Felony Wiretapping?

[IlonBlue]

Read the story here.

What makes it wiretapping? The fact that the camera wasn't in plain sight? If the passenger had the camera up to his eye and obviously taping, would there be no crime?

This whole thing stinks.

What do you charge those "investigative" reporters with when they hide a camera in a briefcase to do some story?

Thoughts?

[Gene L]

The laws in my state prohibit the recording of any conversation you're not a party to.

That's my input. I think it applies to everone.

[IlonBlue]

So, this wouldn't be a problem in GA since everyone there is a "party" to the conversation?

[Gene L]

So, this wouldn't be a problem in GA since everyone there is a "party" to the conversation?

No.

[bigislander72]

The laws in my state prohibit the recording of any conversation you're not a party to.

That's my input. I think it applies to everone.

So will the case against Ivory Webb be thrown out because he was wiretapped illegally?

[JPR]

I can't believe what I just read.....It's OK for the police to record video and audio of the citizens they stop but when the citizens do the same it is a felony? This is not only a travesty of justice, it is a dangerous path to take to say public officials have a right to privacy when performing their public duties in public. That is absurd. By this logic, the press should be getting arrested every day. Can you spell d-o-u-b-l-e ...... s-t-a-n-d-a-r-d? And here I thought my state was bad. The more I read here of what is going on across the nation, the more I realize that California is not necessarily any worse, and in fact may be better, than some other states.

Of all states though, it is an extra disgrace coming from PA. I vote to relocate the liberty bell to somewhere else.

I never thought I'd see the day when I would support the ACLU in a case. I hope they take this kids side and win him a huge lawsuit.

[IlonBlue]

So, this wouldn't be a problem in GA since everyone there is a "party" to the conversation?

No.

So, it would be illegal in GA much as it is in PA. Which person is not a "party" to the conversation? If there is an officer talking to two people in the car, they'd all be considered a party to the conversation.

Some guy hiding the in bushes with a parabolic mic taping the conversation would be a different story.

[LeanG]

It's a strict interpretation of the law, but its there.

Florida Statutes

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

(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person who:

(a) Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

(b) Intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when:

1. Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or

2. Such device transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of such communication;

(c) Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;

(d) Intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; or

(e) Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted by means authorized by subparagraph (2)(a)2., paragraph (2)(b), paragraph (2)(c), s. 934.07, or s. 934.09 when that person knows or has reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such a communication in connection with a criminal investigation, has obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation, and intends to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation;

shall be punished as provided in subsection (4)...........

(4)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), whoever violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 934.41.

[Fëanor]

(a) Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

I don't think it qualifies at "intercepting" the conversation. I think he was a part of the conversation. At any moment the cop could have said something to him and he would have been expected to respond.

[iMarkVideo]

Wiretapping and videotaping has crossed each other since 9/11. Before 9/11 a wiretap was considered a telephone conversation being recorded without the receivers consent. The law said you cannot tape a conversation because the other person had no way of knowing he/she was being recorded. Video was not included because a camera was hard to hide back then. And the reciever knew he/she was subject to be recorded.

It is legal to tape someone in public. A police officer, on a public road is public. I never have been told to "stop taping" as long I was not interfering with an officers actions. This is legal. The wiretapping charge in my opinion is misapplied. I can legally have a video tape recorder in my vehicle. There is no statute or law that says other wise.

[JPR]

Florida Statutes

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

(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person who:

(a) Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

(b) Intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when:

1. Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or

2. Such device transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of such communication;

(c) Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;

(d) Intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; or

(e) Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted by means authorized by subparagraph (2)(a)2., paragraph (2)(b), paragraph (2)(c), s. 934.07, or s. 934.09 when that person knows or has reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such a communication in connection with a criminal investigation, has obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation, and intends to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation;

shall be punished as provided in subsection (4)...........

(4)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), whoever violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 934.41.

So does this law also pertain to police dashboard cameras and microphones of the type commonly seen these days, or does the law exempt them?

[LeanG]

I don't think it qualifies at "intercepting" the conversation. I think he was a part of the conversation. At any moment the cop could have said something to him and he would have been expected to respond.

There's more to the story than the article will have us believe. The statute that I exhibited is the statute that would've been used under FL law. I didn't say I agreed with the application of it. But, I don't know the whole story. Something is missing...

[LeanG]

So does this law also pertain to police dashboard cameras and microphones of the type commonly seen these days, or does the law exempt them?

That's easy. Case law, there is no expectation of privacy when you are talking with a law enforcement officer. To put it simply, the answer is no. You do know that you have the right to remain silent and anything you say can and will be used against you...

[JPR]

That's easy. Case law, there is no expectation of privacy when you are talking with a law enforcement officer. To put it simply, the answer is no. You do know that you have the right to remain silent and anything you say can and will be used against you...

With all due respect then, a law enforcement officer should not have an expectation of privacy when speaking with a citizen? Right?

[LeanG]

I don't know the particulars on this case, so I'd like to reserve judgment. But I will say, I personally have never heard of such a case. Nor have I heard of any precedent from prior cases in this situation. Youtube is filled with videos of officer & citizen contacts. Does it make it right? Now that's the question that I'm anxious for the courts to answer.