Can police confiscate your video?

[notalawyer]

In an one party your good to go. In a two party state the other party needs constructive notice.

Constructive notice is the legal fiction that signifies that a person or entity should have known, as a reasonable person would have, even if they have no actual knowledge of it.

Except in those 'two-party' states, like Florida wherein the prohibition only applies to an 'Oral communication':

“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.

Several courts have ruled that LEO in the performance of their official duties, in public (traffic stops, detentions, etc.), have no expectation of privacy.

 

[OC for ME]

I thought SCOTUS ruled that there are no "two party" states for anything in the public domain?

Again, I ask, what is the definition of public. A state agent acting in his official capacity can never be "in public"...no?

 

[Alpine]

Again, I ask, what is the definition of public. A state agent acting in his official capacity can never be "in public"...no?

On the contrary, public officials acting in their official capacity are almost always in public when not on private property or in restrooms. And even then if they are "public figures" much of their privacy is gone too.

SCOTUS has ruled that filming/audio taping police in public is protected.

However, that said, you can't trust police to always respect that so make sure whatever you are capturing video or audio with has a transmitter and is streaming to a secure remote location constantly so someone standing next to you can't take your device and smash it or delete the content.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Your original comment/reply was very generic, none state specific. Wish that where posted was enough, but unfortunately it is not.

The point of the state sub-forums was to keep it limited to the state it was listed in. If this was under GENERAL or SOCIAL I could see needing state specific clarification.

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

Back on point.

They can confiscate the camera. Can they legally copy it or watch it? Not without a warrant. Fourth Amendment.

Dealing with a case now where the cops seized a phone without a warrant. Motion to suppress was filed. The phone was immediately returned and the motion to suppress was withdrawn.

you mean steal and no they can't. Doesnt matter who it is. attempted robbery should be dealt with the same way. Protection of ones property and nullifying the threat, using any and all reasonable force

Except in those 'two-party' states, like Florida wherein the prohibition only applies to an 'Oral communication':


Several courts have ruled that LEO in the performance of their official duties, in public (traffic stops, detentions, etc.), have no expectation of privacy.

Nope. 1st amendment trumps state laws on the matter. Response to a threat to of kidnap and assault should be the same as for attempted theft. Defend and nullify the threat

 

[notalawyer]

you mean steal and no they can't. Doesnt matter who it is. attempted robbery should be dealt with the same way. Protection of ones property and nullifying the threat, using any and all reasonable force




Nope. 1st amendment trumps state laws on the matter. Response to a threat to of kidnap and assault should be the same as for attempted theft. Defend and nullify the threat

You missed my meaning...I was responding to COL's statement about two party consent states.

Florida is one, however the definition of 'oral communication' precludes a LEO, in the performance of his duties, from having any reasonable expectation of privacy in a public setting. - I was challenging his statement that all two party states required the parties have 'constructive notice'.

 

[Grim_Night]

You missed my meaning...I was responding to COL's statement about two party consent states.

Florida is one, however the definition of 'oral communication' precludes a LEO, in the performance of his duties, from having any reasonable expectation of privacy in a public setting. - I was challenging his statement that all two party states required the parties have 'constructive notice'.

What I say here, only applies to 1st, 7th, 9th, and 11th Circuits, possibly more.

Under normal conditions, meaning interaction between 2 or more private individuals, yes, 2 party consent laws do apply. But they DO NOT apply regarding government employees that are presently doing their job. This means that yes, you can record police without their consent while they are doing their job (basically, any time that they are exercising their granted authority in and out of uniform). You can record without consent a state employee such as a DSHS (Department of Social and Health Services) agent while they are doing their job (I have done it many times). You can record without consent Washington State public college employees (I have had some that have tried to say that I can't and they have been corrected by Washington State Assistant Attorney Generals). I have had police sergeant flat out tell me that they would not touch my recording devices that were in my pockets while I was being frisked and arrested for obstruction.

The big thing to remember is the "Reasonable Expectation of Privacy". As long as what is going on is in public (not inside a private home, not in a bathroom or other such obvious places that one would consider "private", and it can be seen with the naked eye or heard with the unassisted ear, then it can be recorded. And as many would say, it's best to do such recording out in the open, AND have backup recording devices, recording devices that immediately upload the recordings to "the cloud", or devices that can not have their stored information destroyed (I have all 3).

 

[sudden valley gunner]

ok . . . I use a camera and I post photos and videos on youtube and on my blog. What is the federal law that prevents them from seizing my camera, if any, if I may ask?

that is interesting!

z

None. That is the wrong way to look at it though. The proper question would be what Federal law grants them authority to take your camera.

In reality even that would be wrong since the Feds are a single party consent in their rules.

More proper would be what state authority. In Washington there is none except for the limited situations reported. You have no duty to inform an officer you are recording either. They are public officials engaged in public work and have no expectation of privacy in doing so.

 

[notalawyer]

What I say here, only applies to 1st, 7th, 9th, and 11th Circuits, possibly more.

