Videotaping Police = Felony?


PDA






Flyboy
June 12, 2007, 08:08 PM
Summary: 18-year-old charged with felony wiretapping for videotaping police in the performance of their duties.
Video recording leads to felony charge
Posted by Matt Miller/The Patriot-News June 11, 2007 08:51AM
Categories: Courts, Crime, Cumberland County, Midstate

Brian D. Kelly didn't think he was doing anything illegal when he used his videocamera to record a Carlisle police officer during a traffic stop. Making movies is one of his hobbies, he said, and the stop was just another interesting event to film.

Now he's worried about going to prison or being burdened with a criminal record.

Kelly, 18, of Carlisle, was arrested on a felony wiretapping charge, with a penalty of up to 7 years in state prison.

His camera and film were seized by police during the May 24 stop, he said, and he spent 26 hours in Cumberland County Prison until his mother posted her house as security for his $2,500 bail.

Kelly is charged under a state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent.

The criminal case relates to the sound, not the pictures, that his camera picked up.

"I didn't think I could get in trouble for that," Kelly said. "I screwed up, yeah. I know now that I can't do that. I just don't see how something like this should affect my entire life."

Whether that will happen could be determined during Kelly's preliminary hearing before District Judge Jessica Brewbaker in July.

No one seems intent on punishing him harshly.

"Obviously, ignorance of the law is no defense," District Attorney David Freed said. "But often these cases come down to questions of intent."

According to police, Kelly was riding in a pickup truck that had been stopped for alleged traffic violations.

Police said the officer saw Kelly had a camera in his lap, aimed at him and was concealing it with his hands. They said Kelly was arrested after he obeyed an order to turn the camera off and hand it over.

The wiretap charge was filed after consultation with a deputy district attorney, police said.

Kelly said his friend was cited for speeding and because his truck's bumper was too low. He said he held the camera in plain view and turned it on when the officer yelled at his pal.

After about 20 minutes, the officer cited the driver on the traffic charges and told the men they were being recorded by a camera in his cruiser, Kelly said.

"He said, 'Young man, turn off your ... camera,'" Kelly said. "I turned it off and handed it to him. ... Six or seven more cops pulled up, and they arrested me."

Police also took film from his pockets that wasn't related to the traffic stop, he said.

Freed said his office has handled other wiretapping cases, some involving ex-lovers or divorcing couples who are trying to record former partners doing something improper for leverage in court battles, he said.

Such charges have been dismissed or defendants have been allowed to plead to lesser counts or enter a program to avoid criminal records, he said.

The outcome hinges on whether the person had a malicious intent, Freed said.

Carlisle Police Chief Stephen Margeson said allowing Kelly to plead to a lesser charge might be proper.

"I don't think that would cause anyone any heartburn," he said. "I don't believe there was any underlying criminal intent here."

But Margeson said he doesn't regard the filing of the felony charge as unwarranted and said the officer followed procedures.

John Mancke, a Harrisburg defense attorney familiar with the wiretapping law, said the facts, as related by police, indicate Kelly might have violated the law.

"If he had the sound on, he has a problem," Mancke said.

Last year, Mancke defended a North Middleton Twp. man in a street racing case that involved a wiretapping charge. Police claimed the man ordered associates to tape police breaking up an illegal race after officers told him to turn off their cameras.

That wiretapping count was dismissed when the man pleaded guilty to charges of illegal racing, defiant trespass and obstruction of justice. He was sentenced to probation.

An exception to the wiretapping law allows police to film people during traffic stops, Mancke said.

Margeson said his department's cruisers are equipped with cameras, and officers are told to inform people during incidents that they are being recorded.

First Assistant District Attorney Jaime Keating said case law is in flux as to whether police can expect not to be recorded while performing their duties.

"The law isn't solid," Keating said. "But people who do things like this do so at their own peril."

Kelly said he has called the American Civil Liberties Union for help in the case.

His father, Chris, said he's backing his son.

"We're hoping for a just resolution," he said.

So, in no particular order:
1) The state allows officers to record, but not private citizens; in other words, the state wants to be the sole source of evidence.
2) The kid was in the truck--doesn't that make him a party to the traffic stop? Is Pennsylvania a single-party consent state, or do they require the consent of all parties?
3) This wasn't a private conversation--don't most prosecutors argue the "expectation of privacy?" Where's the expectation, if the cop didn't remove the kid from earshot?
4) It's a felony to record an officer of the government in the performance of his duties! Not just a crime--which would be bad enough--but a felony! Think on that one for a minute.

Furrfu.

(Story from http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews/2007/06/brian_d_kelly_didnt_think.html)

If you enjoyed reading about "Videotaping Police = Felony?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
hrgrisso
June 12, 2007, 08:13 PM
Can you provide original source please? Interesting case, thanks!

Frog48
June 12, 2007, 08:18 PM
Its a "cover your arse" strategy by the state. They figure that if they make taping an officer's duties against the law, it would make such videotapes inadmissible in court should a Rodney King type situation arise in the future.

pacodelahoya
June 12, 2007, 08:18 PM
Pa is an all parties consent. I found that out when I asked my Township why they didn't tape the council meetings since the minutes were not accurate and damn near fraudulent. Shortly thereafter, two police came to my house inquiring into bogus zoning violations. I turned the videotape on them and asked for a warrant. I didn't get arrested but I didn't make any pals that day!:evil:

Grant, maybe you need to update your reference material, the government hasn't been working for the people since oh I dunno, 1800 and something or another.:banghead:

Blakenzy
June 12, 2007, 08:19 PM
How the hell is videotaping someone in a public place considered "wiretapping"?

I thought the whole concept of wiretapping was gaining access to a private communication line/system through obscure means with the intent to gather information, without permision, of one or both parties involved in the communication.

I am definitely missing something here...

Flyboy
June 12, 2007, 08:21 PM
Can you provide original source please? Interesting case, thanks!
D'oh! Can't believe I forgot it--I got it from a Slashdot story (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/12/2050212), but the original source is http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews/2007/06/brian_d_kelly_didnt_think.html. I'll also add it to the original post.

Kali Endgame
June 12, 2007, 08:49 PM
What a strange story. How about all those tourists that wander around with the cameras? Media? Do you have to have a special permit to record people? I thought there was a ruling a few years ago, where it was ruled that outside your home you are fair game for recording.

ArfinGreebly
June 12, 2007, 09:09 PM
Yo, El T, can we get some input on this?

Y'know, like something legal sounding?

Wiretapping? With a camera?

Sounds like a real stretch.

griz
June 12, 2007, 09:16 PM
An exception to the wiretapping law allows police to film people during traffic stops, Mancke said.


Why? Wouldn't the people in the vehicle during the traffic stop have just as much use of an accurate record of the event? Unless the intrests of the public are not what is being protected by this law.

Also, they talked about intent as being a condition of the crime. What is the malicious intent that this guy had in taping the stop?

And as mentioned already, how do TV news people record crowd scenes and other events where it isn't practical to get everybodies consent?

det.pat
June 12, 2007, 09:26 PM
in pa you must the consent of all parties to the conversation. if you want to legally record, then you disable the audio input. working as a PI in PA i always disable the video on my camcorders, then i don't have to worry about what i may pickup if the subject gets too close to my camera.

his problem was having an active audio pickup and covering the camera. i have recorded officers in the past and made it plain that the audio was disabled, they didn't like but couldn't do anything when i declined to turn the camera off.

pat

Autolycus
June 12, 2007, 09:51 PM
That is a good point about why the officers have the right to record while the lowly serfs are not allowed to.

As public servants we should be able to record their actions and make sure they behave in a legal manner. I dont understand why the law allows some people to make exceptions while denying others the same rights.

Kentak
June 12, 2007, 09:55 PM
This totally stinks. It should be legal for citizens to record, with audio or video, LEO's, or any other public officials, engaged in their official activity--as long it does not interfere with that activity and the person recording has a right to be there. I see no compelling reason to have to ask for permission or give notice, either. This is a totally different situation from, for example, recording a phone conversation between two private individuals who have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I've no problem with a law covering that.

If I'm pulled over, and I've got one of those little digital recorders stuck in my shirt pocket, I should be able to turn it on and record my conversation with the LEO, whether or not he is aware of it. Why? To protect my rights in a "He said/She said" kind of situation.

This is the kind of issue I'd like to see the ACLU get involved in.

K

Mumwaldee
June 12, 2007, 10:01 PM
Wasn't there a couple of similar stories here lately. One was the guy who was audio taping the police in Cali I think because he was being harassed and stopped on a daily basis...charged with wiretapping....and the other one was the guy asking for the LEO's name after video taping a stop and then got tossed in the clink for a night or two and came away with 8500 bucks for his trouble thanks to the ACLU?

This is totally outrageous...I myself am thinking of carrying a cam-corder full time in my car and if I get stopped the first words out of my mouth will be "you don't mind if I record this do you?"

Hypnogator
June 12, 2007, 10:04 PM
FWIW, it's against Federal law to record a conversation between two or more people without either (1) a warrant, or (2) the consent of at least one party to the conversation. Many truck drivers carry "dispatch buster" tape recorders that they use to tape record conversations between themselves and their dispatchers, so if they wind up at the wrong place and their company tries to dock their pay, they can prove they were sent to the wrong place. This is legal under Federal law. However, some states, apparently including PA, have statutes, that prohibit recording conversations unless all parties to the conversation consent. That's what got the kid in trouble. The video tape would have been legal, had the camera not recorded the officer's voice as well as image.

gc70
June 12, 2007, 10:15 PM
This article (http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/crime.aspx?id=199) from the website of Pennsylvania's Attorney General is interesting.

The general rule in Pennsylvania is that electronic surveillance is illegal. For the purposes of this article, "electronic surveillance" shall include ... oral (face-to-face conversations where there is an expectation of privacy/non-interruption) ... communications. This general rule, and certain limited exceptions thereto, appear in Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa. C.S. 5701, et seq.

There are certain limited exceptions to the general prohibition against electronic surveillance. The exceptions exist for ... law enforcement in the furtherance of criminal investigative activities.

As to the law enforcement exception -- interceptions can only be undertaken in the furtherance of a criminal investigation. Further, the police do not have an unfettered ability to do interceptions. Their authority is tempered in situations where one of the parties (a LEO?) has consented to law enforcement's eavesdropping by the fact that they must get the prior approval of a designated prosecutor.

The majority of the Act is devoted to the law enforcement exception. In that regard, the Act provides law enforcement with five investigative techniques: 1) consensual interception of electronic, oral or wire communications (where one of the parties to the communication is aware of, and has consented to law enforcement's electronic eavesdropping);

As to 1), consensuals -- the technique must receive the prior approval of the District Attorney, Attorney General or an Assistant DA/Deputy AG before being undertaken.

In summary, Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act is all about privacy -- the expectation of privacy we have in our communications.

Despite the 'limiting' language and the claim the law is "all about privacy," I would bet that law enforcement officers have standing 'prior approval' for cameras in their cruisers.

Jeff White
June 12, 2007, 10:15 PM
There is a confusing maze of laws regarding the recording of conversations. And most of the laws that require consent of both parties to record a conversation came about because elected officials were the ones being burned.

When video was first available in squad cars we had to turn the microphones off in Illinois because the law required knowledge and consent of all parties to a conversation. The laws has since been changed and we can record audio as well as video on traffic stops in Illinois now.

It's always a good idea to check the local laws before you break out your tape recorder.

Jeff

Titan6
June 12, 2007, 10:41 PM
In Texas you can record phone calls with single party consent. IOW you can tape a conversation you are a party to so long as the conversation takes place within Texas. Some states require both parties.

I would think that police actions would be a matter of public record and therefore fair game but I am no lawyer. Sounds like a job for the ACLU.

Caimlas
June 12, 2007, 11:59 PM
4) It's a felony to record an officer of the government in the performance of his duties! Not just a crime--which would be bad enough--but a felony! Think on that one for a minute.

Is that so? How could that be? I mean, cops have cameras in their cars, so they're recording a cop every time he makes a traffic stop. Why aren't they being prosecuted for it, then? Ohhh wait.

WHAT BS.

Geno
June 13, 2007, 12:10 AM
Thank God for Michigan's common sense. I can record anyone via audio or video anytime so long as at least one person in the room, or on the line is aware that a recording is being generated. Let me tell you, I am a very strong advocate of recordings! So many people lie unless they are on recording. Videos are best, but I'll settle for audio. When I was an administrator, I made numerous recordings.

We need consistent nation-wide laws. There are too many variances between Michigan, or any other state. That is wrong. If a cop can record me, by cracky I can record them, and I will. I also say every car, truck, ect made in America should have video/audio. It would cut down on lawsuits from accidents, and keep a lot of people from being needlessly arrested. JMHO.

Doc2005

deanf
June 13, 2007, 02:19 AM
We need consistent nation-wide laws.

And where would the authority for these nation-wide (federal) laws come from? 'cause it doesn't exist now.

Molon Labe
June 13, 2007, 07:22 AM
We need consistent nation-wide laws.
No! The powers & responsibilities of the federal government are very limited. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the federal government the authority to make laws with regard to surveillance & recording devices.

DigitalWarrior
June 13, 2007, 08:00 AM
But cameras have "value" in multiple states, making it interstate commerce...

While I do not believe it, the court has rules that way.

griz
June 13, 2007, 08:59 AM
The general rule in Pennsylvania is that electronic surveillance is illegal. For the purposes of this article, "electronic surveillance" shall include ... oral (face-to-face conversations where there is an expectation of privacy/non-interruption) ... communications. This general rule, and certain limited exceptions thereto, appear in Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa. C.S. 5701, et seq.

IANAL, but it seems to me that a traffic stop would be a fine example of a conversation with no expectation of privacy at all. Given that, I still don't see why this guy was charged.

Henry Bowman
June 13, 2007, 09:11 AM
In Texas you can record phone calls with single party consent. IOW you can tape a conversation you are a party to so long as the conversation takes place within Texas. Some states require both parties. Despite the common understanding on the Internet that the law in Texas is the law everywhere... :rolleyes:

Taping a phone conversation without the consent of all parties, even if all parties are in the same state, violates federal law, which covers all telephonic communications.

El Tejon
June 13, 2007, 09:12 AM
Arfin, it is "wiretapping" because that's what section of the criminal statutes that the Oklahoma legislature stuck the section under. The legislature can call it anything they want.

Henry, you mean to tell me Texas is NOT the United States. Doesn't Texas have a double secret King's X, secret squirrel hidden loophole clause in their state constitution that federal law does not apply to Texas? "You can in Texas.":D

brickeyee
June 13, 2007, 09:28 AM
PA needs to have its law challenged on the expectation of privacy.
There is NO expectation of privacy in a public location like the street.

ilbob
June 13, 2007, 09:40 AM
IANAL, but it seems to me that a traffic stop would be a fine example of a conversation with no expectation of privacy at all. Given that, I still don't see why this guy was charged.

He was charged because the cops did something wrong and he caught them on tape. that is typical of what happens to citizens who report on LE misconduct. note that the cops stole his film as well. no way there was audio on the film.

Must be exemptions for every sporting event too, since there are video cameras rolling and recording audio. just another example of how far we as mere taxpaying citizens have fallen in the hierarchy.

I went to a kids football game last year to watch some of my wife's relatives play. Must have been 20 people videotaping at least some of the action. Bet they all had their audio on. I think Illinois is an all parties state. I guess all 20 of us are criminals.

OAKTOWN
June 13, 2007, 10:33 AM
Why do I get the feeling this has very little to do with "the law". Seems to be just a reminder to the little people to know their place.

jselvy
June 13, 2007, 11:06 AM
We should know better by now than to expect accountability in our public servants.
Any measures that we may take to ensure this accountability will probably be frowned on to the tune of a bogus felony conviction.

Jefferson

Crunker1337
June 13, 2007, 12:32 PM
Methinks it should be illegal to record anything without consent IF it's going to be used for commercial or any other purposes that could conceivably give any impression of somone. For instance, if you're making a movie and a guy walks by and you accidentally record his face, you'd have to edit it out or blur it.

However, if you're going to use it as evidence of a crime or are NOT going to release it in any other way, then it should be legal under the 1st.

offthepaper
June 13, 2007, 01:09 PM
Griz
And as mentioned already, how do TV news people record crowd scenes and other events where it isn't practical to get everybodies consent?
-----------------------------------------

You know, I was wondering the same thing reading this BS.
I would think(I'm no legal expert, ask anyone) that a case like this comes down to "expected privacy".
As stated earlier, once you go out in public, that expectation melts quicker than a snowball in Manila. Seems like the cops really do want to present only their evidence.
Not that they would want or try to hide/cover up anything ;)

cassandrasdaddy
June 13, 2007, 02:02 PM
"Quote:
In Texas you can record phone calls with single party consent. IOW you can tape a conversation you are a party to so long as the conversation takes place within Texas. Some states require both parties.

Despite the common understanding on the Internet that the law in Texas is the law everywhere...

Taping a phone conversation without the consent of all parties, even if all parties are in the same state, violates federal law, which covers all telephonic communications.
__________________



you sure? we've had cases here that were public and no one prosecuted.

and didn't linda tripp get away with it?
does fed law cover an intrastate call? or does call have to cross a state line to go fed?:

cassandrasdaddy
June 13, 2007, 02:09 PM
"He was charged because the cops did something wrong and he caught them on tape. that is typical of what happens to citizens who report on LE misconduct. note that the cops stole his film as well. no way there was audio on the film."

what misconduct has been alleged here by anyone? anyone other than you i mean. you know someone who was actually there.

AZRickD
June 13, 2007, 02:23 PM
How cowardly would a garden-variety civil servant have to be to want to use a felony statute as a bar against citizens who want to record the misdeeds of said civil servants?

Rick

Whatsit
June 13, 2007, 02:57 PM
Beware the source; The Patriot-News is not known for their ability to report accurately nor for their love of the police.

I'd bet there's more to the story than is being reported.

Flyboy
June 13, 2007, 08:11 PM
Here's one for you:

If it's legal to video-record, but illegal to audio-record, is it legal to videotape without audio, then run the tape past somebody who can lip-read?

Mmmm, corner cases.

ptmmatssc
June 13, 2007, 09:42 PM
Taping a phone conversation without the consent of all parties, even if all parties are in the same state, violates federal law, which covers all telephonic communications.

Actually , interception of electronic/phone/etc conversations without ANY persons consent is illegal . Fed law deals with intercepting , not recording personal phone calls . States have the right to make law concerning intrastate communications , yet not interstate . That's where the feds have power . My state happens to have it so only one party needs to know the conversation etc is being recorded .

I'd like to see the federal law that prohibits me from recording my phone etc conversations , since I have looked and yet to find any .

http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.recordlaw.html

The federal law makes it unlawful to record telephone conversations except in one party consent cases which permit one party consent recording by state law. What that means is a person can record their own telephone conversations without the knowledge or consent of the other party in those states that allow one party consent.

In yet another case against ABC, a court ruled that police officers who were secretly videotaped while they were searching a car did not have a claim under New Jersey s wiretapping law. The officers had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation that occurred in a car on the shoulder of a busy highway, the New Jersey appeals court ruled. Moreover, police officers have a diminished expectation of privacy because they hold a position of trust. Thus, the taping, done for a show on racial profiling, was legal. (Hornberger v. ABC, Inc.)

pcosmar
June 13, 2007, 10:05 PM
Whatsit said,
Beware the source;
Especially the corporate news, they have been caught in lies before.
In fact it is often against their Corporate interest to report the truth of many stories.
The stockholders expect profits. Reporting the truth can be bad for the bottom line.

Aguila Blanca
June 13, 2007, 10:07 PM
FWIW, it's against Federal law to record a conversation between two or more people without either (1) a warrant, or (2) the consent of at least one party to the conversation.
I remember reading that law, because I wanted to compare it to my state's law. It seems I live in one of a very few states that require the consent of BOTH parties before you can record a conversation.

However, my recollection is that both the Federal law and my state's law specifically address telephone conversations, not live, in-the-real-world conversations.

^^ Looks like I goofed on that -- see below

Aguila Blanca
June 13, 2007, 10:15 PM
Despite the common understanding on the Internet that the law in Texas is the law everywhere...

Taping a phone conversation without the consent of all parties, even if all parties are in the same state, violates federal law, which covers all telephonic communications.
According to the U.S. Code, TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 119 > 2511

2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited

...

(2)(d)It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.

hawk84
June 13, 2007, 10:18 PM
two words

*Jury Nullification*, too bad bringing that up in court will get you cited for contempt

the government is out of order here

heron
June 13, 2007, 10:35 PM
FWIW, it's against Federal law to record a conversation between two or more people without either (1) a warrant, or (2) the consent of at least one party to the conversation.
Now, would someone please inform George Bush of this?

Geno
June 13, 2007, 11:19 PM
Re: the Federal whatever law applying nation-wide, I verified the legality of this prior to doing it. It is legal at least in Michigan.

It seems ironic that the gov't/police would claim illegality when they themselves claimed "...no such thing as the private public." Sorry, can't have it both ways. If they can tape me in public, I will tape them in public, every time I note illegal conduct.

jeepmor
June 13, 2007, 11:28 PM
out in public is out in public, get it. Why should "any" recordings in PUBLIC be considered private. That's the definition of public isn't it?

The lines between do as I say, not as I do, are becoming quite clear. I love what America stands for (as our founders intended) but I fear that our usurpations of said powers are long overdue, as Jefferson stated. LOOOOONG overdue.

GuyWithQuestions
June 14, 2007, 02:33 AM
I found an interesting article on recording of telephone conversations and recording people on tape from The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, backed up by references. Here's the link http://www.rcfp.org/taping/ click on "Consent and its Limits" then go to "Expectations of privacy" section and it will cite court cases dealing with this. Clicking on "Citations to cases in articles" will give you specific details for the references.

Expectations of privacy. The other issue that courts address in evaluating these cases is whether or not the plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area where the filming took place. In Desnick, the court held that the doctor did not have such an expectation of privacy in an area where he brought his patients.

A medical testing lab in Arizona sued ABC over another "Primetime Live" segment, which focused on error rates among laboratories that analyze women s Pap smears for cancer. Producers from ABC posed as lab technicians and filmed the inside of the lab with a hidden camera. The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco (9th Cir.) dismissed the lab s privacy claims of trespass and intrusion because the public importance of the story outweighed any privacy interests the lab could claim. The undercover journalists filmed portions of the lab that were open to the public and were escorted by the lab s owners into a conference room. The court said the lab and its workers did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, because the areas filmed were open to the journalists, and none of the discussions caught on tape were of a personal nature. (Medical Laboratory Management Consultants v. ABC, Inc.)

In yet another case against ABC, a court ruled that police officers who were secretly videotaped while they were searching a car did not have a claim under New Jersey s wiretapping law. The officers had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation that occurred in a car on the shoulder of a busy highway, the New Jersey appeals court ruled. Moreover, police officers have a diminished expectation of privacy because they hold a position of trust. Thus, the taping, done for a show on racial profiling, was legal. (Hornberger v. ABC, Inc.)

A Las Vegas animal trainer was secretly videotaped while physically abusing orangutans backstage at a show. The footage was later broadcast on "Entertainment Tonight," and the trainer sued for defamation, invasion of privacy and intrusion. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed a $3.1 million judgment awarded by the state district court, in part because the trainer did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the curtained-off area next to the stage. Furthermore, the court held that even if the trainer did have such an expectation, the invasionof his privacy was not "highly offensive." (PETA v. Bobby Berosini, Ltd.)

Filming individuals in their home is always a more risky venture. In a Minnesota case, a veterinarian making a house call obtained permission to bring a student with him, but failed to inform the homeowners that the student was an employee of a television station. The student surreptitiously videotaped the doctor s treatment of the family cat in their home. The state Court of Appeals upheld the trespass claim because, unlike cases where the taping took place in an office, the family had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their home. (Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc.)


Notice that in the Las Vegas Case, the Nevada Supreme Court said that the filming was legal, even though Nevada is an all-party consent state, because because the trainer did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the curtained-off area next to the stage
It seems like even in those situations, the video taper can be found legally justified.

publius
June 14, 2007, 07:20 AM
I'm wondering whether there was any justification for taking the other tapes the passenger had in his pockets?

Can anyone think of one?

pacodelahoya
June 14, 2007, 07:27 AM
Because they were there? And he could??

publius
June 14, 2007, 07:46 AM
Ah, self-justifying action. I get it now. ;)

Colonel
June 14, 2007, 08:07 AM
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

If you enjoyed reading about "Videotaping Police = Felony?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!