Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Something to be aware of when recording.

  1. #1
    Regular Member CharleyCherokee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    WesternKy
    Posts
    297

    Something to be aware of when recording.

    526.010 Definition.
    The following definition applies in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
    "Eavesdrop" means to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of a wire or oral communication of others without the consent of at least one (1) party thereto by means of any electronic, mechanical or other device.

    526.020 Eavesdropping.
    (1) A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he intentionally uses any device to eavesdrop, whether or not he is present at the time.
    (2) Eavesdropping is a Class D felony.

    So now the hypothetical. Let's say you're going about your business open carrying as is the safest and sanest way to carry . :P As such you are recording as you go about your business just incase you have an unfriendly encounter and would possibly need such a recording as evidence of your innocence. Let's further say that you happen to be in a large group of people when you are confronted by a police man who arrests you for inciting a riot or whatever he feels like arresting you for. During the arrest he finds your recorder and adds the charge of eavesdropping because you were "intentionally" recording the people around you as you carried on your business. Who thinks something like this could stick? Considering what happened with Bernard and his Liberty Dollar I don't have too much confidence in the jury pools these days.
    A bullet may have your name on it, but shrapnel is addressed to whom it may concern.
    Why open carrying is a good idea: http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-14...encounter.html

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central KY
    Posts
    955
    If you are detained for whatever reason, you are automatically one of the parties involved. As long as you consent to your own recording, you should be fine. This is only my humble interpretation. I don't think it would stick in the least.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    252
    If your involved in the discussion, you can record it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member CharleyCherokee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    WesternKy
    Posts
    297
    I'm referring to background conversations being recorded. I personally would hope that it wouldn't stick, but given the situation these days...
    put simply I don't have much faith in the state trained masses. Don't get me wrong, or anything as I still plan to record to cover my own ass. I'm wondering if a sealed certified letter to yourself explaining why you always record would afford a suitable defense against a vindictive DA willing to prosecute.

    However, there isn't a case in Kentucky where I have heard of something like this actually happening. It is merely a hypothetical situation I created. BUT given the trend of states and police officers trying to get similar felony charges on people for recording them I don't think it's THAT far fetched.
    Last edited by CharleyCherokee; 06-04-2011 at 11:27 AM. Reason: Added stuff
    A bullet may have your name on it, but shrapnel is addressed to whom it may concern.
    Why open carrying is a good idea: http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-14...encounter.html

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Louisville, Ky
    Posts
    36

    This is an important topic!!!

    Great Britain has laws that makes photographing, video recording, or audio recording peace officers a criminal offense. These laws are already present in the USA.

    Here are a few examples of here in the US:
    Tiawanda Moore facing 15 years for videotaping sexual assault by a police officer.
    Anthony Graber facing 16 years for videotaping plain clothes officer from helmet cam.
    Yyvonne Shaw facing 5 years for recording police encounter with cell phone.

    If I'm getting recorded by "saftey" cameras from the city, police cruiser cameras, security cameras placed outside, why can't we record from our own person?

    Wear a shirt that states, "Private property. Video and audio surveillance in progress." Sounds silly, but why not?

    But seriously, at any point a conflict arises I would state, "For my personal security and protection, I am documenting this interaction. Any engagement with me will be considered implied consent for recording."

  6. #6
    Regular Member CharleyCherokee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    WesternKy
    Posts
    297
    Right now the issue in Kentucky isn't any conversation you are participating in, but rather the concern is background conversations you might have picked up while in public. If they tried to arrest you for it in Kentucky for a conversation you were in fact a part of I don't think that even today's most apathetic jury would find you guilty as the law is completely obvious in that sense. I'm wondering if being super friendly and saying hi to someone from each conversation cell would provide you with the one party protection.
    Last edited by CharleyCherokee; 06-04-2011 at 12:12 PM.
    A bullet may have your name on it, but shrapnel is addressed to whom it may concern.
    Why open carrying is a good idea: http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-14...encounter.html

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Louisville, Ky
    Posts
    36

    Not Very Specific, but...

    Here is a link that touches upon the topic. This lawyer (disclaimer) says it has alot to do whether or not the conversation is private. He lists some instances where that has been defined by some courts.

    http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.co...ersations.aspx

  8. #8
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    2,806
    Quote Originally Posted by CharleyCherokee View Post
    I'm referring to background conversations being recorded. I personally would hope that it wouldn't stick, but given the situation these days...
    put simply I don't have much faith in the state trained masses. Don't get me wrong, or anything as I still plan to record to cover my own ass. I'm wondering if a sealed certified letter to yourself explaining why you always record would afford a suitable defense against a vindictive DA willing to prosecute.

