Potentially Alarming Michigan Supreme Court Case

From Gongwer (Don't look for it unless you're a subscriber, I'm claiming fair use for this post):

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.

Click to expand...

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 city should win this hands down. There was an explicit agreement of privacy and there was an effort to make it appear there was privacy. Why is this so complicated? Did you read the details? The meeting agreed to as "private" was in a room guarded by guards and people were kept out of the meeting to assure this agreed upon privacy.

This thread is a joke and is pointless.

And your comment "(Don't look for it unless you're a subscriber, I'm claiming fair use for this post)" I don't get, the court information is public information.

To assume, or imply this has anything to do with recording Police or Public officials in public is disingenuous in the least and careless at best. It frustrates me that I now am placed in agreement with the City of Detroit, as this is a first. But to agree to something in total then seconds later violate this agreement is disgusting and I hope they pay and pay and pay.

TheQ said:

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?

Click to expand...

My issue is I'm not sure what business it was of the DPD to discuss what should or shouldn't be shown. That is up to the promoters. If in fact the promoters did violate some law, Then the police can proceed as needed. The DPD and the city are not the Morality Police.

Akin to some LEOs talking with an OCer about how they shouldn't OC because it may be offensive, etc...

if the promoter was a party to the conversation, then he did not need consent. if the person who was recording was NOT a party to the conversation, then they needed the consent of ALL parties involved. this will be a cut and dry case based on well established michigan case law. this dead horse has been beaten repeatedly but here it is again:

Michigan Wiretapping Law
Michigan law makes it a crime to "use[] any device to eavesdrop upon [a] conversation without the consent of all parties." Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c. This looks like an "all party consent" law, but one Michigan Court has ruled that a participant in a private conversation may record it without violating the statute because the statutory term "eavesdrop" refers only to overhearing or recording the private conversations of others. See Sullivan v. Gray, 342 N.W. 2d 58, 60-61 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).

I think Bailenforcer is correct in regards to the issue (expectation of privacy) and the potential for this outcome to affect the recording of LEOs and other officials; it should have no effect. The Court is looking at whether the people who were recorded had an "expectation of privacy". It would appear that the officials did have that expectation and this was understood by all involved at the time of the meeting. Leos have no expectation of privacy when they are stopping an OCer, nor do public officials have such an expectation when holding public meetings.

i see what you're saying drtodd, but unless i'm reading it wrong, i think sullivan v gray was about a case of recording where there was an expectation of privacy. this may very well not apply to this case at all if a non-participant recorded the conversation in detroit. here is a full copy of the description of the decision:
http://www.dadsnow.org/legal/sullivan.pdf

smellslikemichigan said:

i see what you're saying drtodd, but unless i'm reading it wrong, i think sullivan v gray was about a case of recording where there was an expectation of privacy. this may very well not apply to this case at all if a non-participant recorded the conversation in detroit. here is a full copy of the description of the decision:
http://www.dadsnow.org/legal/sullivan.pdf

Click to expand...

I was not talking about the potential decision in this case... I don't really care. The point I was trying to make was that the outcome of this case, whichever way it would go, would have little to no effect on the taping of LEOs while they are stopping an OCer. As I read the case above, the issue is as you stated.

Eminem rocks !!! stop the censorshit. =D

At least one person is paying attention. Exactly and Thank You Dr. Todd.

Any agreement must be honored or society will collapse in Chaos. There was an AGREED upon privacy arrangement and the defendant breached this agreement and engaged in deceit and was blatantly dishonest. There was no legal reasons to enter into this agreement yet the defendant did so willingly and even provided security to enforce this agreement. Yet all the while planned to breach the implied and agreed upon contract of privacy. Then the defendant went way beyond a breach of contract and used the recording of this "private" meeting in such a disgusting commercial manner as to not only violate the agreement but to exploit the situation as well. Now many may not know this, but the commercial use of such a recording beyond news or informational, or teaching/learning footage for a profit oriented use also requires a signed model release form from all parties.

