Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 56

Thread: Man arrested for recording traffic stop without consent of deputies

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    West Palm Beach, FL
    Posts
    23

    Man arrested for recording traffic stop without consent of deputies

    I read a few threads on this forum regarding recording encounters or stops. Some said it was legal, others illegal. Here is the link to the article in the local paper.

    http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/cr...s-1944991.html

  2. #2
    Regular Member Ironside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Ocoee, Florida
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by 996twint View Post
    I read a few threads on this forum regarding recording encounters or stops. Some said it was legal, others illegal. Here is the link to the article in the local paper.

    http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/cr...s-1944991.html
    [snip]

    Florida is one of a small number of states that require that all parties consent to the recording of a conversation.

    [unsnip]

    WTF?
    When those in Government fail to see the danger in too much Government, they become the danger.
    (Original quote by me)

    If we lose the Second Amendment it is only a matter of time before we lose the First Amendment, then the Fourth Amendment and then it is all downhill from there ...

    I've OCed and didn't scare the horses or stampede the women!

    It's too late to train when you are in the middle of a gunfight ... (me)

    IDPA SSP/MM

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    fl
    Posts
    1,835
    Unless/until they amend the Statutes, ILlEGAL in Florida -regardless of whatever other states/fed has decreed elsewhere- to record ANYONE in this way-WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT BEFOREHAND- Wishful thinkers and nay-sayers will debate it to death, and find out the wrong and hard way for themselves, I suppose.. (public,private, cop or otherwise)



    "The deputy noted in the affidavit that Paul was informed that he did not have the deputies' permission to record and was therefore violating a state law. Paul, however, refused to stop recording and was placed in custody.

    Afterward, the deputies noticed that Paul had been recording for just over 16 minutes.

    Florida is one of a small number of states that require that all parties consent to the recording of a conversation."

    100% correct ^^^^^^^^

    NOT SAYING I AGREE with the law, just that's what it is.






    related: She got off WAY light- she was all set to be cruxified, and couldnt find an attorney willing to touch her defense with a 90-ft pole..

    UPDATED 9.26.2011 by Julie Montanaro

    Court records show that Kathleen Harvey has signed a deferred prosecution agreement that will result in the charges against her being dropped.
    Click here to find out more!

    Harvey was accused of illegally recording a conversation with former Leon County Commissioner Cliff Thaell back in February 2009 and then releasing that tape to his political opponent before the next election.

    According to the agreement, Harvey must do 50 hours of community service in the next year and not talk publicly about the case. If she complies and does not commit any new crimes, the state will not pursue any further prosecution.

    Harvey was slated to go to trial on the illegal recording charges today.

    We are trying to reach Cliff Thaell for comment.
    Last edited by j4l; 11-01-2011 at 02:26 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    If Florida has a law that all parties must consent and the officer didn't... then oops, Mr Paul violated the law.

    It all depends on what the exact text of the Florida law states.
    Controlling code appears to be Section 934.03
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 11-01-2011 at 02:41 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    fl
    Posts
    1,835
    and the exact wording of that code is:

    "(d) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when ]all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception. "
    Last edited by j4l; 11-01-2011 at 02:45 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by j4l View Post
    and the exact wording of that code is:

    "(d) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception. "
    Yep, 934.03(1)(a) it all illegal, and then 934.03(2)(d) lists the applicable exception.... that you just beat me to posting.

    edit:
    934.02 Definitions.--As used in this chapter:
    934.02 (2) "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.

    ... and with that a public officer, conducting public business, in a public place, and with a member of the public shouldn't have any expectation of privacy.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 11-01-2011 at 11:55 PM. Reason: adding clarity

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by j4l View Post
    and the exact wording of that code is:

    "(d) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when ]all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception. "
    Mr. Paul should have fought. http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/florida.html provides a good analysis of Florida law. The important question was whether the officers had a reasonable expectation of privacy. They arguably do not while in the course of their duties. Better practice would have been to disclose recording initially.

  8. #8
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    So none of the cop cars in Florida have dash cams? If both parties must consent then the dash cam is use less as I'm sure the offender being filmed would not agree or is the goverment and cops exempt making a law only the sheepeople have to follow.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Orlando, FL, ,
    Posts
    412
    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker View Post
    So none of the cop cars in Florida have dash cams? If both parties must consent then the dash cam is use less as I'm sure the offender being filmed would not agree or is the goverment and cops exempt making a law only the sheepeople have to follow.
    FWIW, the law prohibits recording audio without consent. Apparently, it's perfectly fine to record images all day long,.
    Last edited by JeepSeller; 11-01-2011 at 04:31 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343
    I think the difference here may be VISUAL recording vs VOICE recording.

