Recording Laws needs to be changed in Florida

Rick H · Mar 21, 2011

What would it take to get this law changed to allow recording a LEO encounter?
Who do we need to contact so we might be able to get this bill rolling?
I am not so good at these things and would be willing to help in any way possible.
I believe that One should be able to protect Ones self from undeniable harassments that LEO does and will attempt. Why would LEO be without prosecution in such matters but we that are without representation are not. Are our LEO above the law and why would this be for the Government (Tyrannic) To enact and they not be pursuant to follow such laws? and not for We The People. This is an OUTRAGE.

FLEMTP · Mar 21, 2011

I dont know why you would think the laws need to be changed. Currently it IS legal to record a stop by a LEO. The reason being is that law enforcement officers have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the performance of their duties in the state of Florida, and in fact, most LEO's have dash cam and/or voice recorders running during their stop of you.

Your best bet is to carry a personal voice recorder, or use a voice recording app on your phone if you have one. I wouldn't bother telling them you're recording them, because some will get defensive and demand you shut it off.

I always record any stops by LEO's ( doesnt happen often) and most are usually pretty brief.

Hope this helps!

ixtow · Mar 21, 2011

There are several 'experts' who are spreading fud here to the contrary... It's only reasonable that the OP fell for it and thinks action is required.

I would like to it be more statutorily clear, but the facts are still the facts even if the road to finding them is convoluted.

Rich7553 · Mar 21, 2011

ixtow said:
There are several 'experts' who are spreading fud here to the contrary... It's only reasonable that the OP fell for it and thinks action is required.

I would like to it be more statutorily clear, but the facts are still the facts even if the road to finding them is convoluted.

Can you cite case law? There are a few folks I know of that would love to have the reference.

j4l · Mar 22, 2011

The laws on this apply to you, me and everyone else including the LEOs. Open recording, fine -good luck getting it admitted into evidence in any court, but all-good.
Surreptitious/Covert recordings- of anyone- no-go. Fail. And next to zero chance of using it to "prove" you were harrassed by anyone.
And even if you do do so, and manage to get a court to accept it into evidence, be prepared to be also purchasing some Data Forensics software (if it's digital media) and be fully prepared to present the MD-5 hashes ,at a minimum, to validate that it's the original recording, and not a copy or an edited version. (and, as a civillian, lots of luck with that.. )

ixtow · Mar 22, 2011

Rich7553 said:
Can you cite case law? There are a few folks I know of that would love to have the reference.

I recently had another run-in with the unpleasantness of being the Fact Welfare. I provided links to events which were directly impacted by the Facts. Very recent events. Anyone willing to make an effort could have easily put the dots together, but were more interested in denial. Willful Ignorance for the sake of ranting on an Internet forum.

I return to my previous policy of refusing to be the Fact Welfare. This isn't hard to find and I don't need to put up with the crap of those who refuse. Not directed at you, but it makes th thread useless. Happens every time. Not doing it again.

Just Google up the incident in January relating to Tarpon Springs PD, and the SA who refuses to prosecute. There are other cases relating, but that is the most recent. Technically, it's not even a case, since the SA is refusing to prosecute...

Hell, I even used "LMGTFY" and still people wouldn't... Pathetic.

Rich7553 · Mar 22, 2011

ixtow said:
I recently had another run-in with the unpleasantness of being the Fact Welfare. I provided links to events which were directly impacted by the Facts. Very recent events. Anyone willing to make an effort could have easily put the dots together, but were more interested in denial. Willful Ignorance for the sake of ranting on an Internet forum.

I return to my previous policy of refusing to be the Fact Welfare. This isn't hard to find and I don't need to put up with the crap of those who refuse. Not directed at you, but it makes th thread useless. Happens every time. Not doing it again.

Just Google up the incident in January relating to Tarpon Springs PD, and the SA who refuses to prosecute. There are other cases relating, but that is the most recent. Technically, it's not even a case, since the SA is refusing to prosecute...

Hell, I even used "LMGTFY" and still people wouldn't... Pathetic.

No problem, and no offense intended. Thanks for the reference, I'll look it up.

