CharleyCherokee
Regular Member
526.010 Definition.
The following definition applies in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
"Eavesdrop" means to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of a wire or oral communication of others without the consent of at least one (1) party thereto by means of any electronic, mechanical or other device.
526.020 Eavesdropping.
(1) A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he intentionally uses any device to eavesdrop, whether or not he is present at the time.
(2) Eavesdropping is a Class D felony.
So now the hypothetical. Let's say you're going about your business open carrying as is the safest and sanest way to carry . As such you are recording as you go about your business just incase you have an unfriendly encounter and would possibly need such a recording as evidence of your innocence. Let's further say that you happen to be in a large group of people when you are confronted by a police man who arrests you for inciting a riot or whatever he feels like arresting you for. During the arrest he finds your recorder and adds the charge of eavesdropping because you were "intentionally" recording the people around you as you carried on your business. Who thinks something like this could stick? Considering what happened with Bernard and his Liberty Dollar I don't have too much confidence in the jury pools these days.
The following definition applies in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
"Eavesdrop" means to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of a wire or oral communication of others without the consent of at least one (1) party thereto by means of any electronic, mechanical or other device.
526.020 Eavesdropping.
(1) A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he intentionally uses any device to eavesdrop, whether or not he is present at the time.
(2) Eavesdropping is a Class D felony.
So now the hypothetical. Let's say you're going about your business open carrying as is the safest and sanest way to carry . As such you are recording as you go about your business just incase you have an unfriendly encounter and would possibly need such a recording as evidence of your innocence. Let's further say that you happen to be in a large group of people when you are confronted by a police man who arrests you for inciting a riot or whatever he feels like arresting you for. During the arrest he finds your recorder and adds the charge of eavesdropping because you were "intentionally" recording the people around you as you carried on your business. Who thinks something like this could stick? Considering what happened with Bernard and his Liberty Dollar I don't have too much confidence in the jury pools these days.