Posted on 05/23/2015 11:56:58 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Child rape victims have legal permission to secretly record their rapists under legislation signed by Gov. Rick Scott one day after an ice cream truck driver who was serving a life sentence for sexually assaulting his stepdaughter was acquitted at a second trial.
The bill Scott signed Friday was a response to the Florida Supreme Court ordering a new trial for Richard McDade, who was convicted of repeatedly raping his stepdaughter when she was between 10 and 16. A judge during the first trial allowed recordings of conversations McDade had with his stepdaughter that she secretly recorded with an MP3 player hidden in her shirt.
But the Supreme Court ruled the recording was illegal and ordered a new trial last December. Florida prohibits conversations to be recorded or otherwise intercepted without the consent of both parties. The new law makes an exception for children who are victims or potential victims of rape and other violent acts that record their attackers. The law takes effect July 1.
McDade, 68, walked free Thursday after a Lee County jury that didn't hear the recordings acquitted him. The Lee County state attorney's office said the recordings wouldn't have been allowed at the second trial even if the Legislature and Scott acted sooner because they were illegal at the time they were made.
Sexual abuse victim advocate Lauren Book said the bill signing was one good outcome of the case, though she was outraged at McDade's acquittal.
"Nobody can or should feel good about this. The only silver lining is this won't happen going forward," said Book, who founded Lauren Kid's, a nonprofit group that raises awareness about sexual abuse and seeks to prevent it. "It's sort of sad that children need to be their own heroes sometimes, but that is what this bill does." Lee County Assistant state attorney Tyler Lovejoy, who prosecuted the McDade case, praised the new law.
"It is easy to stand behind legislation that protects children," Lovejoy said. "Anytime that legislation opens the door for new, corroborative evidence to be admitted in the courtroom, it is both bold and inspiring. What is most exciting about today is the prospect that prosecutors have a new weapon to use against those who seek to harm children, and those same children can provide a new voice to those who still do not believe in monsters."
Scott also signed a bill allowing rural letter carriers drive their routes without wearing seat belts.
This guys victim needs to lure him into her home, kill him, and claim self-defense.
I don’t understand the legal reason or the principle behind not allowing the recording to be admissible evidence. No criminals ever give permission to be recorded.
but for decades the NSA has recorded any damn thing they wanted? What a joke law that was.
I’m with you. By granting some sort of cloak of privacy to a criminal act they equated it to someone being recorded picking their nose. One is embarrassing and harms nobody and thus privacy is a reasonable expectation. How could the law have equate that with rape or any criminal act?
Those laws that require wiretaps and the such should be confined to law enforcement.
How in the hell can you possibly twist the law to the point where the privacy law actually excludes evidence -- not even gathered by law enforcement -- against a violent felon. It is just plain NUTS.
That law should be ignored when criminal activity is recorded.
It’s a stupid law. If I am talking to someone and want to record what happens for my safety and security, I have that right.
They let police violate this law.
Frustrating I agree. However, I think that the title of this post is a little misleading in that it isn't so much a law that is supposed to tell all victims it is okay to tape the conversations but rather legitimizes the recordings to be admissible if they were recorded surreptitiously. Granted, hopefully victims will also become aware it's okay to record, but I think it fixes that problem of admissibility and the whole thing about "can someone unaware of it" be recorded legally.
Several states have laws about this. One party knowing - okay, other states say it has to be both, and so on. Remember Monica Lewinsky's conversations with Linda Tripp? She got into trouble with that same sort of thing.
Linda’s taped calls had an added complexity if I recall, she was taping phone calls (not a personal encounter) AND there was a squabble that she was in a locale that permitted citizens to tape a call without disclosing it to the other participant while Monica was not.
Some places only require that one of the persons need to know that the call is being recorded.
Yeah, I knew that on Tripp. But for calls, conversations or otherwise, the point is that states do often have laws that control them with regard to one or both party’s knowledge.
The key thing here I think is the law trying to legitimize evidence collected as a result of those encounters.
> I don’t understand the legal reason or the principle behind not allowing the recording to be admissible evidence. No criminals ever give permission to be recorded.
I interview them quite frequenly. This is true. They never give authorization unless its to help their case and that rarely happens; more often likely if they are really innocent and the wrong person was charged with the crime tho.
The two party states where they require both parties to be notified that a conversation is being recorded is a joke and is only beneficial for unethical people, crooks or fraud perps. I believe that the legislation was drafted for that purpose and that the issue of privacy was used as the cover story.
Was Hillary his lawyer? She got a child rapist off before.
I have claimed for many years that the florida supreme court’s motto should be — “Well, at least we’re not as bad as the U.S. 9th circuit court of appeals.”
I have claimed for many years that the florida supreme court’s motto should be — “Well, at least we’re not as bad as the U.S. 9th circuit court of appeals.”
Yep. I have never had it satisfactorily explained to me.
IMO, evidence can never be illegal. If it is illegally obtained, the the “obtainer” has broken the law, not the evidence. The evidence should be allowed in court, & if the judge, DA or grand jury feel it was obtained illegally, then an indictment can be brought.
In our society today there are cameras recording us everywhere. The NSA monitors all our communications. Individuals are, & should be able to, film police in action, & anything else, for that matter. There is no expectation of privacy in public places & almost none in the presence of others, even in your own home.
The right to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” is routinely ignored by the government, yet truthful evidence of a crime is routinely thrown out of court.
Perhaps, as individuals, we should all were a sign that says “I record every aspect of my life. If you interact with me you can expect to be recorded”.
In the not too distant future, our brains will be permanently connected to a server & the internet. Our eyes - our cameras - will record everything we see, our ears will record everything we hear, our bodies record everything we feel, 24/7/365. For all the burdens & loss of privacy that imposes, at least the concept of illegally recorded evidence will go away.
he is now free and an easy target
This needed a permission law?
If a third person had witnessed the rape, would that witness’s testimony be allowed in court against the rapist?
One could argue that, that third person is ‘means of recording’ for the event, in the same way as a video or audio recording. Would the court dismiss the witness as not being legally allowed to ‘remember’ the crimes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.