Man arrested for recording traffic stop without consent of deputies

Rich7553 said:

See definition of “oral communication,” Fla. Stat. ch. 934.02.

Click to expand...

Bingo.

FS 934.02 Definitions. said:

—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.

Click to expand...

And here is the Horse's Mouth: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ing=&URL=0900-0999/0934/Sections/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.

j4l said:

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.

Click to expand...

You are wrong. Stop spreading FUD.

@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.

MilProGuy said:

"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.

Click to expand...

Like a good little lamb. Go back to sleep know sweet little lamb.

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.

Then police should have to get your consent to have you on the dash cam video and audio.

MillProGuy's new avatar:

"An unjust law is no law at all." - Augustine of Hippo

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk

OC for ME said:

Seems to be another way of saying "expectation of privacy.

What exactly does this mean? Is a stop not a public meeting?

You: Officer, I consider this a public meeting, you are engaging in a public act as a agent of the state performing your duties, in public, and I will record this public meeting, for the record.

Too funny. There is the statute, then there are prosecutions AND convictions for violations of the statute. We obviously have the former, I'll just sit back and let others find the latter....

Click to expand...

I can only find evidence of arrests. I can find no successful prosecutions/convictions based upon the recording of a traffic stop by a citizen. Every reference I can find either ended in charges being dropped or an acquittal.

OC for ME said:

I consider this a public meeting

Click to expand...

What have your considerations to do with it? Why are you talking to the Police about your irrelevant considerations??



The point is, a reasonable expectation of privacy must exist, and the circumstances must justify that expectation, or else it isn't Oral Communication, and the restriction against recording doesn't apply. They underscored it by saying not only reasonable expectation, but added a second ruler to measure what reasonable is.

xmanhockey7 said:

Then police should have to get your consent to have you on the dash cam video and audio.

Click to expand...

No, The State treats itself Special. As usual...

j4l said:

when, and where, in that statute do u indicate they ever changed anything?

Click to expand...

j4l,

It's quite easy to understand why you're wrong with a simple example. Why hasn't there been a single arrest, prosecution, or even civil suit against a father for accidentally A/V recording a stranger at Disney World? Why hasn't there been a single prosecution against a news anchor for recording a conversation of a couple walking past the camera? Why hasn't there been a single prosecution for accidentally recording a colleague's voice while you're leaving a voice-mail?

It's 934.02(2)'s exception under the definition of Oral Communication.

Do you see now?

xmanhockey7 said:

Then police should have to get your consent to have you on the dash cam video and audio.

Click to expand...

Actually, as disgusting as it is, there is a direct exception for police officers to record you. See 934.03(3)(c)

(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.

Click to expand...

Rights for me. None for thee!! It's one-party consent in Florida, if you're a cop. Thank god for the definition or "Oral Communication" in the section before it.

I'm sure glad at least some people still know how to read... I was feeling lonely there for a bit...

ixtow said:

I'm sure glad at least some people still know how to read... I was feeling lonely there for a bit...

Click to expand...

There are times when one marches, he gathers a crowd. On other occasions, his shadow is his sole companion.

ixtow said:

MillProGuy's new avatar:

Click to expand...

you should read some of his other posts around here. they all match right up to that picture.

Wish you guys would at least spell my "name" correctly. :dude:

I have, he's on the ignore list... Waste of bandwidth.

What's the buzzing sound?

MillProGay? PillPoppingGuy? I'm not even sure how it goes anymore...

ixtow said:

I have, he's on the ignore list... Waste of bandwidth.

What's the buzzing sound?

MillProGay? PillPoppingGuy? I'm not even sure how it goes anymore...

Click to expand...

Using the ignore feature is certainly your right. But, I think the name calling is a little much. Even you and I don't often agree on much around here, but, I'd like to believe there's been a mutual respect. I know it's tempting to lash out at folks who don't share all our views. But, a differing opinion never hurt anyone. No need for the bunched boxers to be honest. (nothing worse than bunched boxers, especially in the sweat-box we call Florida.... seriously, why do that to yourself? LOL)

Honestly, think about it, if we all agreed, this would be one boring place to visit. What the heck would we talk about?

nigmalg said:

j4l,

It's quite easy to understand...

Click to expand...

You are completely wasting your time. j4l has shown around here on multiple occasions that he has a complete and irrational hatred for our 1st Amendment Right and cameras in general. He won't even admit there is a thing called Youtube.