 |  | | | |  | |  |  | Talk about BSL(Bull sh!t Legislation) |  | |  |  | |
 Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:25 am |
 |
|
| mod90 |
| Veteran Member |
 |
|
| Joined: 04 Jun 2011 |
| Posts: 279 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |  |  | | | |  |  |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:58 am |
|
|
| oddtodd |
| Silver Status Member |
 |
|
| Joined: 30 Dec 2008 |
| Posts: 2029 |
| Location: Richmond, IN USA |
|
|
|
The lawyers are gonna have a field day with this one!!!  |
|
_________________
Airguns: Two starlings talking "Larry, did you hear that? Larry?? LARRY!!!!" |
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:39 pm |
|
|
| mod90 |
| Veteran Member |
|
|
| Joined: 04 Jun 2011 |
| Posts: 279 |
|
|
|
|
Just goes to show, some people really know how to go on a power trip.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:38 pm |
|
|
| jlwilliams |
| Veteran Member |
|
|
| Joined: 02 Oct 2009 |
| Posts: 264 |
| Location: Jacksonville, NC USA |
|
|
|
| Florida is a "2 party consent" state. Didn't this guy learn anything from Lewinskigate? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:19 pm |
|
|
| donec |
| Senior Member |
|
|
| Joined: 19 Dec 2009 |
| Posts: 836 |
| Location: central Texas Pflugerville area |
|
|
|
Seems like Florida is admitting their officers are going to be improper and so they are protecting them by not allowing them to be recorded by someone in/on their own property when the police and the person recoding have no expectation of privacy. That is wrong on so many levels.
Edited because I meant they had no reason to expect privacy. |
|
Last edited by donec on Thu Nov 10, 2011 2:17 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:18 pm |
|
|
| Slavia |
| Moderator |
 |
|
| Joined: 31 Mar 2008 |
| Posts: 4382 |
| Location: Waseca, Minnesota, USA |
|
|
|
I think the expectation of privacy does apply to the individual, in that it relates to the presumption of innocence and the ability to get a fair trial by an impartial jury. I don't believe it applies to a public servant conducting the business of the government.
I don't think it's any different than a company's right to have security cameras. Except in this case we all are the employer, and the workplace is everywhere. |
|
_________________
 ¡Listo! ¡Apunte! ¡Fuego! |
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:02 pm |
|
|
| jlwilliams |
| Veteran Member |
|
|
| Joined: 02 Oct 2009 |
| Posts: 264 |
| Location: Jacksonville, NC USA |
|
|
|
This has nothing to do with the fact that they were police.
Florida is a "two party consent" state. What that means is that in order to record a conversation you need both parties consent to record it. As oposed to a "one party consent" state, where you can record phone or other conversations without telling the other side. This is common in private investigations, especially divorces. For exapmle, a guy (or woman) calls their estranged partner and eggs them on a little, getting them to say self incriminating things in the heat of the moment. Later, those recordings are used to screw the other party. Happens all the time. More often than the 'honey pot.' Classic dirty trick, watch out for it if you are involved in any dispute. Anyway, in Florida that's a no-go. You make such a recording and you are the one in the wringer, not the target. That's what happened to Linda Tripp when she baited Monica Lewinsky into talking about "You know....The Big Guy" on tape (remember that line?). Tripp made the call from a "one party" state but Lewinsty was in a "two party" state. Turned into a big deal. Anybody not old enough to remember it is probably internet savvy enough to search it out easily enough.
Anyway, I'm the first to jump all over it when police power is abused. Corruption under color of law is dispicable as is the double standard of unequal treatment of government vs individuals. That's not what's going on here. This guy was recording the traffic stop in hopes to either get any charges dropped or maybe catch the police in a sue-able screw up, or whatever he planned to do with the recording. He broke the cardinal rule of recording; he didn't know the recording laws of the jurisdiction he was in. That's the big one right there. It's fine to record any interaction if you think that recording will give you an edge. Unless of course it's a felony. Then it's not OK.
He made a recording without consent. They gave him the chance to stop recording (they didn't have to do that, they could have nailed him as soon as they saw the law broken), he continued. He watched too many after-school TV dramas and thought he "knew his rights". He was wrong.
He would be in the same trouble if he did this to you or me or Monica Lewinsky. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 2:24 pm |
|
|
| donec |
| Senior Member |
|
|
| Joined: 19 Dec 2009 |
| Posts: 836 |
| Location: central Texas Pflugerville area |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Florida's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Florida makes it a crime to intercept or record a "wire, oral, or electronic communication" in Florida, unless all parties to the communication consent. See Fla. Stat. ch. 934.03. Florida law makes an exception for in-person communications when the parties do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the conversation, such as when they are engaged in conversation in a public place where they might reasonably be overheard. If you are operating in Florida, you may record these kinds of in-person conversations without breaking the law. |
From...
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/florida-recording-law |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 2:40 pm |
|
|
| oddtodd |
| Silver Status Member |
|
|
| Joined: 30 Dec 2008 |
| Posts: 2029 |
| Location: Richmond, IN USA |
|
|
|
| Ooooohhhhh I'd love to be a fly on the wall of that lawyer's office!!!! |
|
_________________
Airguns: Two starlings talking "Larry, did you hear that? Larry?? LARRY!!!!" |
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:37 am |
|
|
| jlwilliams |
| Veteran Member |
|
|
| Joined: 02 Oct 2009 |
| Posts: 264 |
| Location: Jacksonville, NC USA |
|
|
|
| donec wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Florida's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Florida makes it a crime to intercept or record a "wire, oral, or electronic communication" in Florida, unless all parties to the communication consent. See Fla. Stat. ch. 934.03. Florida law makes an exception for in-person communications when the parties do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the conversation, such as when they are engaged in conversation in a public place where they might reasonably be overheard. If you are operating in Florida, you may record these kinds of in-person conversations without breaking the law. |
From...
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/florida-recording-law |
Interesting. I guess it will all come down to if the officers have a reasonable expectation of privacy when talking to someone who is in their car.
OddTodd is on the money. This will make for an uncomfortable conversation between the town's attorney and the plaintiff's.
This will be worth following. The outcome of this case will shine light on what does and does not fly in Florida. Unfortunately, the past few years have shown a trend toward prohibiting the taping of LE encounters except by the LE themselves. It's a stacked deck. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
Note: If you are seeing "Please enter your username and password to log in." Your browser cookies have been reset
or you need to register to access the topic in question. Use the 'Register' button near the top left of this page.
|