Under normal conditions, meaning interaction between 2 or more private individuals, yes, 2 party consent laws do apply. But they DO NOT apply regarding government employees that are presently doing their job. This means that yes, you can record police without their consent while they are doing their job (basically, any time that they are exercising their granted authority in and out of uniform). You can record without consent a state employee such as a DSHS (Department of Social and Health Services) agent while they are doing their job (I have done it many times). You can record without consent Washington State public college employees (I have had some that have tried to say that I can't and they have been corrected by Washington State Assistant Attorney Generals). I have had police sergeant flat out tell me that they would not touch my recording devices that were in my pockets while I was being frisked and arrested for obstruction.

The big thing to remember is the "Reasonable Expectation of Privacy". As long as what is going on is in public (not inside a private home, not in a bathroom or other such obvious places that one would consider "private", and it can be seen with the naked eye or heard with the unassisted ear, then it can be recorded. And as many would say, it's best to do such recording out in the open, AND have backup recording devices, recording devices that immediately upload the recordings to "the cloud", or devices that can not have their stored information destroyed (I have all 3).

Florida has been labeled a two-party consent state, but that is not really accurate. This is what I'm getting at.

Only statutorily defined 'Oral Communications' are restricted by two-party consent. I've provided the definitions above.

The test of reasonableness in Florida is:

(T)he speaker must have an actual subjective expectation of privacy in his oral communication, and society must be prepared to recognize the expectation as reasonable under the circumstances.

or heard with the unassisted ear, then it can be recorded

This is not really accurate either, for Florida. There are a few cases where people outdoors were recorded talking to someone inside a car, with some type of enhanced microphone, and it was ruled to be not an oral conversation, because... "There was no evidence that the occupants of the van made any effort or otherwise took precautions to keep the conversation private. Nevertheless, even if we were to assume [the defendant - the guy inside the car] did have a subjective expectation of privacy in this conversation, we find that [the defendant's] expectation of privacy is not one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable under the circumstances in this case.


Other rulings make statements similar to this:

Significant factors used in determining the reasonableness of the utterer's expectation of privacy in a conversation include "the manner in which the oral communication is made, the kind of communication, and the location in which the conversation or communication occurs.

So even without Federal court opinions, and despite Florida's inclusion in the so-called 'two-party' consent state list, it really isn't except in limited situations.

The situation is pretty clear in Florida. A visible video camera, or a cell phone held in a 'camera' mode unequivocally destroys any privacy expectation, by anyone (including LEO) that comes upon it. Surreptitious recording on the other hand may become an issue in certain circumstances wherein the parties take steps to insure their conversation cannot be intercepted. But of course, LEO can rarely ever have a have an actual subjective expectation of privacy in his oral communication, where society recognizes the expectation as reasonable under the circumstances, when performing his duties in public.


A lot of LEO do not like to be recorded, at all, and will unlawfully detain, demand ID, insist the the individual leave the area, threaten arrest, etc., regardless of what the law and the courts say.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

In Washington it can be a hidden device.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Florida has been labeled a two-party consent state, but that is not really accurate. This is what I'm getting at.

Only statutorily defined 'Oral Communications' are restricted by two-party consent. I've provided the definitions above.

The test of reasonableness in Florida is:



This is not really accurate either, for Florida. There are a few cases where people outdoors were recorded talking to someone inside a car, with some type of enhanced microphone, and it was ruled to be not an oral conversation, because... "There was no evidence that the occupants of the van made any effort or otherwise took precautions to keep the conversation private. Nevertheless, even if we were to assume [the defendant - the guy inside the car] did have a subjective expectation of privacy in this conversation, we find that [the defendant's] expectation of privacy is not one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable under the circumstances in this case.


Other rulings make statements similar to this:



So even without Federal court opinions, and despite Florida's inclusion in the so-called 'two-party' consent state list, it really isn't except in limited situations.

The situation is pretty clear in Florida. A visible video camera, or a cell phone held in a 'camera' mode unequivocally destroys any privacy expectation, by anyone (including LEO) that comes upon it. Surreptitious recording on the other hand may become an issue in certain circumstances wherein the parties take steps to insure their conversation cannot be intercepted. But of course, LEO can rarely ever have a have an actual subjective expectation of privacy in his oral communication, where society recognizes the expectation as reasonable under the circumstances, when performing his duties in public.


A lot of LEO do not like to be recorded, at all, and will unlawfully detain, demand ID, insist the the individual leave the area, threaten arrest, etc., regardless of what the law and the courts say.

That is great. This is about laws as they apply in WASHINGTON. Florida has its own sub-forum and so do another 48 states besides Washington and Florida.

 

[Grim_Night]

Florida has been labeled a two-party consent state, but that is not really accurate. This is what I'm getting at. /snip

I love how selective the moderation is on these forums. I say something that may be considered ambiguous and mods and others are quick to jump on me about it. Someone openly and blatantly makes a post regarding non state specific info and nothing...

