• 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.

Man arrested for recording traffic stop without consent of deputies

Ironside

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
103
Location
Ocoee, Florida

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
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:

Fallschirjmäger

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

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
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:

Fallschirjmäger

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

fridaddy

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
47
Location
, ,
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.
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
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.
 

JeepSeller

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
412
Location
Orlando, FL, ,
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:

xd shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
333
Location
usa
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...:):)
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
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.
 

riverrat10k

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
1,472
Location
on a rock in the james river
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.
 

MilProGuy

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
1,210
Location
Mississippi
"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.
 

Rich7553

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
515
Location
SWFL
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:

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
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:

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
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:

Rich7553

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
515
Location
SWFL
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?
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
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....
 
Top