• 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.

The face of 'tolerance' for OC *WARNING - Possibly Offensive image

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
‘The face of liberal tolerance and gun control’ in Seattle, says OC citizen

Spanaway resident Steve Coffman was waiting for a bus in downtown Seattle yesterday afternoon, minding his own business, leaning against a wall listening to music and answering e-mail when he was verbally accosted by a man who – according to Coffman’s account published on the WaGuns forum – challenged his manhood, insulted him and otherwise tried to provoke him.

http://www.examiner.com/article/the...rance-and-gun-control-seattle-says-oc-citizen
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
‘The face of liberal tolerance and gun control’ in Seattle, says OC citizen

Spanaway resident Steve Coffman was waiting for a bus in downtown Seattle yesterday afternoon, minding his own business, leaning against a wall listening to music and answering e-mail when he was verbally accosted by a man who – according to Coffman’s account published on the WaGuns forum – challenged his manhood, insulted him and otherwise tried to provoke him.

http://www.examiner.com/article/the...rance-and-gun-control-seattle-says-oc-citizen

Too bad he did not have a voice recorder running... is WA a 1 party consent state?
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
Too bad he did not have a voice recorder running... is WA a 1 party consent state?

Depends. If it involves civilians only, it is an "all parties" consent state (although, simply announcing to them that the conversation is being recorded gennerally suffices). If you are recording a public official acting in his/her professional capacity, it is a 1 party consent state.
 

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,308
Location
Montana
Depends. If it involves civilians only, it is an "all parties" consent state (although, simply announcing to them that the conversation is being recorded gennerally suffices). If you are recording a public official acting in his/her professional capacity, it is a 1 party consent state.

I will have to object. WA is an 'all parties' consent state only in the regard of a private communication, exceptions to the private communications and penalty are found in RCW 9.73.030.

A private communication is partly defined with court case STATE v. TOWNSEND, 147 Wn.2d 666, 57 P.3d 255 (2002).

State v Townsend said:
The subjective intention of the parties to the communication is among the factors that the court may consider in determining if a communication is private. A court may also consider other factors bearing on the reasonableness of the participants' expectations, such as the duration and subject matter of the communication; the location of the communication and the presence of potential third parties; and the role of the nonconsenting party and his or her relationship to the consenting party.

Further in STATE v. CLARK, 129 Wn.2d 211.
State v Clark said:
[5] Privacy - Privacy Act - Private Conversations - What Constitutes - On Public Street - Within Earshot of Third Parties. For purposes of the privacy act (RCW 9.73), a conversation on a public street in the presence of a third party and within the sight and hearing of passersby is not "private."

[6] Privacy - Intrusion Into Private Affairs - In General. The notion of "privacy" entails a matter into which there should not be prying or intrusion and that the matter intruded on or pried into is entitled to be private. In general, the presence of another person during a conversation means that the matter is not private.

If the conversation is occurring in a public space or domain where no attempt is being made to make the communication private, its not a private communication and only 1 party consent is required.

In regards to police video/audio, the court case STATE v. FLORA holds that only 1 party consent is required.

Stave v Flora said:
[2, 3] Although the term "private" is not explicitly defined in the statute, Washington
courts have on several occasions construed the term to mean:
secret . . . intended only for the persons involved (a conversation) . . . holding a
confidential relationship to something . . . a secret message: a private communication . . .
secretly; not open or in public.


...



The conversation at issue fails this threshold inquiry; the arrest was not entitled to be
private. Moreover, the police officers in this case could not reasonably have considered
their words private.
 
Last edited:

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
Site is experiencing problems. Apparently someone in Sea is upset and has "jacked' the site. Who know, it Seattle you know.

The Examiner pulled the story due to an "offensive" photograph of the antagonizer giving the finger.
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
I will have to object. WA is an 'all parties' consent state only in the regard of a private communication, exceptions to the private communications and penalty are found in RCW 9.73.030.

A private communication is partly defined with court case STATE v. TOWNSEND, 147 Wn.2d 666, 57 P.3d 255 (2002).

Further in STATE v. CLARK, 129 Wn.2d 211.

If the conversation is occurring in a public space or domain where no attempt is being made to make the communication private, its not a private communication and only 1 party consent is required.

In regards to police video/audio, the court case STATE v. FLORA holds that only 1 party consent is required.

You are confusing whether a communication is "private" versus whether or not it can be recorded. Even when a communication is strictly limited to 2 people (which is private), if 1 of the 2 wants to record it, (s)he must still get consent of the other (or announce that it is being recorded). Conversely, even if 20 (or more) people have a conversation in a crowded room where it is overheard by 100 others, all 20 must nevertheless give consent or be notified before it may lawfully be recorded.

I encourage you to re-read RCW 9.73.030.
 
Last edited:

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
You are confusing whether a communication is "private" versus whether or not it can be recorded. Even when a communication is strictly limited to 2 people (which is private), if 1 of the 2 wants to record it, (s)he must still get consent of the other (or announce that it is being recorded). Conversely, even if 20 (or more) people have a conversation in a crowded room where it is overheard by 100 others, all 20 must nevertheless give consent or be notified before it may lawfully be recorded.

I encourage you to re-read RCW 9.73.030.

AND... the notice of being recorded must be on the recording as well...
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
You are confusing whether a communication is "private" versus whether or not it can be recorded. Even when a communication is strictly limited to 2 people (which is private), if 1 of the 2 wants to record it, (s)he must still get consent of the other (or announce that it is being recorded). Conversely, even if 20 (or more) people have a conversation in a crowded room where it is overheard by 100 others, all 20 must nevertheless give consent or be notified before it may lawfully be recorded.

