutional rights, said Michael Risher, an ACLU attorney. We all -- and the courts have recognized this in California and elsewhere -- have a constitutional right under the first amendment, which protects our right to speak to take video tapes of police officers in public as they do their official duties so that we can create an objective record of that."

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Prince William Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    105
    Yes, but an ACLU attorney's comments don't carry the weight of law. Additionally, California may be one of those states who permit recording. If it's not a U.S. Supreme Court case, it doesn't apply in the other states. More than once, agencies/localities have lost cases because it conflicted with the "state" constitution or state law. Again, if it's not a USSC case, it doesn't apply to everyone; and I can't find a USSC case that addresses this.

  17. #17
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506
    If your waiting for permission to do something, maybe your in the country

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Prince William Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    105
    If you're implying that maybe I'm in the wrong country (I'm guessing that's what you meant), it's not a matter of "waiting for permission." Three states expressly prohibit recording - Illinois, Oregon, and Massachusetts. Oregon I've heard is quite nice. Illinois and Massachusetts...well, I suspect the rest of each of these states don't really like how some elements of Chicago and Boston reflect upon them; but that's another matter altogether.

    If the state prohibits it, then only a change to the legislation, a binding state court case, or a federal case that addresses it will change things. For those states whose courts have addressed these types of laws and have overturned them as unconstitutional, then yes - it's a constitutional right. You specifically referenced that the Supreme Court (presuming SCOTUS) had ruled on the matter. All I'm saying is cite the case - any case. I haven't found one; and without binding case law there is no blanket coverage.

  19. #19
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506
    It my understanding recording falls under the 1st amendment. There are recorders that cant even be seen, or so small that they get overlooked. Why are you asking the government what you can and cant do ?

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Prince William Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    105
    Nope. And the ACLU just lost a case in January 2011 in federal district court (Northern District of Illinois) while attempting to use this very argument. It wanted to record public conversations of police interacting with citizens without (presumably) consent from either party. This is not a nationwide issue - it's an individual state issue. The ACLU attempted to have Illinois' law struck down in federal court, but the judge ruled this (recording) was not a first amendment right.

    I'm not on the side of this law. I disagree with it. If you're a public official in the performance of your duties in public, I don't think you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, this isn't a civil rights issue. If you're willing to ignore what may be deemed illegal in a particular state, you can't expect to be able to hold law enforcement officials to every letter of the law in that state as well. Yeah, it sucks; but until those states change their laws or have a binding court case (state or federal), it's the law in that state.

    http://www.archive.org/download/gov....46599.42.0.pdf
    Last edited by AIC869; 04-17-2011 at 08:23 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by AIC869 View Post
    Nope. And the ACLU just lost a case in January 2011 in federal district court (Northern District of Illinois) while attempting to use this very argument. It wanted to record public conversations of police interacting with citizens without (presumably) consent from either party. [ SNip snip tuck]
    If i have the recorder on me obviously im consenting. so thats automatically one party consent

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,182
    Quote Originally Posted by stuckinchico View Post
    US supreme Court " the law of the land " has repeatedly ruled that any officer is not subject to privacy. Doesnt not matter what state it is
    Link please....

  23. #23
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by Blk97F150 View Post
    Link please....
    My apologizes ummm seems like i thought another case was US supreme might be State supreme still lokking though

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,319
    Quote Originally Posted by stuckinchico View Post
    If i have the recorder on me obviously im consenting. so thats automatically one party consent
    IL is a two party state. If one party does not know or does not consent, then you cannot legally record.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  25. #25
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
    Posts
    740
    There seems to be a fundamental disconnect in perception among many people on these forums.

    What is legal is what council can convince a judge and/or jury is legal.

    What is arrestable is everything. Everything. And if you think there's meaningful sanction against an officer who arrests falsely, the Scientologists are looking for more adherents.

    What should be discussed, when someone wants to know if it's okay to do something, is less what standing law declares legal or illegal, and more what is or isn't prone to get you arrested, no matter the legality. Court-adjudicated legality is a concern for those who can afford legal bills. Arrest likelihood is what most of us are interested in.

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
  •