But you can record police. CT is a one-party consent state for purposes of "wire tapping" and has no other statute on point to forbid recording. As with OC, the absense of a statute making the practice illegal means that the practice is legal. The proposed bill would have provided a basis for civil action against the police officer that interfered with your right to record. You may, infact, still have that basis through a common law claim even without the statute. It has just never been tested in this state.
+1. I have no idea where this confusion comes from.
Looney's bill keeps true with the writer's namesake. We don't need legislative solutions, we need judicial solutions. If an officer wants to arrest you or interfere with you recording them while not interfering with them or their investigation, so be it. That is an issue for the courts.
In my mind, this is an example of the two divisions I am seeing in this state. Those who believe that laws are enforced by the legislature and those who believe they are enforced by the judicial branch.
I liken this to the people who advocate for and against gun control. One type of person believes we can just keep making more laws and eventually criminals will stop being criminals. The other type understands that we will just have to wait for the criminals to break the laws and then punish them as hard as we can, but that there will always be criminals and that laws don't stop criminals.
This is pretty much a direct comparison since LEOs who break the laws are criminals. Nothing more, nothing less.'
The bill is a worthless gesture. Take the criminals to court and stop the abuse.