I encourage you to re-read RCW 9.73.030.

OK say you are soccer mom Susie and you are recording little Dillon's game as two other soccer moms and multiple others are chatting away next to you has Susie broken the law?
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
OK say you are soccer mom Susie and you are recording little Dillon's game as two other soccer moms and multiple others are chatting away next to you has Susie broken the law?

No expectation of privacy.

It doesn't mean that if you and I step off to the side where no one else happens to be so we can discuss things privately that since we are still "in public" that I can record you with a hidden recorder without your permission.

I am thinking too that if you are recording a game you are using video which would be fairly obviously a recording device.
 

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,308
Location
Montana
You are confusing whether a communication is "private" versus whether or not it can be recorded. Even when a communication is strictly limited to 2 people (which is private), if 1 of the 2 wants to record it, (s)he must still get consent of the other (or announce that it is being recorded). Conversely, even if 20 (or more) people have a conversation in a crowded room where it is overheard by 100 others, all 20 must nevertheless give consent or be notified before it may lawfully be recorded.

I encourage you to re-read RCW 9.73.030.

I must still not be following you.

9.73.030
9.73.030 said:
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:
(a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication;
(b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.

...

9.73.030(1)(a) is clearly for intercepting or recording any conversation on a telephone or radio, clearly that is private and subject to party consent.
9.73.030(1)(b) is for private conversations, which requires all party consent.

Via citations previously provided:

The common court definition of private is:
STATE v FLORA said:
[2, 3] Although the term "private" is not explicitly defined in the statute, Washington
courts have on several occasions construed the term to mean:
secret . . . intended only for the persons involved (a conversation) . . . holding a
confidential relationship to something . . . a secret message: a private communication . . .
secretly; not open or in public.

In STATE v TOWNSEND the court more narrowly defined 'private conversation':
STATE v TOWNSEND said:
The subjective intention of the parties to the communication is among the factors that the court may consider in determining if a communication is private. A court may also consider other factors bearing on the reasonableness of the participants' expectations, such as the duration and subject matter of the communication; the location of the communication and the presence of potential third parties; and the role of the nonconsenting party and his or her relationship to the consenting party.

In STATE v CLARK they explicitly detail 'private conversations' and public spaces:
STATE v CLARK said:
[5] Privacy - Privacy Act - Private Conversations - What Constitutes - On Public Street - Within Earshot of Third Parties. For purposes of the privacy act (RCW 9.73), a conversation on a public street in the presence of a third party and within the sight and hearing of passersby is not "private."

[6] Privacy - Intrusion Into Private Affairs - In General. The notion of "privacy" entails a matter into which there should not be prying or intrusion and that the matter intruded on or pried into is entitled to be private. In general, the presence of another person during a conversation means that the matter is not private.

The way I read RCW 9.73.030 is that its illegal to record an individual(s) without their consent or knowledge only if that individual is engaging in a 'private conversation' and has an expectation of privacy. Given the case law, it appears to me that private conversations are restricted and that while in public space and within earshot of third parties without attempts to make that conversation private the conversation is not considered private.

Thus the use of a voice recorder or other recording device, used while open carrying in a public space or location open to public simply overhearing background conversations would not be illegal and still admissible in court as the conversations being overhead where not 'private conversations'.

Now if the individual happen to go into a bathroom or other private room the consent would be needed.

Am I missing something here?
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
It would have taken every bit of my self control not to brandish... my middle finger right back at him.

I think the best response is, usually, a VERY large smile. It either makes them madder or defuses the situation pretty quickly.
 
Last edited:

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
I must still not be following you.

<snip>
Am I missing something here?

No. I misunderstood your original point. I misread what you posted as saying that if the conversation is "private" then it could be recorded without notice or consent. My response was directed at that narrow point. The question is usually very fact-specific as to what constitutes an "expectation of privacy." I now understand your point and agree with your analysis.

I also wish to punctuate Trigger Dr's point that the notice should be recorded as per RCW 9.73.030(3) (although some cases have held that if the recording is readily apparent -- such as a 30 lb. camera on your shoulder -- that suffices as notice).

Another excellent case on the topic is Lewis v. Dept. of Licensing, 157 Wn. 2d. 446 (2006).
 
Last edited:

acmariner99

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
655
Location
Renton, Wa
I had to deal with somebody like this when I first started carrying in Washington. I generally have a pretty calm demeanor and I would have just smiled, said "sorry you feel that way, have a nice day" and just walk off. People like this want are either so stupid and immature as to not know how to act in a civilized manner or are so smart as to try to do whatever they can to tick you off and provoke a response. As many have said, recorder - or if you are feeling balsy, call the cops on them! Especially if they become belligerent.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
No expectation of privacy.

It doesn't mean that if you and I step off to the side where no one else happens to be so we can discuss things privately that since we are still "in public" that I can record you with a hidden recorder without your permission.

I am thinking too that if you are recording a game you are using video which would be fairly obviously a recording device.

+1 That is exactly my understanding as well, I thought maybe Rapgood had another angle that I did not know about and I wanted to hear it if he did I am always up to learn something new. I see from his response to slapmonkey that he was only talking about a private conversation so we are all in agreement and on the same page.
 

skeith5

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Messages
356
Location
United States
I think the best response is, usually, a VERY large smile. It either makes them madder or defuses the situation pretty quickly.

I used to do that with my ex-wife when she would go into one of her rages... worked pretty effectively at ******* her off even more.
 
Top