Federal Appeals Court rules recording of police is Constitutionally protected

Orphan said:

Dont forget section 3 of RCW 9.73.030

(3) Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter, consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted: PROVIDED, That if the conversation is to be recorded that said announcement shall also be recorded.


The undecided problem is if an LEO is detaining you lawfully and you announce you are recording the LEO is trapped he cant simply walk away if he does not wish to be recorded. Now I understand that on duty doing the states business there is no expectatioin of privacy see Flora v State, Townsend v State and Johnson V Sequim. I think this could be ruled on at least by a lower court in a manner that we would not like. I am quite sure the case would be won at a higher level.

Click to expand...

I agree with the point that an announcement has satisfied one part of the law. My point is that once one (private)party has objected, there is no more consent to record their conversation. To continue would be at your own peril.

The "LEO Recording" issue swings both ways. They don't have to announce to us that their dash cam's are recording us, so why would a court say we can't record our transactions with them?

Orphan said:

The undecided problem is if an LEO is detaining you lawfully and you announce you are recording the LEO is trapped he cant simply walk away if he does not wish to be recorded.

Click to expand...

Also remember public vs. private setting - you don't need to announce you're recording if the activity is taking place in public, because privacy does not exist and thus the consent law does not kick in. How often do OC people get harassed by an officer in a non-public setting?

amlevin said:

The "LEO Recording" issue swings both ways. They don't have to announce to us that their dash cam's are recording us, so why would a court say we can't record our transactions with them?

Click to expand...

I seem to remember a recent case where a dash cam recording was thrown out of evidence because the officer did not notify the subject that the recording was being made...

Too lazy to go find it at the moment tho.

John Hardin said:

Also remember public vs. private setting - you don't need to announce you're recording if the activity is taking place in public, because privacy does not exist and thus the consent law does not kick in. How often do OC people get harassed by an officer in a non-public setting?

Click to expand...

John have you ever been asked by a LEO to step over here so I can talk to you, I have many times and BTW I never go to them, that starts out public but could end up as a private conversation all the LEO has to say in court is I asked him to step over here so we could talk privately. LEOs do this all the time so that it is he said, LEO said when you get to court. That could be considered a private conversation as soon as you remove yourself to a spot far enough away for others not to be able to overhear. This is one of the reasons you should always ask if your being detained and dont talk to LEOs.

Having said all that I think we are covered because LEOs are public servants and have no expectation of privacy while at work I believe it is Flora V State that sums it up best.

One of the things that really bugs me on OCDO is the people that get into trouble that cant afford to defend them selves and then cop a plea thus setting a higher bar for the rest of us to over come. I am not saying dont go out there and OC just be smart about it when you do.

Orphan said:

John have you ever been asked by a LEO to step over here so I can talk to you, I have many times and BTW I never go to them, that starts out public but could end up as a private conversation all the LEO has to say in court is I asked him to step over here so we could talk privately. LEOs do this all the time so that it is he said, LEO said when you get to court. That could be considered a private conversation as soon as you remove yourself to a spot far enough away for others not to be able to overhear. This is one of the reasons you should always ask if your being detained and dont talk to LEOs

Click to expand...

I have never been in that situation; thanks for being the voice of experience!

John Hardin said:

I seem to remember a recent case where a dash cam recording was thrown out of evidence because the officer did not notify the subject that the recording was being made...

Too lazy to go find it at the moment tho.

Click to expand...

Would find it interesting if that was the reason the "tape" was thrown out. "Flora" found than any conversation between a Police Officer and Citizen, during the performance of his duties, was not considered private. A conversation is a two way exchange. If it's OK for a citizen to record a Police Officer, then it's also OK for the Police to record citizens.

amlevin said:

Would find it interesting if that was the reason the "tape" was thrown out. "Flora" found than any conversation between a Police Officer and Citizen, during the performance of his duties, was not considered private. A conversation is a two way exchange. If it's OK for a citizen to record a Police Officer, then it's also OK for the Police to record citizens.

Click to expand...

Only if in public or with a warrant or no expectation of privacy. Yet the police cannot expect the same in return. The law was written to protect the private citizen not government. What did Flora call say it was not meant as a "double edge sword".