    They're talking about a conversation. A dash cam doesn't record YOUR voice, only the visual of you driving away from the officer at a high rate of speed...

  11. #11
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by xd shooter View Post
    I think the difference here may be VISUAL recording vs VOICE recording.

    They're talking about a conversation. A dash cam doesn't record YOUR voice, only the visual of you driving away from the officer at a high rate of speed...
    Every dash cam in every police car I have ever seen has had voice also, some only in car but I have seen a lot of them that record conversations in front of the cruiser.

    If that is the case couldn't you just have a video recorder without voice in Florida until they give the people back their rights. The only people upset about this are people that have something to hide.

  12. #12
    Regular Member riverrat10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a rock in the james river
    Posts
    1,453
    What would be the outcome if you informed that you were recording? Would not continued conversation then be consent? Kinda like your Miranda. Can they make you turn it off? I would like to notify I was recording. Let them make a statement after that.

  13. #13
    Regular Member rvrctyrngr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    SE of DiSOrDEr, ,
    Posts
    363
    Quote Originally Posted by fridaddy View Post
    Mr. Paul should have fought. http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/florida.html provides a good analysis of Florida law. The important question was whether the officers had a reasonable expectation of privacy. They arguably do not while in the course of their duties. Better practice would have been to disclose recording initially.
    This.

  14. #14
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    "The deputy noted in the affidavit that Paul was informed that he did not have the deputies' permission to record and was therefore violating a state law. Paul, however, refused to stop recording and was placed in custody."

    When the man was told by the officers that what he was doing was against the state law, that would have been the opportune time to keep the situation from escalating to his eventual arrest.Some people seem to look for ways to get into trouble. I, on the other hand, look for ways to avoid trouble.
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  15. #15
    Regular Member Rich7553's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SWFL
    Posts
    516
    In addition to fridaddy's post above, I must also note that despite "hearing" about arrests for alleged recording law enforcement at a traffic stop, I can find not one single case reaching the appellate courts of Florida. This is either no case has ever been appealed (not likely) or no case having ever been successfully prosecuted (more likely).

    Per §934.02 Florida Statutes: "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.

    In my opinion, the State Attorney will decline to prosecute in this case, or some deal will be cut for a lesser charge. The opinion that conversations during a traffic stop on the side of the road have an expectation of privacy will be a hard one to sell to a judge, and even harder to sell to an appellate panel. If the deputy made no effort to dissuade the casual passerby from overhearing his conversation with the driver, then it wouldn't be hard to prove there was no expectation of privacy.
    Last edited by Rich7553; 11-01-2011 at 06:35 PM.
    Rich
    MSgt, USAF Ret.
    Executive Director
    Florida Carry, Inc.
    www.floridacarry.org
    Glock 23 RTF2
    Mosin Nagant M91/30 (1942 Izhevsk)
    _____________________________________
    Want to do something about your gun rights?
    PITCH IN, QUIT B*TCHING!

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    The definitions section of that Statute clearly determines the "Reasonable Expectation of Privacy" concept. The methods described are all defined with the same... So "Oral" means spoken with a reasonable expectation of privacy... When that expectation does not exist, it isn't "oral" and the statute does not apply...

    It's very convoluted, but deliberately so...

    I'm reminded of Pirates of the Caribbean 4: "Guilty of being Innocent of being Captain Jack Sparrow."

    Been over this dozens of times. Florida is an all party consent state ONLY when a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy exists. They changed the definition of the words from their plain meaning, rather than re-write the whole statute, when it became apparent that it violated SCOTUS findings. It's a typical Floriduh Mess, you have to read the whole section, not just the small excerpt that appears to apply. If you don't quote the definition along with the statute, then your conclusion is both wrong and deceptive.

    Consent is only required when Privacy exists. Read the whole thing, not just one tiny part of it...

    This is why Cops often get it wrong, and it is left as-is to effect Qualified Immunity for what would otherwise be a False Arrest...

