• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Informing LEO of recording.

hhofent

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
130
Location
Iowa
A lot of people on this forum recommend recording all interactions with LEOs, are we required to inform the officer that we are recording them?

Sent from my SCH-R680 using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
A lot of people on this forum recommend recording all interactions with LEOs, are we required to inform the officer that we are recording them?

Sent from my SCH-R680 using Tapatalk 2

Iowa appears to be a 1-party-consent state, meaning that so long as one party to a conversation (you) knows that the conversation is being recorded, you are legally in the clear. See http://www.vegress.com/index.php/can-i-record-calls-in-my-state.

Some would say it's good to tell a LEO that you are audibly and visually recording the interaction because it puts the LEO on notice.

You may also want to know that no matter what the law in your state may be, the LEO may decide that you "can't" do the recording and remove the recorder from your possession. The smartest thing may be to use a smartphone to do the recording, one that transmits the recording to the internet in real-time so that even if the LEO takes the phone from you, a record of the encounter will still exist.
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
Iowa appears to be a 1-party-consent state, meaning that so long as one party to a conversation (you) knows that the conversation is being recorded, you are legally in the clear. See http://www.vegress.com/index.php/can-i-record-calls-in-my-state.

Some would say it's good to tell a LEO that you are audibly and visually recording the interaction because it puts the LEO on notice.

You may also want to know that no matter what the law in your state may be, the LEO may decide that you "can't" do the recording and remove the recorder from your possession. The smartest thing may be to use a smartphone to do the recording, one that transmits the recording to the internet in real-time so that even if the LEO takes the phone from you, a record of the encounter will still exist.

Not sure I would trust that site as they (and most others) are wrong about Florida in this context.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Not sure I would trust that site as they (and most others) are wrong about Florida in this context.
Agreed. Always best to get such information directly from the source
727.8 ELECTRONIC AND MECHANICAL EAVESDROPPING.
Any person, having no right or authority to do so, who taps into or connects a listening or recording device to any telephone or other communication wire, or who by any electronic or mechanical means listens to, records, or otherwise intercepts a conversation or communication of any kind, commits a serious misdemeanor; provided, that the sender or recipient of a message or one who is openly present and participating in or listening to a communication shall not be prohibited hereby from recording such message or communication; and further provided, that nothing herein shall restrict the use of any radio or television receiver to receive any communication transmitted by radio or wireless signal.

808B.2 UNLAWFUL ACTS -- PENALTY.
2.c. It is not unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic
communication if the person is a party to the communication or if one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any state or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act.
 

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
Agreed. Always best to get such information directly from the source
727.8 ELECTRONIC AND MECHANICAL EAVESDROPPING.
Any person, having no right or authority to do so, who taps into or connects a listening or recording device to any telephone or other communication wire, or who by any electronic or mechanical means listens to, records, or otherwise intercepts a conversation or communication of any kind, commits a serious misdemeanor; provided, that the sender or recipient of a message or one who is openly present and participating in or listening to a communication shall not be prohibited hereby from recording such message or communication; and further provided, that nothing herein shall restrict the use of any radio or television receiver to receive any communication transmitted by radio or wireless signal.

808B.2 UNLAWFUL ACTS -- PENALTY.
2.c. It is not unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic
communication if the person is a party to the communication or if one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any state or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act.

So ... after all of that, the statutes agree with the cite I provided...
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
No need to inform when recording police.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/supreme-court-recording-police_n_2201016.html

I had an issue where I was having a meeting with a public official. That official had a cop present as a security precaution. I whipped out my camcorder. Cop would not let me record. I ended the meeting.

I re-set up the meeting. I called the police chief and informed the chief that I was not allowed to video record the cop and this violated my 1st amendment rights and I would sue if it happened again.

2nd meeting, no problem. No cop showed. But if one did, the chief agreed that I have the right to record.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
No need to inform when recording police.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/supreme-court-recording-police_n_2201016.html

I had an issue where I was having a meeting with a public official. That official had a cop present as a security precaution. I whipped out my camcorder. Cop would not let me record. I ended the meeting.

