Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 47

Thread: Taking video while open carrying...

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Orlando, Florida, United States
    Posts
    7

    Taking video while open carrying...

    I don't want to get ahead of myself or jinx anything but....

    Lets say it becomes law, will any of you be taking video while carrying? Especially if stopped or questioned by LEOs?


    I only ask because photography/videography is a hobby of mine and here recently I've gotten into shooting at night time mainly around downtown Fort Lauderdale and I've been questioned a few times (mainly because it's late at night) without any real incident. Ft. Lauderdale PD is actually pretty cool about it, one time I got an Officer to turn on the lights while driving down the road for me to take slow shutter speed pictures, the red and blue light trails came out great

    However it got me thinking about how doing the same thing while open carrying could bring more attention my way and whether or not I should take video should a situation occur.

    What do you guys think?

  2. #2
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    I might carry a voice recorder if I were to walk around in hostile territory.

    The problem with other states is that it has always been legal but nobody did it in urban environments and it was forgotten about until recently. If SB 234 passes it will make the nightly news and LEO's should be made aware of the changes in a memo if they don't hear about it on the news or from a colleague. I don't expect law enforcement to be a problem. Honestly, you know where it will probably get the least amount of attention is in those jurisdictions whose sheriff was so against it. Everyone who works for that sheriff office or department will know about it. And if they do "draw down" on you, they won't for long because they'll be slapped with a lawsuit so fast they won't know what hit em.
    Last edited by 77zach; 04-17-2011 at 06:07 PM.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Digital camera and camcorders are standard fare at many meet-ups, picnics etc.

    Also cell phone cameras have been used to good end at some confrontational incidents.

    Better to over prepared IMHO, than under prepared.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    My digital camera has this handy lanyard, I make a necklace out of it and just let it hang. It's sideways, but ti gets everything.

    Let it hang under your shirt, if you see the fuzz getting close, pop it out and push the button. Works for me anyway....
    Last edited by ixtow; 04-17-2011 at 07:37 PM.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  5. #5
    Regular Member SGB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Tallahassee, Florida, USA
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    I might carry a voice recorder if I were to walk around in hostile territory.

    The problem with other states is that it has always been legal but nobody did it in urban environments and it was forgotten about until recently. If SB 234 passes it will make the nightly news and LEO's should be made aware of the changes in a memo if they don't hear about it on the news or from a colleague. I don't expect law enforcement to be a problem. Honestly, you know where it will probably get the least amount of attention is in those jurisdictions whose sheriff was so against it. Everyone who works for that sheriff office or department will know about it. And if they do "draw down" on you, they won't for long because they'll be slapped with a lawsuit so fast they won't know what hit em.

    If your decide to audio record a LE contact be SURE to inform the Officers in a clear and understandable tone that you are audio recording their contact with you. In Florida both parties must be aware that they are being recorded.
    Last edited by SGB; 04-19-2011 at 06:04 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026
    Quote Originally Posted by SGB View Post
    If your decide to audio record a LE contact be SURE to inform the Officers in a clear and understandable tone that you are audio recording their contact with you. In Florida both parties must be aware that they are being recorded.
    Cite?

    I'm fair certain that only applies to PRIVATE conversations. Public employees acting in their official capacities in a public place enjoy ZERO expectation of privacy.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by Phssthpok View Post
    Cite?

    I'm fair certain that only applies to PRIVATE conversations. Public employees acting in their official capacities in a public place enjoy ZERO expectation of privacy.
    Yes, I believe that is true it applies only to private conversations. I believe there is an old thread that this was discussed.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Quote Originally Posted by SGB View Post
    If your decide to audio record a LE contact be SURE to inform the Officers in a clear and understandable tone that you are audio recording their contact with you. In Florida both parties must be aware that they are being recorded.
    Last I read it, it was quite the contrary. The particular law is tough to read because the part that exempts the notification business, is in the definitions far earlier in the Statute. If you don't read that part, too, it does appear to require two party consent. It's a shame the two segments are separated by so much gibberish, it creates this misunderstanding quite frequently.

    The definition excludes places in which one does not have a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy. Since the section covering this is so huge and convoluted, it was easier to change the definition than rewrite the whole mess when the SCOTUS came down.... This is the ol' "Come over here so we can talk/away from all those people/so you don't get embarrassed/so we can talk privately... Don't fall for it no matter how they phrase it. While an Officer of the State supposedly doesn't enjoy any Expectation of Privacy in any official activities, it's just one more thing you'll have to fight if you let them pull it. Along with that bogus "Disturbing the Peace" "Resisting Without Violence" and "GATTTOTP" crap they'll pile up...

    A lot of laws in Florida are like this. "Everything is illegal" but then you'll find the exceptions peppered around in places you wouldn't think to look.
    Last edited by ixtow; 04-19-2011 at 07:21 PM.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    fl
    Posts
    1,835
    Jesus H.. For the last time, Ladies.. IF it passes, just carry the damned thing and go about your biz like normal. Dont start making a scene of yourselves already.
    If you really really need attention, go try out for American Idol or some such..

