Is it legal in CA to audiotape conversation in public place without other's consent?

[jkcareer101]

^Topic. I'm curious because I know this guy who committed illegal activities.

[Kieth M.]

Tough call...common sense says that a conversation taking place in public should have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

A serruptitious recording is another matter....but again, in public it's a wobbler.

The rules say, though, that if the other party sees the recorder and the red lights on, then they should be smart enough to know they are likely being recorded.

Really, though, we'll need more details on just how the recording was being done.

[DAL]

I agree with Kieth. For example, if you have two people in a public place but no one in the vicinity who could over hear, then the conversation is private, but if they are on a bus surrounded by other passengers, then it is not.

[FJDave]

Unless a police officer is doing the recording in public...when talking to a copper there is no expectation of privacy.

[Signut]

California is a two party consent state. That is, unless the copper is recording as part of an investigation into criminal activity.

[oneoldcop]

I agree, need more info

[417Lt]

Unless a police officer is doing the recording in public...when talking to a copper there is no expectation of privacy.

I wish we were named in the PC section that gives the permission you're referring to. We need to ask the DA on a case by case basis.

California is a two party consent state.

I have to disagree on that point. You don't need someone's consent in any case- Just their knowledge that the recording is occurring. They can shut up or walk away.

[FlyingPig1]

The fourth amendment applies to the government. Not private parties. As a private citizen I can walk around all day recording and taking pictures of whatever and whoever I want.

[beachcop05]

California is a two party consent state. That is, unless the copper is recording as part of an investigation into criminal activity.

Yeah, I have my recorder on all the time at work when I think there's going to be a complaint...cya

[IE Copper]

Law enforcement can use audio recorders, even if not mutually agreed upon, for administrative reasons at any point. Like Beachcop05 mentioned, they are great to use if you think a contact is going south. There is nothing better than a citizen complaint that is ruled unfounded because your recorder showed that you acted professionally. If you plan on using the recording as evidence in an investigation you must let the person know they are being recorded. Years ago I was first on scene to a 245 and got a dieing declaration from the victim. I recorded her last words in which she told me that her son had shot her on accident while trying to defend her from her husband who was chasing her with a knife. The husband claimed that the opposite had happened; that he was trying to protect her from the son. The recording was instrumental in the investigation. I wasn't working detectives at the time but they were happy I had recorded this.

[jkcareer101]

Thanks for the replies!

[ccthompsfs]

So how does this apply with the mics and dash cams in vehicles?

[LeeRoy]

Flyingpig1. You are incorrect if you are in California. There are limits on private citizens recording each other without consent. See 632 PC below.

Regarding dash cams and other law enforcement recording we are exempted via language in 630 PC. 632 PC is the wobbler crime which covers one civilian recording a confidential communication without consent.

630 PC...
The Legislature recognizes that law enforcement agencies have a
legitimate need to employ modern listening devices and techniques in
the investigation of criminal conduct and the apprehension of
lawbreakers. Therefore, it is not the intent of the Legislature to
place greater restraints on the use of listening devices and
techniques by law enforcement agencies than existed prior to the
effective date of this chapter.


632. (a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of
all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any
electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records
the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried
on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a
telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year,
or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
...
(c) The term "confidential communication" includes any
communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate
that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the
parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public
gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or
administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other
circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably
expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.

[OCEnforcer29]

Flyingpig1. You are incorrect if you are in California. There are limits on private citizens recording each other without consent. See 632 PC below.

Regarding dash cams and other law enforcement recording we are exempted via language in 630 PC. 632 PC is the wobbler crime which covers one civilian recording a confidential communication without consent.

630 PC...
The Legislature recognizes that law enforcement agencies have a
legitimate need to employ modern listening devices and techniques in
the investigation of criminal conduct and the apprehension of
lawbreakers. Therefore, it is not the intent of the Legislature to
place greater restraints on the use of listening devices and
techniques by law enforcement agencies than existed prior to the
effective date of this chapter.


632. (a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of
all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any
electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records
the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried
on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a
telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year,
or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
...
(c) The term "confidential communication" includes any
communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate
that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the
parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public
gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or
administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other
circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably
expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.

I didn't know the section and I didn't have time to look it up, but I agree with this post. Joe citizen can't record another joe citizen unless they've given consent.

[FlyingPig1]

He asked about recording people in public. Not private conversation.