That is great. This is about laws as they apply in WASHINGTON. Florida has its own sub-forum and so do another 48 states besides Washington and Florida.

+1

 

[Grapeshot]

That is great. This is about laws as they apply in WASHINGTON. Florida has its own sub-forum and so do another 48 states besides Washington and Florida.

No one is restricted to just posting on their home state sub-forum and members do post on other state sub-forums. Some comments are legitimate, some not so much.

I love how selective the moderation is on these forums. I say something that may be considered ambiguous and mods and others are quick to jump on me about it. Someone openly and blatantly makes a post regarding non state specific info and nothing...

+1

Not always Johny on the spot. Time and tide do play a part.

See something inappropriate? You know what to do.

 

[Freedom1Man]

No one is restricted to just posting on their home state sub-forum and members do post on other state sub-forums. Some comments are legitimate, some not so much.


Not always Johny on the spot. Time and tide do play a part.

See something inappropriate? You know what to do.

When they focus on their home state only in another state sub-forum, it makes the users here look like idiots.

If he was asking for clarification before visiting and not trying to apply Florida law in Washington, or any other state, that would be more appropriate. Instead we are discussing state specific law and he keeps imposing laws from another state.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[Phoenix David]

Password protect your device and not some crappy password like 123456, k7v3Ot is a way better password but phones are not that hard to crack.

Also password protect your home PC. You may also want to think of whole disk encryption. While the NSA may be able to crack it your local PD won't have the resources or expertise to do it also if it's stolen they would have to reformat the drives erasing all your data.

 

[countryclubjoe]

That's a TV-show level of reality.

It's more probable they won't wait for a warrant, will assert "officer safety" and throw you on the ground, cuff you, search you, grab your device and sit there with your face in the dust while they do their best to wipe.

Trust me, remote streaming to a secure site is your best option.

+100000000000000000000000000000000

Regards

CCJ

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

That's a TV-show level of reality.

It's more probable they won't wait for a warrant, will assert "officer safety" and throw you on the ground, cuff you, search you, grab your device and sit there with your face in the dust while they do their best to wipe.

Trust me, remote streaming to a secure site is your best option.

And what should a citizens response be to attempted assault? I would hazard a guess EVERY state has laws to one degree or another giving you the right to use reasonable force to thwart criminal actions. And those reasonable measures can and certainly are extreme, given the fact resisting could get you shot.

What's this I hear? Self-defence is a shocking idea on an OC forum? Ooops. What did I just expose?

 

[Grapeshot]

And what should a citizens response be to attempted assault? I would hazard a guess EVERY state has laws to one degree or another giving you the right to use reasonable force to thwart criminal actions. And those reasonable measures can and certainly are extreme, given the fact resisting could get you shot.

What's this I hear? Self-defence is a shocking idea on an OC forum? Ooops. What did I just expose?

You expose nothing - instead made a quantum leap.

Forum Rule #15 - WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

Elements to allow deadly force:

First, the defendant must prove that he reasonably believed that his act was necessary to defend himself. This defense is available even if it turns out that the defendant did not actually need to defend himself. As long as he reasonably believed that he needed to defend himself, he will be able to use this defense.

Second, the defendant must show that he reasonably believed that he was being threatened with physical harm.

Third, the defendant must show that the threatened harm was imminent.

Fourth, the defendant must show that he reasonably believed that the threatened harm was unlawful.

Fifth, the defendant must show that the threatened harm was of such a nature that it actually required the level of force that the defendant used.

Although these five elements must be proven in any instance in which the defendant claims self defense, one other element must be proven when the defendant has used deadly force on the victim. In such a situation, the defendant must additionally show that he reasonably believed that the other person was about to inflict death or serious bodily harm on him and that the deadly force he used in self defense was necessary to prevent the death or serious bodily harm with which he was threatened. See Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550 (1895).

http://nationalparalegal.edu/public...sp_files/criminalLaw/defenses/SelfDefense.asp

 

[Dave_pro2a]

You expose nothing - instead made a quantum leap.

Forum Rule #15 - WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

EVERY state has it's own "use of force" laws and case law.

SOME states treat LEO as a citizen instead of the King's Knight -- which means if an LEO assaults a non-LEO, the non-LEO may defend himself with a resonable level of force.

That might result in the death of an LEO.

It will surely involve a fair, balanced investigation, and a fair trail.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/nine-officers-arrest-one-teenager-6459415

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPMDMh5Hdrs

Rather than citing some lame national org like Grapeshot did (with generic information)... would anyone like to cite specific Washington state laws and case law on that topic? This is, after all, Sparta. Err, I mean the WA sub form. What happens in Alaska doesn't matter, or California, or Utah.

AFAIK use of force is acceptable against LEO in some circumstance, in some states. For example http://grumpyelder.com/2012/03/using-deadly-force-against-the-police-legally/

Does Washington? I don't know.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.020

#3 seems to be open ended: "Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary"