• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Something to be aware of when recording.

CharleyCherokee

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
293
Location
WesternKy
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.
 

langzaiguy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
916
Location
Central KY
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.
 

CharleyCherokee

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
293
Location
WesternKy
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:

jackjack

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
31
Location
Louisville, Ky
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. :uhoh:

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." :rolleyes: 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."
 

CharleyCherokee

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
293
Location
WesternKy
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:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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. :uhoh:

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." :rolleyes: 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.
 

CharleyCherokee

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
293
Location
WesternKy
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:

jackjack

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
31
Location
Louisville, Ky
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.
 

slocav

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Messages
34
Location
Irvine Kentucky
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.
 
Top