    An assistant SA in the Pinellas area has already publicly refused to prosecute such cases because the courts always throw them out and it should be obvious why. At this point, it would be considered malicious prosecution and they'd be out on their ass for it... Why isn't it the same for the LEOs?

    FSA, that's why. They get away with murder every day, literally.
    Last edited by ixtow; 11-01-2011 at 07:14 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.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Thanks for that post, Ixtow, it's reassuring should I ever show up in Florida again.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    fl
    Posts
    1,835
    Quote Originally Posted by ixtow View Post
    The definitions section of that Statute clearly determines the "Reasonable Expectation of Privacy" concept. The methods described are all defined with the same... So "Oral" means spoken with a reasonable expectation of privacy... When that expectation does not exist, it isn't "oral" and the statute does not apply...

    It's very convoluted, but deliberately so...

    I'm reminded of Pirates of the Caribbean 4: "Guilty of being Innocent of being Captain Jack Sparrow."

    Been over this dozens of times. Florida is an all party consent state ONLY when a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy exists. They changed the definition of the words from their plain meaning, rather than re-write the whole statute, when it became apparent that it violated SCOTUS findings. It's a typical Floriduh Mess, you have to read the whole section, not just the small excerpt that appears to apply. If you don't quote the definition along with the statute, then your conclusion is both wrong and deceptive.

    Consent is only required when Privacy exists. Read the whole thing, not just one tiny part of it...

    This is why Cops often get it wrong, and it is left as-is to effect Qualified Immunity for what would otherwise be a False Arrest...

    An assistant SA in the Pinellas area has already publicly refused to prosecute such cases because the courts always throw them out and it should be obvious why. At this point, it would be considered malicious prosecution and they'd be out on their ass for it... Why isn't it the same for the LEOs?

    FSA, that's why. They get away with murder every day, literally.
    when, and where, in that statute do u indicate they ever changed anything?

    For clarity- the ENTIRE section that pertains to what we're talking about- the rest of it governs how, and why, Law endforcement CAN record, and under what conditions. Note- there is absolutely ZERO mention of any "privacy or private/public" whatsoever on this. None. Zip. Notta.
    THE statute says it's lawful WHEN ALL PARTIES CONSENT.
    Wishing it away isnt going to make it go away,Ix. It is what it is. That's why people are still arrested and charged for violating it.

    (b) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Communications Commission, in the normal course of his or her employment and in discharge of the monitoring responsibilities exercised by the commission in the enforcement of 47 U.S.C. ch. 5, to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication transmitted by radio or to disclose or use the information thereby obtained.

    (c) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an investigative or law enforcement officer or a person acting under the direction of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception and the purpose of such interception is to obtain evidence of a criminal act.

    (d) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception.


    ^^^^^^^^^^ end of story^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    (e) It is unlawful to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication for the purpose of committing any criminal act.

    (f) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an employee of a telephone company to intercept a wire communication for the sole purpose of tracing the origin of such communication when the interception is requested by the recipient of the communication and the recipient alleges that the communication is obscene, harassing, or threatening in nature. The individual conducting the interception shall notify local police authorities within 48 hours after the time of the interception.
    Last edited by j4l; 11-01-2011 at 09:22 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Rich7553's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SWFL
    Posts
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by j4l View Post
    when, and where, in that statute do u indicate they ever changed anything?

    For clarity- the ENTIRE section that pertains to what we're talking about- the rest of it governs how, and why, Law endforcement CAN record, and under what conditions. Note- there is absolutely ZERO mention of any "privacy or private/public" whatsoever on this. None. Zip. Notta.
    THE statute says it's lawful WHEN ALL PARTIES CONSENT.
    Wishing it away isnt going to make it go away,Ix. It is what it is. That's why people are still arrested and charged for violating it.

    (b) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Communications Commission, in the normal course of his or her employment and in discharge of the monitoring responsibilities exercised by the commission in the enforcement of 47 U.S.C. ch. 5, to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication transmitted by radio or to disclose or use the information thereby obtained.

    (c) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an investigative or law enforcement officer or a person acting under the direction of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception and the purpose of such interception is to obtain evidence of a criminal act.

    (d) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception.


    ^^^^^^^^^^ end of story^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    (e) It is unlawful to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication for the purpose of committing any criminal act.

    (f) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an employee of a telephone company to intercept a wire communication for the sole purpose of tracing the origin of such communication when the interception is requested by the recipient of the communication and the recipient alleges that the communication is obscene, harassing, or threatening in nature. The individual conducting the interception shall notify local police authorities within 48 hours after the time of the interception.
    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).