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    fl
    Posts
    1,835
    Quote Originally Posted by 10x View Post
    Yes, I believe that is true it applies only to private conversations. I believe there is an old thread that this was discussed.
    .
    And another one.. once,more, for the last time ladies, by all means take the advice and mis-interpretations of interweb shade-tree lawyers, and find out the hard way which way it goes down...what's 5 + years, and $10k in fines anyway?

  11. #11
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Quote Originally Posted by 10x View Post
    Yes, I believe that is true it applies only to private conversations. I believe there is an old thread that this was discussed.
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ng#post1479119

    Quote Originally Posted by j4l View Post
    .
    And another one.. once,more, for the last time ladies, by all means take the advice and mis-interpretations of interweb shade-tree lawyers, and find out the hard way which way it goes down...what's 5 + years, and $10k in fines anyway?
    http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...-recording-law
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    ?
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by j4l View Post
    Jesus H.. For the last time, Ladies.. IF it passes, just carry the damned thing and go about your biz like normal. Dont start making a scene of yourselves already.
    If you really really need attention, go try out for American Idol or some such..
    Here's the problem with your mentality, most people who open carry, do go about their business like normal. It's these anti-gun cops and p*ssy ass citizens that make a scene. That's why we need cameras... I drive with a camera in my car 24/7, AND, I have a watch camera, for when I am outside my vehicle. Most people I know, who carry cameras, don't want attention. They are just protecting themselves.

    On another note, I was recently pulled over, and, here in PA, officers don't have have an expectation of privacy, but they may have an expectation of non-interception. So, in order to eliminate any possibility of setting myself up to go to federal prison, I told the officer that he was being recorded. Needless to say, he wasn't too happy .


  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Fort Lauderdale, FL
    Posts
    148
    Watched your video KeepShootin.

    I am so terribly tired of hearing the "you look scared", "you look nervous", "you're acting funny". Do you realize why he said that? He's fabricating RAS so he can justify having you exit the vehicle for a pat down or a cursory search of your passenger compartment.

    It's become a fishing routine with police departments lately.

    Keep in mind if the officer believes he's established RAS of criminal activity, you're now subject to being disarmed at his leisure as well.

  14. #14
    Regular Member crashnjax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida, United States
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by j4l View Post
    Jesus H.. For the last time, Ladies.. IF it passes, just carry the damned thing and go about your biz like normal. Dont start making a scene of yourselves already.
    If you really really need attention, go try out for American Idol or some such..
    i am in 100% agreement. wont be trouble if you dont go looking for trouble. like will smith said on MIB" wont be nothing if you dont start nothing" i think. as always avoid shady areas you know has trouble in it and you will be fine. most of the time.
    John Strifler for FL State Senate District 1 for 2012
    crashnjax@att.net
    crash.jax_fl on yahoo
    johnstrifler4senate.proboards.com

    Political advertisement paid for and approved by John p. Strifler, no party affiliation, state senate

  15. #15
    Regular Member crashnjax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida, United States
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by KeepShootin View Post
    Here's the problem with your mentality, most people who open carry, do go about their business like normal. It's these anti-gun cops and p*ssy ass citizens that make a scene. That's why we need cameras... I drive with a camera in my car 24/7, AND, I have a watch camera, for when I am outside my vehicle. Most people I know, who carry cameras, don't want attention. They are just protecting themselves.

    On another note, I was recently pulled over, and, here in PA, officers don't have have an expectation of privacy, but they may have an expectation of non-interception. So, in order to eliminate any possibility of setting myself up to go to federal prison, I told the officer that he was being recorded. Needless to say, he wasn't too happy .

    as much as i would like to support this video. i am surprised you only allowed us to view 2min3secs of it. did something happen you did not want us to know about. leaves alot of suspicion in my mind honestly. i understand the video theory but i have never had any probs with LEO's any time i have been pulled over, kill em with kindness works 99% of the time. if you have a prob with something they do you get them back later either thru dept and or courts(if you received a ticket). of course an atitude will get you no where but on the ground every time.
    John Strifler for FL State Senate District 1 for 2012
    crashnjax@att.net
    crash.jax_fl on yahoo
    johnstrifler4senate.proboards.com

    Political advertisement paid for and approved by John p. Strifler, no party affiliation, state senate

