Legality of Recording without Permission?

[Bobson]

I hope this isn't trekking too far into off-topic territory. I thought of this question when I read a reply to the WI:Appleton Officers Violate Rights... thread. Here's the part of the post that got me thinking:

I NEVER leave the house armed without an audio recorder RUNNING.
. . .
Just about EVERY recent high profile police misconduct case I can think of would NEVER have come to light without audio and or video recording.

Anyone know if there's any law that prohibits audio recording of a conversation or encounter with someone without their explicit consent? I had a legal matter to attend to a few years back, and I planned to record the conversation, but I was told by a friend that he was almost certain it's illegal without getting permission. I didn't look up the law, I just assumed he was correct.

However, I know police officers in certain jurisdictions are given audio recording devices that run during the officer's entire shift, and remains on the officer's uniform. The audio is all fed back to a server operated by the station, for just the purpose Deanimator mentioned above - to protect the individual in the event he or she is accused of some sort of crime.

Obviously this law (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with firearms in and of itself. However, the application of the knowledge of this law (or lack thereof) is extremely relevant, particularly in light of the increasing events like those demonstrated in the Appleton situation.

I imagine this sort of law, if it exists, would be something at the Federal level. Anyone know for sure if audio recording without permission is legal or not?

 

[Officers'Wife]

It depends on "expectation of privacy." Inside a vehicle there is that expectation, on a public sidewalk there is not. Unfortunately it varies from one jurisdiction to another. Google "expectation of privacy in police" and read the various court cases. I wouldn't trust internet advice on the subject.

 

[rodregier]

I am not a lawyer. My understanding is that as long as one of the involved parties has given consent, it is lawful to record for evidenciary purposes. Most commonly this would be recording yourself in an interaction with another person.

Having said that, there is a current issue with some LEOs and agencies being very "unhappy" with recordings they don't control. Even if it is lawful recording, they can push back in other ways that are not pleasant.

Worth watching on the topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

 

[docsleepy]

stay in publc, where no one has an expectation of privacy,
use something small enough that it is concealed

 

[lemaymiami]

This is a very dangerous topic (for anyone thinking of recording stuff without the second party's permission or knowledge).... Anyone considering doing this should talk to his/her lawyer first before doing anything similar. Here in Florida you'd have serious legal problems from it... Just guessing but I'd act on the presumption that every state has different laws about this sort of stuff....

If I'm wrong, somebody please set me straight.

 

[powder]

Each state has their own laws on this, and employers MAY have a different policy , per on the clock recordings.

However, that being said, I am familiar with workplace harassment cases wherein the employee who was the subject of harassment and was recording said conversations, had the use of those recordings upheld as good evidence.

In any event, CYA with a digi-corder: tiny and has a built-in USB port for downloads. About $30 on Amazon.

Yes, the Appleton case was interesting, with the extended audio: I imagined they had somehow secured a digi-corder inside one of the firearms, as they got an extended earful of good <deleted>!!

....here is where MOST LEOs have no idea what they are saying/doing, pertaining to both 2A scenarios AND recordings. They can posture and strut all they want to intimidate you, stand neutral and maintain civility, but do NOT let them bulldoze you.

 

[Krusty783]

In any public place, there is no expectation of privacy. As such, you may record anyone/anything you want. (Obviously there are some situations which will attract attention such as extended taping of government buildings or security checkpoints, etc.)
Some states may have prohibitions of recording police officers, but there is federal precedent that on-duty police officers have no expectation of privacy and thus any prohibition of recording their actions is unconstitutional: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-police-officers-and-public-officials

You may record any police/public officials in public as long as you are not interfering with their duties. That being said, it would be quite easy for a cop to demand that you to stop recording him, and then decided that you are interfering with his duties when you refuse to comply with his request and thus detain/arrest you for resisting arrest or some other BS charge. This would probably all get tossed out if there were other witnesses, but it has happened before and will happen again:
http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/18074344/twins-allegedly-arrested-for-recording-police-shooting

http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/05/maryland-college-football-player-charged

In private settings, it really depends on the state. Most states require "single-party consent":, where it is legal to record a conversation as long as one of the participants consents. 12 states require "two-party consent" which means they require permission from all participating parties for a conversation to be recorded. http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations

 

[Frank Ettin]

An interesting and often complex legal question, but off topic for THR.