Video Taping Police in Public Protected by First Amendment

Where was the DA's head?
Click to expand...

Most likely up his ass.

I have heard it is hard to see in this position (something about being dark?).

Remember, half the attorneys graduated in the bottom half of their class.
 
BarryLee said:
...so why don’t the Video Avengers stake out public areas and film the bad guys. Take my word for it you would not have to look too far in this area especially if you include drug crimes.
Click to expand...

Fascinating, isn't it? Almost like there's an agenda rather than honest observation.
 
Last edited:
The police in Phoenix are now being equipped with body cameras to allow them to videotape their encounters with the public.

It should not be a problem for John Q. Public to videotape the same situation.

Be interesting to see which tape comes up deleted or blank when a citizen files a complaint about unlawful use of force.

Geetarman:D
 
Carry 24/7 said:
I'm sure any cop who arrests someone "only" for taping them in public would not have their job very long. I'm sure the report and booking for that one would be very interesting..... What's the charge, public filming of a police officer?

They better attach some "real" charge to it.
Click to expand...
The usual charge is "Interfering with an officer." It's a real charge (although its use against people taking video in a public place is bogus).

Sometimes they try to cite anti-wiretapping statutes.
 
Straight video in public is legal but when audio is involved the person has to be told in advance by most state laws that is why most business post signs about taping. I have a sign on all 4 sides of my truck warning of video and audio taping in progress.
 
Tony Pasley said:
Straight video in public is legal but when audio is involved the person has to be told in advance by most state laws that is why most business post signs about taping.
Click to expand...
Can you provide a legal citation or three to support that statement? What you posted is NOT my understanding of the law regarding taping (or recording) in a public setting where there is legally no expectation of privacy.
 
Most states require at least the consent of one party involved in PRIVATE conversation, I'm not aware of any that preclude recording of public conversations. That wouldn't even make sense... It would be illegal to record your vacation to Niagra Falls without getting the consent of nearby vacationers.
 
Most states require at least the consent of one party involved in PRIVATE conversation, I'm not aware of any that preclude recording of public conversations.
Click to expand...

What you say in public that can be overheard is NOT usually protected.

Now, if someone needs to use a parabolic dish or shotgun microphone to pick up the conversation you might have a privacy argument.


Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?
Click to expand...
Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis, Juvenal's Satires, 6.347-48

[who will watch the watchers]
 
I cannot speak to the laws of 50 different states. Below are operative provisions of Kentucky's laws which I presume are not unique. I do know some states require consent of both parties. There is no explicit provision that it be "private."

526.010 Definition.
The following definition applies in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
"Eavesdrop" means to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of a wire or oral communication of others without the consent of at least one (1) party thereto by means of any electronic, mechanical or other device.

526.020 Eavesdropping.
(1) A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he intentionally uses any device to eavesdrop, whether or not he is present at the time.
(2) Eavesdropping is a Class D felony.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top