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    ?
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by crashnjax View Post
    as much as i would like to support this video. i am surprised you only allowed us to view 2min3secs of it. did something happen you did not want us to know about. leaves alot of suspicion in my mind honestly. i understand the video theory but i have never had any probs with LEO's any time i have been pulled over, kill em with kindness works 99% of the time. if you have a prob with something they do you get them back later either thru dept and or courts(if you received a ticket). of course an atitude will get you no where but on the ground every time.
    You need more than 2 minutes and 3 seconds of video, to see that he was being an a**hole? If I started the video mid-traffic stop, I could see you having a point, but, that's not the case. I wasn't being disrespectful at all. I was just letting him know that he was being recorded. It wasn't, "Hey! You're stupid, and I'm recording you! HAHAHAHA". I was being polite. What does he have to worry about, being recorded? Is he going to violate my rights? I didn't post the rest of the video, because he just ran my info, and gave me 2 tickets. Is that really something you want/have to watch? Lol
    Last edited by KeepShootin; 04-19-2011 at 09:58 PM.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Quote Originally Posted by j4l View Post
    Jesus H.. For the last time, Ladies.. IF it passes, just carry the damned thing and go about your biz like normal. Dont start making a scene of yourselves already.
    If you really really need attention, go try out for American Idol or some such..
    Recording the Cops is a much broader concept than OC. If you feel so compelled, go do it right now.

    It has saved many from 'fix it in the report' LEOs. OC and otherwise.

    Being armed with this knowledge, and ability, is paramount.

    Referring to people more intelligent, educated, and prepared than yourself with intended-to-be-insulting female monikers is neither useful, nor detrimental to anyone but yourself... It's all about you, it would seem... You make your own choices. Discouraging education and preparedness doesn't seem like a sound philosophy. One does not have to be a lawyer to read the law any more than one needs to go to college to read any other book. It is not a special book that only certain 'only ones' are able to read.

    My advice is far more useful than yours has been. I'm still not a Lawyer and don't want to be. But it beats knowing nothing and suggesting ignorance as a useful course...

    What is this ridiculous and baseless obsession with claiming everyone but yourself is an attention *****? You're drawing a lot of attention to yourself with that behavior... How many times was the word 'yourself' used in this message?
    Last edited by ixtow; 04-19-2011 at 10:16 PM.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    The matter of recording the cops in Florida has been covered. There is a very recent case of such an incident in Tarpon Springs. The SA won't even prosecute. If it's so illegal, why won't the SA prosecute? Oh, a further look at the charges reveals they weren't even charged with the made-up idea that you can't record the cops, because you can...

    Find for me the case in Florida in which video/audio recording the cops in a place where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy wasn't thrown out.

    I'll wait.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
    Posts
    412
    Unfortunately, that web site leaves out a critical definition from the statute:
    “Oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.
    The Florida Supreme Court and several Federal appellate courts have ruled:
    This expectation of privacy does not contemplate merely a subjective expectation on the part of the person making the uttered oral communication but rather contemplates a reasonable expectation of privacy. A reasonable expectation of privacy under a given set of circumstances depends upon one's actual subjective expectation of privacy as well as whether society is prepared to recognize this expectation as reasonable.
    If you tell the officer you are recording (or it is clearly obvious from the circumstances - a video camera), there is no possibility that he can have a reasonable belief that the conversation is not being recorded. This is not to say that you are required to tell him, but if you do so, that would clearly be a lawful recording.

  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Quote Originally Posted by brboyer View Post
    Unfortunately, that web site leaves out a critical definition from the statute:


    The Florida Supreme Court and several Federal appellate courts have ruled:

    If you tell the officer you are recording (or it is clearly obvious from the circumstances - a video camera), there is no possibility that he can have a reasonable belief that the conversation is not being recorded. This is not to say that you are required to tell him, but if you do so, that would clearly be a lawful recording.
    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).
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
    Posts
    412
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    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).
    I thought that is what I said?????????

  22. #22
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Quote Originally Posted by brboyer View Post
    Unfortunately, that web site leaves out a critical definition from the statute:

    The Florida Supreme Court and several Federal appellate courts have ruled:

    If you tell the officer you are recording (or it is clearly obvious from the circumstances - a video camera), there is no possibility that he can have a reasonable belief that the conversation is not being recorded. This is not to say that you are required to tell him, but if you do so, that would clearly be a lawful recording.
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    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).
    Quote Originally Posted by brboyer View Post
    I thought that is what I said?????????
    Then we can agree to agree.

    Thought you were suggesting that it would be better ("clearly lawful") IF you notify that you are recording. My point is that it already is clearly lawful.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 04-20-2011 at 12:01 AM. Reason: bolded
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Yay for not being the Fact Welfare!
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  24. #24
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291
    http://www.rcfp.org/taping/index.html

    Although most of these statutes address wiretapping and eavesdropping — listening in on conversations of others without their knowledge — they usually apply to electronic recording of any conversations, including phone calls and in-person interviews.
    Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most also have extended the law to cover in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as “one-party consent” statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)
    Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as “two-party consent” laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.

  25. #25
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Quote Originally Posted by M1Gunr View Post
    http://www.rcfp.org/taping/index.html

    Although most of these statutes address wiretapping and eavesdropping — listening in on conversations of others without their knowledge — they usually apply to electronic recording of any conversations, including phone calls and in-person interviews.
    Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most also have extended the law to cover in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as “one-party consent” statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)
    Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as “two-party consent” laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.
    Did you read the cites?

    Florida is a one person consent state for non-electronic transmitted conversations.

    "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)."
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

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
  •