Can they take your recorder away?

[eye95]

YOU are the once recording, not the officer. So it isnt "evidence" nor would it likely be admissable as such. A key factor many of you who advocate recording everything fail to grasp.
...

http://www.videoforensicexpert.com/.../original-digital-media-evidence-is-mandatory

Your link does not support the above contention. Also, it seems that, if you maintain the original recording on the original device, you don't have to jump through the hoops that you would if you tried to present a copy.

Don't forget the value of the recording in the media and also at a civil trial that goes after the perpetrators of a color-of-law crime.

 

[RR_Broccoli]

The odds of any one of us getting a recording, our recording, to initiate criminal proceedings against a LEO who has violated our rights and the law is microscopically small.

The odds that our recording will initiate a change in that LEOs department are far more likely. In a civil suit the odds that a payday for us is also increased. Recordings of encounters most likely will not lead to a courtroom but more likely a cash settlement. LE certainly does not want case law on the books piling up regarding amateur recordings used against ill-informed and/or under trained officers.

If you are involved in a negative encounter and have a recording that supports your "side of the story" and disproves the LEOs side of the story always get a formal letter that includes an admission of "wrong doing" and the corrective action to mitigate any future issues by the identified LEA, or you will proceed to a civil trial, if you have the money and time that is. If you don't, take the offered money, if any and run down to the nearest spy camera store and get a better recording device. Get a couple of them in case one is confiscated.

Right. A self-made recording gives the choice to the LEOs that would ordinarily close ranks into the thing blue line;

- look like idiotic thugs to the media and public

or

- do the right thing and fix the rogue LEO problem

True, it may not keep charges from happening, and it may "disappear", however a recording you don't make sure can't help you either.

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. LEOs that don't like recording are automatically bad, automatically corrupt. The logic is impeccable.

 

[SavageOne]

Interesting responses. I am still wondering about if the officer separates you from your recorder? If they place a distance between it and what it's suppose to be recording, won't they defeat the purpose of carrying it?

 

[j4l]

If he says anything at all, once he is aware he is being recorded..

 

[HandyHamlet]

Seriously.

Have you ever seen a video or heard a recording where the Cops shut up once they realize they are being recorded? EVER?

They don't care WHAT they do. Even when they know they are being recorded by their own cameras. But everyone with internet on the entire planet knows this... Because the videos and records are there for everyone to witness. On those whiny hippy sites.

 

[HandyHamlet]

Here's a perfect example of why your recorder should never leave your side. It's not just your 2a rights that are under siege. Your 1st and 4th no longer matter.

Taken from one of those "whiny photography"* sites. Pay particular attention as the offending Officer gives not one flying f*ck that he is being recorded as he blatantly breaks the law.

http://www.pixiq.com/article/west-virginia-cop-overreacts-to-guys-question-video




* j4l

 

[HandyHamlet]

Always record. Always.

Whether it has happened yet, or not, at some point,when/if these types of things become more frequent, you can probably bank on most LE dept.'s and FOP organizations looking at how to counter such things....

Once that vid gets up-loaded, congrats,genius, you've just opened the door to some Federal charges against you as well,if it is determined that said video was less than legal (ie: consent of both parties in places that require it).

Guess not.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/arizona-police-officer-body-slams-drunk-teen-girl/story?id=13545127

A YouTube video captured the Jan. 25 arrest on camera, but police didn't become aware of the video until this Tuesday. Someone in the police department saw the video and reported it.

"That type of video is very concerning to us," said Phoenix police Sgt. Trent Crump at a press conference Thursday. "What you see in the video is of great concern to the Phoenix Police Department about how a member of this community was treated."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOvncjLzPLo

 

[carry for myself]

simple answer. screw the recorder. use a cell phone. call your voicemail. leave yourself a message ;-) cant alter a voicemail message on a cellphone server now can you? and what cop is going to wonder if your calling yourself :-D

that way when you get to court, present your phone as evidence, press and hold 1 , call your voicemail, throw it on speakerphone and put it up to the microphone...........then watch the cop cry haha

also the use of a bluetooh headset is great, will record everything you say, and everything he says, even if he searches you and places your phone elsewhere, they transmit like 35-50 feet. so your covered there too

 

[eye95]

I think "can" is the wrong way to look at this...."will" they take it away is a better question. Typically, I think the answer is no. If they do, it is all on them if you take precautions to ensure any data recorded is "off-site" so to speak during the encounter.

That an officer has seized a recording will militate against him and for the citizen when their conflicting stories are told in court.

 

[eye95]

+1....though, I think that the officers history in front of a judge/PA as to his credibility will have some bearing on a he said/he said situation. A judge/PA would not know me from Adam.

That is true. However, if the officer is one who would steal a recording and keep it out of court, he likely has a history already with the judge that would not attract the moniker "honest."

 

[SavageOne]

That is true. However, if the officer is one who would steal a recording and keep it out of court, he likely has a history already with the judge that would not attract the moniker "honest."