Now frankly I would have never entered into any such agreement PERIOD!

Those who want to belabor the City's rights to ask for the non-use of pornography at the concert they might want to rethink their position. The use of any Pornographic images in display in front of minors is in fact illegal Period. I wonder if anyone other than DR Todd actually read any of this... The showing of explicit pornographic anything is not only a violation of City, State, but also FEDERAL Laws because minors are present at these concerts. So the City has full legal right to express their concerns, and not be recorded as agreed upon. This case has absolutely NOTHING to do with recording public officials and employees in public.

If we are to be taken seriously here as a group, we had better start acting like reasoned responsible adults who can discern differences. One must use reason and logic or one will be relegated to the intellectual ash heap of history. Does anyone realize yet that others who do not share our views are reading some of these idiotic position posts?

DrTodd said:

I think Bailenforcer is correct in regards to the issue (expectation of privacy) and the potential for this outcome to affect the recording of LEOs and other officials; it should have no effect. The Court is looking at whether the people who were recorded had an "expectation of privacy". It would appear that the officials did have that expectation and this was understood by all involved at the time of the meeting. Leos have no expectation of privacy when they are stopping an OCer, nor do public officials have such an expectation when holding public meetings.

Click to expand...

WoW! coming from a Christian with a young child, how do you argue against the City's position that Pornography should not be shown in a venue that invites minors as a rule? There is NO censorship here, and in fact as I expressed previously this is a rare time that I agree with the City. Your Idol Marshall Mathers was an idiot when he lived a half a block from my house before he gained any fame and still is today, the only difference is he has perfected his idiocy.

stainless1911 said:

Eminem rocks !!! stop the censorshit. =D

Click to expand...

Wrong! Dead wrong!

There was a CONTRACT involved here a contract agreed upon for privacy. The defendant even provided armed guards as a show of faith in this privacy agreement. The one case has ZERO to do with this case. This case not only was there an expectation of privacy, but it was contractually guaranteed.

People need to stop reacting to stimulus like some rabid unreasoned animal and think things through.

smellslikemichigan said:

if the promoter was a party to the conversation, then he did not need consent. if the person who was recording was NOT a party to the conversation, then they needed the consent of ALL parties involved. this will be a cut and dry case based on well established michigan case law. this dead horse has been beaten repeatedly but here it is again:

Michigan Wiretapping Law
Michigan law makes it a crime to "use[] any device to eavesdrop upon [a] conversation without the consent of all parties." Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c. This looks like an "all party consent" law, but one Michigan Court has ruled that a participant in a private conversation may record it without violating the statute because the statutory term "eavesdrop" refers only to overhearing or recording the private conversations of others. See Sullivan v. Gray, 342 N.W. 2d 58, 60-61 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).

Click to expand...

Bailenforcer said:

Wrong! Dead wrong!

There was a CONTRACT involved here a contract agreed upon for privacy. The defendant even provided armed guards as a show of faith in this privacy agreement. The one case has ZERO to do with this case. This case not only was there an expectation of privacy, but it was contractually guaranteed.

People need to stop reacting to stimulus like some rabid unreasoned animal and think things through.

Click to expand...

Bail is correct, IMHO. Although the issue SEEMINGLY centered on the eavesdropping statute because of the earlier case... it soon morphed into the issue of a "contract" (the stated desire by the officials to have the meeting take place w/out it being recorded,) the defendants agreed, and the meeting took place. Later, unbeknownst to the city officials, the meeting was video recorded (and placed on a "Rap DVD"). The agreement/"contract" was "No Taping", all participants agreed and showed various indices of agreement, and then one party reneged. No effect on taping LEOs in the performance of their duties... As a side-note, I'm with Bailenforcer on this one, I wouldn't have agreed to the "no taping" requirement either.... but I fault the defendants because what they did was duplicitous, to say the least.

