Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Felony Wiretapping?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by LeanG View Post
    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.

    I'm with you Lean.....Let's stay tuned and see what comes of this....Like I've heard here from other folks there is always 3 sides to a story and I have seen that myself numerous times in my life experiences. But if the jist of what was reported is true, that cop and DA in PA have me very concerned in regards to how close our country has come to a police state.

    Btw.....Thanks for the info........Stay safe out there too!!!!
    Jubilant Patriotic Republican

    America gave Obama the benefit of the doubt when they elected him. Obama is now giving America the doubt of the benefit of his governance......Change you can bereave in!..JPR

    Comment


    • #17
      Guess it's also a crime to videotape your kid's softball game without the consent of everybody else on the field and in the audience if your camera records sound.

      Originally posted by iMarkVideo View Post
      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.
      Huh? There are only about a dozen states that have ever required the receiver's consent to tape a phone conversation. The other 38 states allow any party to the conversation to tape phone calls at will without ever disclosing it to the other party.

      I don't know that the size of video cameras was the issue either; I believe many states still don't restrict video taping without consent and others have enacted those laws only very recently, specifically to close the loophole that allowed undisclosed video taping as long as the camera didn't also record sound. Many times even video cameras hidden by perverts were not criminally actionable, precisely because they only recorded video.

      Originally posted by iMarkVideo View Post
      It is legal to tape someone in public.
      I think there are only two other states (CO and maybe CA) where you might run into trouble even taping an open-air conversation without disclosing it. I believe Retired once posted a story about a CO reporter who interviewed a police chief and was then immediately arrested because the chief noticed his recorder was on without his consent.

      I do it routinely and it's helped quickly resolve situations in my favor where someone claimed not to have said something that I wouldn't have been able to prove otherwise. Generally, you're still fine taping any open air conversation if you're one of the parties, or even where you're not one of the parties to the conversation, but your presence within earshot was known to the parties.
      Last edited by ProWriter; 06-12-2007, 08:18 AM.
      No longer ignoring anybody here, since that psycho known as "Josey Wales" finally got the boot after being outed as a LE imposter by B&G978. Nice job.

      Comment


      • #18
        That Florida statue just looks like it pertains to someone intercepting someone else's signal, video, voice, etc. It does not appear to prohibt someone videotaping anything. It would seem that it does state oral, however, oral is not defined on the face of this statue. Is oral defined anywhere in the code book? If the definintion of oral would be a human emitted conversation and not that of a radio device, it would seem to me that an officer would also be riding a fine line if he has his wireless mic one and "intercepts" an oral communication during the course of an investigation. Of course the statue does state "intentional" and it could be argued that one did not have the intention of doing so. I would say that the legislative intent would also need to be looked at on this one as well. Their are too many loopholes and their is too much ambigous langauge to that statue.
        Last edited by AvalancheZ71; 06-12-2007, 01:40 AM.
        That's what they do, it's a trailer park.

        Comment


        • #19
          Kid was taping an officer who had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Somehow, I don't think the law includes a little MiniDV camera zoom mic or wind cut to qualify as enhanced monitoring tools.

          I hope this kid cracks the legal whip on these people. Video taping officials in the performance of their duties when there is no reasonable expectation of privacy is an absolute RIGHT of the people. People innocently recording a traffic stop on a city street should not be brought into the system and interrogated for it.
          -I don't feel you honor someone by creating a physical gesture (the salute). You honor them by holding them in memory and, in law enforcement, proceeding in vigilant, ethical police work. You honor this country or deceased soldiers or whatever you're honoring when you salute a flag by thinking, feeling, and continuing a life of freedom.

          --ArkansasRed24

          Comment


          • #20
            Wow it looks like the conservatives and the libs are together on this one.
            That's what they do, it's a trailer park.

            Comment


            • #21
              Some things cross party lines. The conservatives would never sacrifice their chance to videotape Al Sharpton's arrest with "escorts."
              -I don't feel you honor someone by creating a physical gesture (the salute). You honor them by holding them in memory and, in law enforcement, proceeding in vigilant, ethical police work. You honor this country or deceased soldiers or whatever you're honoring when you salute a flag by thinking, feeling, and continuing a life of freedom.

              --ArkansasRed24

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by AvalancheZ71 View Post
                That Florida statue just looks like it pertains to someone intercepting someone else's signal, video, voice, etc. It does not appear to prohibt someone videotaping anything. It would seem that it does state oral, however, oral is not defined on the face of this statue. Is oral defined anywhere in the code book?


                This is the definition of oral communication, as defined by FL Statute. This is for informational purposes only. I believe that the original article stated that the camera was concealed (and unable to take video), but it was recording sound.

                Kelly is charged under a state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent.

                934.02 Definitions.--As used in this chapter:
                (2) "Oral communication" means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.

                (3) "Intercept" means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.
                Last edited by LeanG; 06-12-2007, 10:10 AM.

                A man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in the wrong, which is but saying... that he is wiser today than yesterday. Jonathan Swift 1667-1745

                It's only a conspiracy when your party is not in power.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by IlonBlue View Post


                  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.

                  The law dealing with wiretapping is in the Bill of Rights, and therefore applies to cops and other government officials. Wiretapping has a specific definition and has to do with telephones, and the expectation of privacy.

                  YOU, as an individual, are free to record any conversation to which you are a party...in otherwords, if you have input. So can a cop without a wiretap order.

                  But in order to record telephone conversations to which you are not a party, or in an area where the recordee has an expectation of privacy, you need a order from a Superior Court judge.

                  If an individual, such as a PI, wiretaps a target, say, for a divorce, he's guilty of wiretapping.
                  "Say hal-lo to my leetle frahnd!"

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by LeanG View Post
                    This is the definition of oral communication, as defined by FL Statute. This is for informational purposes only. I believe that the original article stated that the camera was concealed (and unable to take video), but it was recording sound.

                    Kelly is charged under a state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent.

                    934.02 Definitions.--As used in this chapter:
                    (2) "Oral communication" means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication.

                    (3) "Intercept" means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.
                    I would like to know what the legislative intent was for that statute was. The definintions to give the law more teeth, or scope than I thought when I first looked at the statute.
                    That's what they do, it's a trailer park.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Wiretapping

                      This isn't going to help the young man in Pennsylvania, but what transpired would not have been a problem in Alabama. Let me try to put that into perspective. While I may not have been 100% comfortable with someone video taping my traffic stop, as long as the videographer neither hindered, nor interfered with my action,I'd have had no grounds to arrest him. As has been validly pointed out, many police units are now equipped with dash cams. Some of these have both video and audio capability. With all the technological advances in our society, visual /audio recordings of traffic stops, and other LE actions, are really the order of the day.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Reffering to my thread on Jury Nullification, I think this would be the type of case where it would one would be justified in applying it. Otherwise, where would it end? The reference to the possibility of a little league dad getting a felony charge because he didnt have the consent of everyone whose voice was recorded makes a good point.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          No, you (as a cop) can't stop someone from taping and recording somethinng in plain view. Which is what we do on traffic stop.s Can't stop it as an individual, either.

                          Illegal wiretapping comes in when (for example) someone invites you to a party, and you plant listening devices or cameras unbeknowanst to the homeowner. Or when you tap into their telephone line.

                          It's really difficult to get a wiretap order. And you can only get them for certain crimes...ones in which the telephone is generally a part of the crime, where business is discussed, etc. Gambling and drug trafficking are two crimes you can get a wiretap for. Murder is not, as the murderer is not likely to discuss the crime. In otherwords, LE wiretaps are for conspiracies.

                          With mobile phones, I don't know what this does to legal wiretapping.

                          Edited to say: I'm speaking of Georgia law. It seems that the state in question made it illegal to record conversations, especially unknowingly, with any second party. This was probably aimed against law enforcement, so a snitch or a UC cop couldn't record a conversation with a bad guy. I think it's kinda cool it's being used by the police as it's obviously designed to be used against them.

                          Hoist by one's own petard, so to speak.
                          Last edited by Gene L; 06-12-2007, 12:05 PM.
                          "Say hal-lo to my leetle frahnd!"

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by bigislander72 View Post
                            Reffering to my thread on Jury Nullification, I think this would be the type of case where it would one would be justified in applying it. Otherwise, where would it end? The reference to the possibility of a little league dad getting a felony charge because he didnt have the consent of everyone whose voice was recorded makes a good point.
                            I wouldn't think there would be a possibility for a criminal action because the actions of the crowd were in plain view and there was no expectation of privacy. Hence, no crime.

                            Civil suits, I have no idea, but I don't think he'd be in trouble there, either. Parents can tape little league games without permsision. TV shows do not show the faces of juvies, whether by law or by custom, on school grounds.
                            "Say hal-lo to my leetle frahnd!"

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              theres more to the story then presented here.
                              ‘Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go.’
                              Oscar Wilde

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by texaschickeee View Post
                                theres more to the story then presented here.
                                Do you have more information about this case, or is it just an opinion?

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 4467 users online. 293 members and 4174 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 26,947 at 08:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X