TheQ
Regular Member
From Gongwer (Don't look for it unless you're a subscriber, I'm claiming fair use for this post):
If the Court sides with the City officials, what impact might this have on taping the Police against their consent? How about helmets, hats, and sunglasses with hidden cameras?
The eavesdropping case, Bowens v. ARY (SC docket No. 140296) will be heard on Wednesday, and involves a concert given in Detroit in 2000 by the rap stars Dr. Dre, Eminem and others. At the time, Greg Bowens, then press secretary to former Mayor Dennis Archer, and two city police officials met with concert promoters at the Joe Louis Arena to express their worries about an allegedly sexually explicit video that would be shown as part of the concert. During the meeting, they insisted the discussion not be taped. But the promoters did tape the meeting and it became part of a DVD of the concert tour.
Mr. Bowens and others sued, alleging a violation of the state's eavesdropping laws along with violation of privacy. The trial court ruled for the defendants but a split Court of Appeals decision ruled for the plaintiffs.
If the Court sides with the City officials, what impact might this have on taping the Police against their consent? How about helmets, hats, and sunglasses with hidden cameras?