I re-set up the meeting. I called the police chief and informed the chief that I was not allowed to video record the cop and this violated my 1st amendment rights and I would sue if it happened again.

2nd meeting, no problem. No cop showed. But if one did, the chief agreed that I have the right to record.
Painted with way too broad a brush. Over generalizing is fraught with problems.

Recording in a public location where no expectation of privacy exists is one thing. Doing the same thing in a private office/meeting may not meet the standard. Different states = different laws.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
Painted with way too broad a brush. Over generalizing is fraught with problems.

Recording in a public location where no expectation of privacy exists is one thing. Doing the same thing in a private office/meeting may not meet the standard. Different states = different laws.

The 1st and 7th circuit decisions mean that it is now technically legal to record on-duty police officers in every state in the country. from Huff link above

I've read the case ... and I think that the Huff conclusion is correct...as long as they are on-duty, you can record (except in very specific exceptions ~ like a small area of the airport security areas ~ while they are poo-ing etc)

I have not seen any court cases where taping on-duty cops have resulted in convictions since SCOTUS decided not to hear the case...if you know of any please post .... I'm a learner...
 

amaixner

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
308
Location
Linn County, Iowa
So in summary, you may record police in public / on duty without notification,
and additionally, in IOWA you may record them in private and both on/off duty without notification as long as you are a party to the conversation.
 
Last edited:

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
You may also want to know that no matter what the law in your state may be, the LEO may decide that you "can't" do the recording and remove the recorder from your possession.

That would be very unwise of the officer. Thats theft
714.1 THEFT DEFINED.
A person commits theft when the person does any of the following:
1. Takes possession or control of the property of another, or
property in the possession of another, with the intent to deprive the
other thereof.

A citizen is permitted to use all reasonable force to prevent the loss of property as defined

704.4 DEFENSE OF PROPERTY.
A person is justified in the use of reasonable force to prevent or
terminate criminal interference with the person's possession or other
right in property. Nothing in this section authorizes the use of any
spring gun or trap which is left unattended and unsupervised and
which is placed for the purpose of preventing or terminating criminal
interference with the possession of or other right in property.

Agreed. Always best to get such information directly from the source
727.8 ELECTRONIC AND MECHANICAL EAVESDROPPING.
Any person, having no right or authority to do so, who taps into or connects a listening or recording device to any telephone or other communication wire, or who by any electronic or mechanical means listens to, records, or otherwise intercepts a conversation or communication of any kind, commits a serious misdemeanor; provided, that the sender or recipient of a message or one who is openly present and participating in or listening to a communication shall not be prohibited hereby from recording such message or communication; and further provided, that nothing herein shall restrict the use of any radio or television receiver to receive any communication transmitted by radio or wireless signal.

808B.2 UNLAWFUL ACTS -- PENALTY.
2.c. It is not unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic
communication if the person is a party to the communication or if one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any state or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act.


I'm trying to find a better link here but the Supreme Court has ruled at least once that police officers have no expectation of privacy for starters and secondly "justices left in place a federal appeals court ruling that found that the state's anti-eavesdropping law violates free-speech rights when used against people who audiotape police officers." (source)
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
That would be very unwise of the officer. Thats theft


A citizen is permitted to use all reasonable force to prevent the loss of property as defined

I know in my state, if a cop is doing what he tinks is his job, one cannot interfere...even if the actions are unlawful.

Part of the retarded protect the cop syndrome.

Suggest folks check and make sure sure before they jump a cop.
 

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
I know in my state, if a cop is doing what he tinks is his job, one cannot interfere...even if the actions are unlawful.

citation? I would have to look at the exact wording but I imagine every state has provision that allows you to lawfully protect yourself from assault, threat of assault and has similar reasonable force laws

Suggest folks check and make sure sure before they jump a cop.

Quite. Woe to the fool who gets it wrong as there will be serious penalty. We are talking specifically about lawful protection of oneself. Plus remember a cop can lie. He may say he's doing his job when in fact he is committing a crime.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
I'm trying to find a better link here but the Supreme Court has ruled at least once that police officers have no expectation of privacy for starters and secondly "justices left in place a federal appeals court ruling that found that the state's anti-eavesdropping law violates free-speech rights when used against people who audiotape police officers." (source)
Your memory and mine match, laws that prohibit the public from recording the actions of their public servants in the performance of their public duties on behalf of the public .... are not legal.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
citation? I would have to look at the exact wording but I imagine every state has provision that allows you to lawfully protect yourself from assault, threat of assault and has similar reasonable force laws

Sec. 53a-167a. Interfering with an officer: Class A misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of interfering with an officer when such person obstructs, resists, hinders or endangers any peace officer, special policeman appointed under section 29-18b, motor vehicle inspector designated under section 14-8 and certified pursuant to section 7-294d or firefighter in the performance of such peace officer’s, special policeman’s, motor vehicle inspector’s or firefighter’s duties.

(b) Interfering with an officer is a class A misdemeanor.

You can read the case "State of Connecticut v. Anthony J. Brocuglio 264 conn. 778, 2003" if you want a read that will drive you crazy.

Police are special ...
 
Last edited:

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
Sec. 53a-167a. Interfering with an officer: Class A misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of interfering with an officer when such person obstructs, resists, hinders or endangers any peace officer, special policeman appointed under section 29-18b, motor vehicle inspector designated under section 14-8 and certified pursuant to section 7-294d or firefighter in the performance of such peace officer’s, special policeman’s, motor vehicle inspector’s or firefighter’s duties.


(b) Interfering with an officer is a class A misdemeanor.

Duties though. If a police officer commits a crime he is not doing his duty and reasonable force laws apply.

You can read the case "State of Connecticut v. Anthony J. Brocuglio 264 conn. 778, 2003" if you want a read that will drive you crazy.

Police are special ...

aaah http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-supreme-court/1005899.html


....under federal case law, “f a suspect's response to an illegal search is itself a new, distinct crime ․ the police constitutionally may arrest the [suspect] for that crime․


clearly.... which is why you don't draw and fire your gun if you are sworn at for example. That would not fall under reasonable force laws whatsoever. Even in this case one could not draw and fire a gun at officers for a ticket. While wrong of the officers no lives were in danger. It could be argued though the assault and kidnap (arrest and being taken to the police station) Would have been grounds enough for extreme action to protect oneself from harm. As for some of the rest of that lot it read like a load of trash and I'd have loved to give that fool judge a piece of my mind.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Duties though. If a police officer commits a crime he is not doing his duty and reasonable force laws apply.



aaah http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-supreme-court/1005899.html




clearly.... which is why you don't draw and fire your gun if you are sworn at for example. That would not fall under reasonable force laws whatsoever. Even in this case one could not draw and fire a gun at officers for a ticket. While wrong of the officers no lives were in danger. It could be argued though the assault and kidnap (arrest and being taken to the police station) Would have been grounds enough for extreme action to protect oneself from harm. As for some of the rest of that lot it read like a load of trash and I'd have loved to give that fool judge a piece of my mind.

Define "extreme action" to avoid being arrested.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
Duties though. If a police officer commits a crime he is not doing his duty and reasonable force laws apply.


aaah http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-supreme-court/1005899.html


clearly.... which is why you don't draw and fire your gun if you are sworn at for example. That would not fall under reasonable force laws whatsoever. Even in this case one could not draw and fire a gun at officers for a ticket. While wrong of the officers no lives were in danger. It could be argued though the assault and kidnap (arrest and being taken to the police station) Would have been grounds enough for extreme action to protect oneself from harm. As for some of the rest of that lot it read like a load of trash and I'd have loved to give that fool judge a piece of my mind.

Define "extreme action" to avoid being arrested.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Caution suggested - slippery road.
 
Top