    Why do you think there have been only arrests but no prosecutions?
    Rich
    MSgt, USAF Ret.
    Executive Director
    Florida Carry, Inc.
    www.floridacarry.org
    Glock 23 RTF2
    Mosin Nagant M91/30 (1942 Izhevsk)
    _____________________________________
    Want to do something about your gun rights?
    PITCH IN, QUIT B*TCHING!

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Thanks Rich. I am not the Fact Welfare....

    Anyone who can find the statutes cited above, have in effect already found the definitions. This is one of the most blatant cases of "I already have that information, but I'm feigning ignorance just to argue."

    READ THE WHOLE THING. THEN SHUT UP BECAUSE NOW THAT YOU READ IT, YOU KNOW YOU'RE WRONG.

    The only thing more annoying than this, is sorting out what makes OC unregulated in Alabama... Even thought the Law seems to forbid it at first blush, and second blush, and even a 3rd....
    "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.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich7553 View Post
    See definition of “oral communication,” Fla. Stat. ch. 934.02.
    Bingo.

    Quote Originally Posted by FS 934.02 Definitions.
    —As used in this chapter:
    (1) “Wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception including the use of such connection in a switching station furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of intrastate, interstate, or foreign communications or communications affecting intrastate, interstate, or foreign commerce.

    (2) “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.

    (3) “Intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.
    And here is the Horse's Mouth: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...s/0934.02.html

    Instead of re-writing the whole section, which is huge and annoying, they just changed the definition of what "Oral" means; they changed it to exclude instances where there is no expectation of privacy. They used the words 'exhibiting an expectation' and 'circumstances justifying such expectation.' In the absence of those conditions, the statute does not apply.

    Such that, a LEO says "Hey, can we talk privately over here? Just wanna talk, no big deal..." There ya go... Exhibited becomes expected... If you step aside, where the expectation and exhibited desire becomes justified. Don't fall for that one.

    Now I ask, what of the veracity of those who cited in previous posts, and conveniently skipped this part? They obviously found it... All they had to do was open their eyes and face forward... Who can find one and claim not to have found the other? Then, start a fight over it? Spread FUD in the name of it? Yeah... This is why I hate being the Fact Welfare. Oh my goodness, all these trees! No, I never saw a forest...

    The 'circumstances justifying such expectation' is what will get this arrest tossed, and why it is a False Arrest and Gross Abuse of Power. Since it is not merely Settled Law, but repeatedly and outspokenly Settled Law... No Qualified Immunity can exist, though, it will probably be extended anyway...

    I hope the victim crucifies them.
    Last edited by ixtow; 11-02-2011 at 01:26 AM.
    "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.

  22. #22
    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
    Florida is one of a small number of states that require that all parties consent to the recording of a conversation."

    100% correct ^^^^^^^^

    NOT SAYING I AGREE with the law, just that's what it is.
    You are wrong. Stop spreading FUD.
    "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.

  23. #23
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,004
    @j4l

    The case will be dropped or if not, the court will throw it out. Illinois has a more tyrannical law than Florida's and such a case was summarily and recently dismissed. It clearly is unconstitutional in a variety of ways. There have been no prosecutions in Fl that I can find.
    Last edited by 77zach; 11-02-2011 at 10:32 AM.
    “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.

  24. #24
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    Quote Originally Posted by MilProGuy View Post
    "The deputy noted in the affidavit that Paul was informed that he did not have the deputies' permission to record and was therefore violating a state law. Paul, however, refused to stop recording and was placed in custody."

    When the man was told by the officers that what he was doing was against the state law, that would have been the opportune time to keep the situation from escalating to his eventual arrest.Some people seem to look for ways to get into trouble. I, on the other hand, look for ways to avoid trouble.
    Like a good little lamb. Go back to sleep know sweet little lamb.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    When taken to Federal Courts, almost always, it has been held that cops have no expectation of privacy, the 1st Amendment applies to individuals equally as to the press, and when there is no "secretive" activity, but open and obvious recording, it is protected activity if done in a manner that does not interfere with the cops activities. The FL statute is ambiguous to the extent it is unenforceable. It also, in its most favorable to the cops interpretation, is clearly unconstitutional. It will take a Federal Court to hold this, however.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •