Videotaping Police = Felony?

[brickeyee]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

For Those of You Who Say It's Illegal Because of Two-Party Consent

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]

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]

Because they were there? And he could??

 

[publius]

Ah, self-justifying action. I get it now.

 

[Colonel]

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/