Legalities of recording a LEO during a traffic stop

[[cerberus]]

edit

[nbvolks]

Looks like it was a great turnout. Glad the weather cooperated.

Not sure who or what the full story is with getting pulled over, but I'd remove the video. It's legally questionable, and without knowing what actually happened, whoever is talking is, A) talking/acting like they're guilty, and B) kind of putting up an attitude (to put it nicely). Again, just saying that as a passing observer that has no reason to feel one way or another about it.

[UsualSuspect]

im not a lawyer but im pretty sure mass is one of those states that dosent allow you to film a police officer without both parties consent so it might be a good idea to host the video private...think it violates wire tapping laws lmfao




In-person conversations: The state requires all parties to a conversation to give consent before one can record any private oral conversation. Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272, § 99(C). An appellate court has also held that the recorded conversation of poor audio quality with at least some audible words can potentially violate the wiretapping statute. Commonwealth v. Wright, 814 N.E.2d 741 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004). The all-party consent rule seemingly applies whether the conversation is held in private or a public location. See Commonwealth v. Manzelli, 864 N.E.2d 566 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007)(protester arrested for secretly audio taping conversation with police officer at a publicly held political rally) - See more at: http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-record....VS1yD0Qb.dpuf

Twelve states—California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington—require the consent of all parties for you to record a conversation.

Pretty much the opposite, you can film them anywhere you want in public. They try to hide behind wiretapping laws but several cases have supported the right to film police. As long as you are not causing some kind of danger, film away.

That said, I am sure if they wanted to give you a really hard time they would anyway regardless.

Massachusetts and Illinois—have an “expectation of privacy provision” to their all-party laws that courts have ruled does not apply to on-duty police (or anyone in public). In other words, it’s technically legal in those 48 states to openly record on-duty police.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/0...cording-police

[[cerberus]]

What you didn't post was also that the city of Boston paid out a big settlement and issued a mandate for Boston PD to not arrest anyone recording them, despite what the law may say. This does have an effect on the general practices in the state.


As far as legality, The district and supreme courts are siding that recording public servants in public is within your 1st amendment rights.

[Big Pete]

Even then you're in a sort of undecided grey area, but with a hidden camera it seems more ambiguous

[UsualSuspect]

What you didn't post was also that the city of Boston paid out a big settlement and issued a mandate for Boston PD to not arrest anyone recording them, despite what the law may say. This does have an effect on the general practices in the state.


As far as legality, The district and supreme courts are siding that recording public servants in public is within your 1st amendment rights.

It's in the article I believe, but the police will still be upset and depending you could get a beating. LOL!

[cheu_f50]

In Chris' defense, the cop asked rhetorical questions and didn't get the answers he wanted, proceed to ask more rhetorical questions which resulted in more answers the cop didn't want to get. I probably wouldve done the same

[leemik]

when we were all pulled over during one of the cape runs one of the statie pigs noticed someone was recording from my car during the stop.

he wanted that camera bad but it also contained footage of everyone going slightly above the speed limit.. so we hid it and said we lost it... after some back and forth threats by the old bitch colonel pig at the station they said they only wanted to review the part where they made the stop because it violates federal wiretap laws to record AUDIO of a police stop. They just wanted to make sure the audio was unintelligible or off... and luckily it was..so we miraculously found the camera again and showed them the 5 mins of that footage and they let us go.

[Justin.b]

when we were all pulled over during one of the cape runs one of the statie pigs noticed someone was recording from my car during the stop.

he wanted that camera bad but it also contained footage of everyone going slightly above the speed limit.. so we hid it and said we lost it... after some back and forth threats by the old bitch colonel pig at the station they said they only wanted to review the part where they made the stop because it violates federal wiretap laws to record AUDIO of a police stop. They just wanted to make sure the audio was unintelligible or off... and luckily it was..so we miraculously found the camera again and showed them the 5 mins of that footage and they let us go.

There have been several cases since then on this subject - I think a lot of cases came out of Occupy Wall Street and a few other incidents. In a courtroom you're probably going to come out ahead but that doesn't mean much by the side of the road with an angry trooper.

-Justin

[bigpoppa822]

I did notice you from the Rexus wagon. Made me look twice. Welcome on!

Recording in public is completely legal, as it can be observed by anybody. Recording inside a private property is legal, including your car. Recording an officer performing his duties is legal, as he's an employee of the city, town, or state and your employee. The grey area comes in when using AUDIO recordings in a court of law.

Sorry but that's not correct.

[Justin.b]

It is the audio that gives them a leg to stand on in states where you need all parties to consent to recording.

-Justin

[55fanatic]

Im going to move all the recording an officer convo into its own thread

[55fanatic]

I haven't announced it yet, but there is a Law firm that will be joining the forum as a sponsor in the coming weeks, I can have them take a look at the thread and give their take on the subject

[Trptguy]

hahaha….if that was me they probably would have shot me…no boston accent, just canadian

[cheu_f50]

I haven't announced it yet, but there is a Law firm that will be joining the forum as a sponsor in the coming weeks, I can have them take a look at the thread and give their take on the subject

Can't wait for the announcement for the announcement about the announcement.

In all seriousiness. Can you PM me the info? Might have something fir him/her.

[55fanatic]

There are three companies that have all contacted me about sponsoring, I am just waiting for them to get me logos or bios, etc to announce them. Will PM you

[mthaynes]

based on the above discussion i can see it working both ways. if you have a camera on and they tell you to turn it off, then ask him to go back to his car and turn off his dash cam. law cuts both ways officer. "officer either we agree to have them on or we agree to have them off - your choice. "

[UsualSuspect]

Watch this!