The main point I was wondering about isn't if the officer makes the recording disappear, though a valid concern. My point was can a LEO put enough distance between you and your recorder to in effect render it useless? If he searches me for officer safety and removes my recorder and places it on the hood of my car and then walks me back to the rear of his, it is very possible that the mic on my recorder won't pick up what is said. I was wondering if I can demand my property be put back on my person immediately, after it has been proven not to be a safety issue for the officer, or can they simply return it at the end of the stop?

 

[eye95]

The main point I was wondering about isn't if the officer makes the recording disappear, though a valid concern. My point was can a LEO put enough distance between you and your recorder to in effect render it useless? If he searches me for officer safety and removes my recorder and places it on the hood of my car and then walks me back to the rear of his, it is very possible that the mic on my recorder won't pick up what is said. I was wondering if I can demand my property be put back on my person immediately, after it has been proven not to be a safety issue for the officer, or can they simply return it at the end of the stop?

Searches for "officer safety" are limited to weapons. If he removes the recorder, that will be evident on the recorder, and will establish that the officer conducted a search and seizure that did not fall under the "officer safety" exception.

 

[Gunslinger]

I will go out on a limb and say any regular visitor to this forum knows that it is a good idea to carry a voice or video recorder with you when you OC. There are more and more examples showing up, of the logic of this, the recording from Philly only one. I must therefore wonder if as more and more people carry recorders, if LEO's, the majority of whom I have great respect for, will start trying different tactics to prevent a record of their interactions. I would say the easiest would be to simply turn of the recorder, but another I think would be to simply move the recorder away from the area and thus diminish or obscure the interaction.

My questions then are, is it legal for a LEO to turn off a recorder and if while searching you for say "officer safety" could they place your recorder on the hood and take you back for questioning at the back of their car? Does anyone know if one can ask that their property be returned to their pockets once it's determined that it poses no danger, or must they wait till the end of the detention?

Under Terry, he may pat you down but cannot touch or remove anything which is not a weapon, period. He may not touch your wallet, your Mt Blanc fountain pen or your recorder. If he were to take it out, once identified as not being a weapon or concern for the BS 'officer safety,' he must return it. If not, he violates your 4A rights. If it is not unlawful in your state to record, you may continue to do so. If he turns it off, turn it back on.

 

[Yard Sale]

My point was can a LEO put enough distance between you and your recorder to in effect render it useless? If he searches me for officer safety and removes my recorder and places it on the hood of my car and then walks me back to the rear of his, it is very possible that the mic on my recorder won't pick up what is said. I was wondering if I can demand my property be put back on my person immediately, after it has been proven not to be a safety issue for the officer, or can they simply return it at the end of the stop?

Yes they can render it useless. Yes you can demand anything. They can return it now, later, or never. For example...

Me: Please put my property back in my pocket.
Police: No, I can't do that.

He moved the recorder to another location and later turned it off. Thus it did not record very interesting things said by him and others.

 

[BaconMan]

Yes they can render it useless. Yes you can demand anything. They can return it now, later, or never. For example...

Me: Please put my property back in my pocket.
Police: No, I can't do that.

He moved the recorder to another location and later turned it off. Thus it did not record very interesting things said by him and others.

Yard Sale, hit the nail on the head....if a recording device is seperated from a person the officer will just say they did not want your battery to die and shut it off. Cell phones are easily stopped by telling a person, who has been detained, they need to get off the phone and speak with you. If a person, who is detained, refuses to hang up the phone, the officer will hang the phone up for them. Anyone being detained, must comply with a lawful order, if they do not.....

The best thing to say is "Sir or Ma'am, I am recording this encounter and please do not shut it off." You have a 50-50 shot from that point forward. Officers who do not care will leave it running, some do not like video and will shut it down.

 

[eye95]

Yard Sale, hit the nail on the head....if a recording device is seperated from a person the officer will just say they did not want your battery to die and shut it off. Cell phones are easily stopped by telling a person, who has been detained, they need to get off the phone and speak with you. If a person, who is detained, refuses to hang up the phone, the officer will hang the phone up for them. Anyone being detained, must comply with a lawful order, if they do not.....

The best thing to say is "Sir or Ma'am, I am recording this encounter and please do not shut it off." You have a 50-50 shot from that point forward. Officers who do not care will leave it running, some do not like video and will shut it down.

And in whom do you think a reasonable judge or jury will place more credit? The person who tried to make a record of the encounter? Or the person who tried to prevent a record from being kept?

 

[since9]

Yeah, they can take my recorder away. That's ok, though, as I still have a harmonica. :banana:

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

Unfortunately, Illinois is one of several "all parties consent" states and to audio record yourself and the officer is a violation of the state's wiretap laws and is a felony charge!

Just one more reason NOT to go to Illinois.:cuss:

 

[eye95]

Unfortunately, Illinois is one of several "all parties consent" states and to audio record yourself and the officer is a violation of the state's wiretap laws and is a felony charge!

I don't know IL law, but I recommend that you check to see if the consent law applies only to "private conversations." If it does, then it can be argued, as it has successfully been in MD, that the official conversation between an officer and a citizen is not private, carries no expectation of privacy, and may be recorded at will by anyone.

 

[gravedigger]

Please tell me the makes and models of voice recorders that require a PIN to unlock before shutting off! I'd love to get some of them.