Bailenforcer said:

WoW! coming from a Christian with a young child, how do you argue against the City's position that Pornography should not be shown in a venue that invites minors as a rule? There is NO censorship here, and in fact as I expressed previously this is a rare time that I agree with the City. Your Idol Marshall Mathers was an idiot when he lived a half a block from my house before he gained any fame and still is today, the only difference is he has perfected his idiocy.

Click to expand...

Oh no, that evil pornography! I swear the religious crap in the michigan section is getting so old, I wish you bible thumpers would take that crap somewhere else instead of bringing up your religion in every other thread. This is a forum for open carry, not open preaching.

Thou fool.

Where was I preaching? Where did I inject religion in the subject matter?

What I did is point out his inconsistent and potentially hypocritical thought processes. No where was religion or bible thumping involved. I get sick of you atheists who bring religion in the thread as you just did. My pointing out someones contradictions is not religion. Nice try but you failed, and your Bigotry is now showing again. Oh and where is it being brought up in half the threads? Liars are not very nice people.

detroit_fan said:

Oh no, that evil pornography! I swear the religious crap in the michigan section is getting so old, I wish you bible thumpers would take that crap somewhere else instead of bringing up your religion in every other thread. This is a forum for open carry, not open preaching.

Click to expand...

So you go on the record supporting porn for children?

detroit_fan said:

Oh no, that evil pornography! I swear the religious crap in the michigan section is getting so old, I wish you bible thumpers would take that crap somewhere else instead of bringing up your religion in every other thread. This is a forum for open carry, not open preaching.

Click to expand...

Bailenforcer said:

Thou fool.

Where was I preaching? Where did I inject religion in the subject matter?

What I did is point out his inconsistent and potentially hypocritical thought processes. No where was religion or bible thumping involved. I get sick of you atheists who bring religion in the thread as you just did. My pointing out someones contradictions is not religion. Nice try but you failed, and your Bigotry is now showing again. Oh and where is it being brought up in half the threads? Liars are not very nice people.

Click to expand...

Well you kinda did. with this...

"WoW! coming from a Christian with a young child, how do you argue against the City's position that Pornography should not be shown in a venue that invites minors as a rule? "

Bailenforcer said:

So you go on the record supporting porn for children?

Click to expand...

Quite a jump, and smells of attacking the man. Just saying.

Um NO I merely pointed out he is being a hypocrite PERIOD! So unless I tell him why he is being so he would not know, correct?

Venator said:

Well you kinda did. with this...

"WoW! coming from a Christian with a young child, how do you argue against the City's position that Pornography should not be shown in a venue that invites minors as a rule? "

Click to expand...

Oh for..... :banghead:

Is it possible to have a conversation without folks interjecting completely unrelated crap into it? From either side?

Seems to me we were talking about the legality, or illegality, of a recording.... the legality/illegality of how it was used is a separate issue.

Religion, or lack thereof, is a personal thing... can we keep it there?

Now you are being quite biased here. He attacked me and I merely pointed out his inconsistencies. here read it again and quit being biased please. My point was CLEARLY that Porn is unfit for children and his reply was to ridicule that point so what would any rational person assume from his knee jerk attack to that point? Do you think Porn shown to children is fine? I do not and I think it is criminal and in fact it is. That was clearly what I wrote and he had contention with, along with my mentioning Stainless1911 calling himself Christian and defending those who show pornography to minors. Where is my inconsistency? His inconsistency is showing for the whole world to see, and it is caused by his irrational hatred towards Christians. When one wallows in his own bigotry he often shows his hatred despite his best efforts to hide it.

"Oh no, that evil pornography! I swear the religious crap in the michigan section is getting so old, I wish you bible thumpers would take that crap somewhere else instead of bringing up your religion in every other thread. This is a forum for open carry, not open preaching."

Venator said:

Quite a jump, and smells of attacking the man. Just saying.

Click to expand...