Rick H · Mar 22, 2011

I just found this one and could be used in a court ruling

This could be the one I was looking for. Man on motorcycle with helmet cam arrested

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...-20100927_1_police-officers-plitt-cell-phones

and another one tooooo.
http://thehive.modbee.com/node/17656

FLEMTP · Mar 22, 2011

this is cited from a legal article written by a lawyer.

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/florida.html

All parties must consent to the recording or the disclosure of the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication in Florida. Recording, disclosing, or endeavoring to disclose without the consent of all parties is a felony, unless the interception is a first offense committed without any illegal purpose, and not for commercial gain. Fla. Stat. ch. 934.03. These first offenses and the interception of cellular frequencies are misdemeanors. State v. News-Press Pub. Co., 338 So. 2d 1313 (1976).

Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of “oral communication,” Fla. Stat. ch. 934.02. See also Stevenson v. State, 667 So.2d 410 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996); Paredes v. State, 760 So.2d 167 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000).

In Cohen Brothers, LLC v. ME Corp., S.A., 872 So.2d 321 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004), the District Court of Appeal for the Third District of Florida held that members of a limited liability company’s (LLC) management committee did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to participation in telephone conference calls with other committee members to discuss continued financing of the LLC, and thus could not hold the committee members liable for recording the conference calls.

A federal appellate court has held that because only interceptions made through an “electronic, mechanical or other device” are illegal under Florida law, telephones used in the ordinary course of business to record conversations do not violate the law. The court found that business telephones are not the type of devices addressed in the law and, thus, that a life insurance company did not violate the law when it routinely recorded business-related calls on its business extensions. Royal Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991).

Anyone whose communications have been illegally intercepted may recover actual damages or $100 for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. Fla. Stat. ch. 934.10.

Because a law enforcement officer is performing his duties in a public arena, there is NO expectation of privacy. If there was an expectation, then LEO's would legally be prohibited from recording their encounter with you under the same wiretapping law without your consent.

the case that was cited about the motorcycle rider using a helmet cam was in Maryland, not Florida. Every state has different wiretap and recording laws.

It IS NOT illegal to record a stop with a LEO in the State of Florida.

Kingfish · Mar 22, 2011

FLEMTP said:
this is cited from a legal article written by a lawyer.

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/florida.html

Because a law enforcement officer is performing his duties in a public arena, there is NO expectation of privacy. If there was an expectation, then LEO's would legally be prohibited from recording their encounter with you under the same wiretapping law without your consent.

the case that was cited about the motorcycle rider using a helmet cam was in Maryland, not Florida. Every state has different wiretap and recording laws.

It IS NOT illegal to record a stop with a LEO in the State of Florida.

LEO are exempt...

934.03 Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited.—
(c) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an investigative or law enforcement officer or a person acting under the direction of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception and the purpose of such interception is to obtain evidence of a criminal act.

Rod0990 · Mar 22, 2011

Kingfish said:
LEO are exempt...

934.03 Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited.—
(c) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an investigative or law enforcement officer or a person acting under the direction of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception and the purpose of such interception is to obtain evidence of a criminal act.

Thanks Kingfish, was going to post something similar but you nailed it.

ALWAYS listen to "facts" from reliable sources such as the one linked above, NEVER any kind of "Fact Welfare" or any non-official sources.

ixtow · Mar 23, 2011

Rod0990 said:
NEVER any kind of "Fact Welfare" or any non-official sources.

So why ask?

I encourage people to pull their heads out of their asses and look it up themselves. If they more often choose to jam them deeper instead, that's not my doing.

We all saw what happened even with a citation. Didn't make a damn bit of difference just because the law is written in a convoluted manner.

Loud != right.

Recording Laws needs to be changed in Florida

Rick H

Regular Member

FLEMTP

Regular Member

ixtow

Founder's Club Member

Rich7553

Regular Member

j4l

Regular Member

ixtow

Founder's Club Member

Rich7553

Regular Member

Rick H

Regular Member

FLEMTP

Regular Member

Kingfish

Regular Member

Rod0990

Regular Member

ixtow

Founder's Club Member