My gut feeling leads me to believe that the Officer was up to something...or blew his audition for the next episode of Cops, maybe Reno 911 would be more appropriate
How does wiretap law apply if you are a party to the conversation?
This law is an example of the creeping tyranny being brought against law abiding citizens. What’s the matter ... does LE have something to hid. This law should absolutely be overturned as UNCONSTITUTIONAL
I am coming to the point where I have nothing but contempt for for those in authority. Illegals are stealing the identities of those who work hard and play by the rules on a daily basis, with the complicity of illegal employers. And yet this kid faces a felony charge? El Presidente sleeps with a sitting Senator who recklessly took a life, and did not face the consequences that this kid is facing.
So, it appears that these police are concerned that there might be an acurate recording/account of what they do. Sounds like grounds for firing. Do public employees generally seek to evade accountability?
Another “videotaping” story from L.A.:
Next thing you know local govt. will video/snap photos of folks driving through intersections allowing for tickets to be issued for running a red light. Try facing your accusor on that one... not gonna happen. Send us your $80-$200 fine please 'cause you're presumed guilty.
sarc. off.
My gut feeling leads me to believe that the Officer was up to something...or blew his audition for the next episode of Cops, maybe Reno 911 would be more appropriate
These so-called “eavesdropping laws” (that say you can’t even record a conversation in which you are a party, if all other participants don’t consent) were passed by so-called “civil libertarians” (that is, ACLU types). The laws were stupid then, and are now coming back to bite them in the ass.
One commentator noted that under the Illinois “anti-eavesdropping” statute, someone could surreptitiously record their own murder, but the tape would be thrown out as evidence against the perps.
These laws need to be overturned now. They go way beyond the actual definition of eavesdropping. Any event that happens in public, or to which the person doing the recording is an invited participant, is fair game.
This kid needs to be released now and all charges dropped.
Looks to me like we have some embarassed cops and a DA who doesn’t want to offend them by tossing the case out. I would expect this to be dismissed at the preliminary hearing stage.
I am familiar with the Pa wiretapping statute and it is abundantly clear that anything that happens in a public setting, like a street, is fair game for video or audio recording.
Once they have pulled you over they can handcuff you and put you in jail without charging you for an indeterminate period of time. You're not under arrest until they say you are. If you don't answer their questions, they can conveniently find a weapon or a baggie of meth on you when they search you.
When (not if) this happens, say goodbye to your watch, jewelry and any cash you have on you. You will never see them again, unless it's in a pawnshop. Good luck proving they're yours.
My town has a pawnshop next door to the police uniform shop. They can visit both in one stop.
Incidentally, this is a similar statute that was used agaist Linda Tripp. She allegedly “eavesdropped” on a conversation between herself and Monica by recording it instead of just memorizing it or taking notes. I think her case was dismissed, if I recall correctly.
Then why is your department dragging him to court???
traffic cops are useless. If they’re out busting kids for seeds and stems, they’re doing this crap. 6 or 7 cops responded? Now there’s a cost effective use of taxpayer dollars. I feel safer already
The clear question here is WHO'S PERMISSION? Generally, in most states, permission may be granted by either single party involved in the conversation and since he was riding in the truck at the time, one has to wonder ...? Off the top, it sounds a lot like the officer got torqued for some reason (maybe not even because of this stop) and desired not to be taped. Once the ball starts rolling officially, it gets hard to stop and at some point an 'official' reason has to be attached. It will be interesting to see how this eventually turns out.
For whom, your police department and the prosecutor?
I'd be retaining some top gun defense attorney here.
The arrogance of government authority here is punitive.
“Who watches ‘The Watchers’ ?”
Indeed.
Then there's no need to file charges, is there.
where is the ACLU on this?
......Crickets Chirping
“The law technically bans the intentional recording of any oral conversation without permission.”
What law? Is that a federal law? A state law? Some sort of municipal ordinance? Really. Does anyone know?