    However, there isn't a case in Kentucky where I have heard of something like this actually happening. It is merely a hypothetical situation I created. BUT given the trend of states and police officers trying to get similar felony charges on people for recording them I don't think it's THAT far fetched.
    You've just provided the answer to your question. If it's background conversation, then it is not a conversation you have an interest in and you'd be just as happy if they'd keep their big mouths shut and not talk over the conversation you are interested in. Isn't that just about the definition of something that's Not being intentionally recorded?
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 06-04-2011 at 12:51 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    2,806
    Quote Originally Posted by jackjack View Post
    Great Britain has laws that makes photographing, video recording, or audio recording peace officers a criminal offense. These laws are already present in the USA.

    Here are a few examples of here in the US:
    Tiawanda Moore facing 15 years for videotaping sexual assault by a police officer.
    Anthony Graber facing 16 years for videotaping plain clothes officer from helmet cam.
    Yyvonne Shaw facing 5 years for recording police encounter with cell phone.

    If I'm getting recorded by "saftey" cameras from the city, police cruiser cameras, security cameras placed outside, why can't we record from our own person?

    Wear a shirt that states, "Private property. Video and audio surveillance in progress." Sounds silly, but why not?

    But seriously, at any point a conflict arises I would state, "For my personal security and protection, I am documenting this interaction. Any engagement with me will be considered implied consent for recording."
    Not to put too fine a point on it Jackjack.. but to you have a citation for any of those laws you are saying are already in place?

    I note that all the persons named are "facing" which I'm sure is the same as "charged with".
    I'll also note that one can be charged with eating a ham sandwich on a Sunday... getting a conviction is another matter.

  10. #10
    Regular Member CharleyCherokee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    WesternKy
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    You've just provided the answer to your question. If it's background conversation, then it is not a conversation you have an interest in and you'd be just as happy if they'd keep their big mouths shut and not talk over the conversation you are interested in. Isn't that just about the definition of something that's Not being intentionally recorded?
    While this is true, and it would further be true that the intention would be to record your own conversations I'm suggesting that the state would try to make the case that you intended to record everything including conversations you were not a party to. This
    is the perspective I'm trying to philosophize through. Again I'm fully aware that recording and picking up background conversations is legal, but I don't put it past a vindictive DA to possible press the issue at some point saying that you had intended to record everything.
    Last edited by CharleyCherokee; 06-04-2011 at 01:41 PM.
    A bullet may have your name on it, but shrapnel is addressed to whom it may concern.
    Why open carrying is a good idea: http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-14...encounter.html

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Louisville, Ky
    Posts
    36

    Sorry, I got off topic.

    @Fallschirmj*ger: The laws I'm refering to are already existing. The interpretation of the law is the real problem. I feel existing evesdropping laws and wiretapping laws are being manipulated to punish those who bring attention to misconduct. I imagine that those are maxiumum sentences that can be imposed. Each of those were from "respectable" news sources. Let Google be your guide. The media does have a way of trying to make an issue as dramatic as possible. However, I concede. Regardless, I feel this may be a big problem on the rise.

    @Charley Cherokee: What is Kentucky's legal definition for "intent?" I could not find that on the ky.gov KRS listing. Combining 526.020 and 526.010 you would have to intentionally eavesdrop on the overheard communication. What if your "intention" was only to record your own conversations? Merriam-Webster defines intent as: the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Irvine Kentucky
    Posts
    34
    I dare them to arrest someone taking pictures. If your in public you can take photos of what ever you please. That includes outside of bars etc.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    2,883
    Quote Originally Posted by jackjack View Post
    @Fallschirmj*ger: The laws I'm refering to are already existing. The interpretation of the law is the real problem. I feel existing evesdropping laws and wiretapping laws are being manipulated to punish those who bring attention to misconduct. I imagine that those are maxiumum sentences that can be imposed. Each of those were from "respectable" news sources. Let Google be your guide. The media does have a way of trying to make an issue as dramatic as possible. However, I concede. Regardless, I feel this may be a big problem on the rise.

    @Charley Cherokee: What is Kentucky's legal definition for "intent?" I could not find that on the ky.gov KRS listing. Combining 526.020 and 526.010 you would have to intentionally eavesdrop on the overheard communication. What if your "intention" was only to record your own conversations? Merriam-Webster defines intent as: the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act.
    In Ky. law, unless a definition is given in a statute, the common everyday meaning of the word is what must be used. Technical words or words that have acquired a special meaning will use those meanings. I doubt the meaning of the word intent is in dispute. Here in Ky. our problem is not an argument over what the statues mean, that is settled. It is getting the government officials to obey the written laws as written and ,already, interpreted. Most are reasonable and will obey even if they don't like it. Others will fight and try to circumvent the law to enforce their own opinions that are, obviously, in conflict with the laws.
    Last edited by gutshot; 06-04-2011 at 03:36 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •