Driver falsely arrested at DUI checkpoint claims statistics — not drunk drivers — motivate arrests

codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

That depends, different states have different rules regarding recording conversations.  Some are "single party consent" (meaning you can record your own conversation with someone else without needing their consent/knowledge), some are "dual party" (meaning you can't).  If you're in a dual party state you might be breaking the law if you recorded a conversation with a police officer without informing them that you were recording it.

However, pretty much every state has statements surrounding "reasonable expectations of privacy" and the lack thereof.

Basically, if you are out in public, you... are in public. You can't expect privacy. People can take photos or videos with you in them. It's perfectly legal for the paperazi to stand outside a restaurant and take photos of you. In private, you have an expectation of privacy. You're not allowed to set up a ladder on the side of their fence and take photos of them through their side windows.

If the cop is interacting with you in public or on/in your private property, you can take photos and videos. The only place you probably wouldn't be able to is if you were in someone else's private property.

As stated above, 2 party consent is for private conversations. If you are pulled over in public, no need to even notify them. I have a dash camera, and the 2 times I've been stopped, the first thing I did was let them know they are being recorded out of courtesy. The first time was years ago when dash cams were just hitting the market and he was fascinated by it, asked all kinds of questions about it and where to buy one. 

OHSCrifle said:

Change my mind:

Muting or turning a body camera off should be a felony. 

A day later, I kinda wish I had said "crime" rather than felony.. but I definitely think all evidence tampering should be punishable. 

Stampie said:

In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :

PA centric but still ...

https://www.aclupa.org/en/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-when-taking-photos-and-making-video-and-audio-recordings

National ACLU

https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/right-record-police-doesnt-disappear-when-you-put-your-phone-your-pocket

What I was poking fun at is the first amendment doesn't mention recording audio at all, since after all it was written long before cell phones.

If previous cases have successfully argued that recording audio is included in free speech (or possibly the practice of your religion) then I guess we can call right to record a first amendment right. 

Well, I just went down a first amendment rabbit hole. Lots of interesting stuff and I recommend the read to anyone who is getting ready to debate about it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#:~:text=The%20First%20Amendment%20makes%20clear,to%20the%20dictates%20of%20conscience.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Steve_Jones said:

As stated above, 2 party consent is for private conversations. If you are pulled over in public, no need to even notify them. I have a dash camera, and the 2 times I've been stopped, the first thing I did was let them know they are being recorded out of courtesy. The first time was years ago when dash cams were just hitting the market and he was fascinated by it, asked all kinds of questions about it and where to buy one. 

And many states are even single party consent states. 

In reply to z31maniac :

Correct, but as I live in MD and drive in PA a bunch, I needed to know their rules (both are 2 party) just in case. 

Steve_Jones said:

In reply to z31maniac :

Correct, but as I live in MD and drive in PA a bunch, I needed to know their rules (both are 2 party) just in case. 

Interesting I thought federal law dictated a 1-party consent law (assuming you are participating in the conversation) but recording a conversation of other people when you not participating in considered illegal eaves dropping/wiretapping.

z31maniac said:

Steve_Jones said:

In reply to z31maniac :

Correct, but as I live in MD and drive in PA a bunch, I needed to know their rules (both are 2 party) just in case. 

Interesting I thought federal law dictated a 1-party consent law (assuming you are participating in the conversation) but recording a conversation of other people when you not participating in considered illegal eaves dropping/wiretapping.

Federal is 1 party, but some States are 2. You can be charged by the State for violating that law, regardless of Federal Law. Maryland and PA require all being recorded must consent, so if it's 5 people, all 5 must be ok with it. As pointed out though, only private conversations. So police stops don't count. 
 

The interesting part is it only applies to audio, video with no sound is legal with no consent, go figure. 

.08 is the per se guilt level for DUI. That means if you blow .08 you are considered breaking the law, no argument. Anything less (.05 for instance) needs some kind of subjective qualification for DUI like road side test, video of dangerous driving, etc. You can be cited for DUI for under .08, but its harder to make it stick in court without strong evidence of bad or dangerous driving.

I'd fight it. But I rarely if ever drink when I'm going to be driving. And I almost never finish a drink anyway. I teach high school DE and need to keep my record clean.

aircooled said:

Hawaii is a bit weird with police.  Most of which drive their own cars!

 

But this will all become entirely academic when we all have breathalyzers in our new cars.  I am sure that won't cause issues, blowing into your car every time you want to start it... rental cars.... car shops... fun...

This is a requirement, by law.  No specifics on how it will be implemented, but breathalyzer is the obvious one.  I really don't see breathalyzers being remotely practical, but I also see the other options as potentially problematic (and expensive).

https://www.motortrend.com/news/anti-drunk-driving-technology-mandated-infrastructure-bill/

This is looking a bit like yet another "great idea" by the gov, without any concept of how it will be implemented, or the unintended consequences.

 

If I am not mistaken, the technology has to be installed so that it can be activated when required by court order.  Again, making the average law-abiding citizen pay the price for those that cannot follow the laws.  

Steve_Jones said:

The interesting part is it only applies to audio, video with no sound is legal with no consent, go figure. 

That makes sense. What sorts of privacy can you reasonably expect in public?

Imagine you are sitting at a park bench with someone else. Anyone walking buy can *see* what you are doing, but they would have to get close to be able to hear you. You can expect a quiet conversation to be private.

In reply to Beer Baron :

I can record video with a hidden camera, just not audio. I can record video in a private setting without telling you, but not audio. In your park bench example, I can record both, as it's a public space. A quiet conversation is not private, I can sit on the bench near you with a hidden recorder and it's legal. You can photograph, video, and audio record anyone in any public space, including children (as creepy as that is). 

jmabarone said:

aircooled said:

Hawaii is a bit weird with police.  Most of which drive their own cars!

 

But this will all become entirely academic when we all have breathalyzers in our new cars.  I am sure that won't cause issues, blowing into your car every time you want to start it... rental cars.... car shops... fun...

This is a requirement, by law.  No specifics on how it will be implemented, but breathalyzer is the obvious one.  I really don't see breathalyzers being remotely practical, but I also see the other options as potentially problematic (and expensive).

https://www.motortrend.com/news/anti-drunk-driving-technology-mandated-infrastructure-bill/

This is looking a bit like yet another "great idea" by the gov, without any concept of how it will be implemented, or the unintended consequences.

 

If I am not mistaken, the technology has to be installed so that it can be activated when required by court order.  Again, making the average law-abiding citizen pay the price for those that cannot follow the laws.  

I just want to know the next revenue stream that will be exploited to cover the new shortfall in government fleecing errr revenue.

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

Stampie said:

In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :

No state law overrides your 1st amendment right to record in pubic.

So the 1st amendment is an absolute right?  Is it dependent on if the police like that you are recording then?  What if they really, really don't like it or don't like what you are saying?  

If they really don't like what you're saying or that you're recording them, you'd better hope your video makes it to the cloud before they take your phone, break it and then start piling charges on you for failure to comply with a lawful order, resisting arrest, etc.

Many police are great, law abiding people. A non-zero number of police officers go into the profession to become professional sadists or bullies. The "thin blue line" lockstep that they adhere to means anyone reporting misbehavior will get ostracized. 

The body cam is an impartial, non-union member, so the police officers acting outside of the law generally hate them.

Beforehand the I'm being censored convo, cops crash into a bar and immediately arrest owner for being irate that cops crashed into his bar

https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/st-louis-police-file-felony-charge-against-bar-pm-owner-after-suv-crash-41472853

Appleseed said:

I deleted my post. I realize the best thing to do is just not engage. 

johndej said:

Beforehand the I'm being censored convo, cops crash into a bar and immediately arrest owner for being irate that cops crashed into his bar

https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/st-louis-police-file-felony-charge-against-bar-pm-owner-after-suv-crash-41472853

Wow that's a microcosm of policing right there. The cop's story has already been refuted by two different cameras, too.

https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/attorney-videos-taken-at-bar-pm-contradict-st-louis-police-story-41477984

This is of no surprise. We have multiple backwards incentive structures in this country. DAs are motivated by convictions/win percentage not justice. Its why it very common for people to be overcharged, then offered a slap on the wrist plea deal, counts as a win for the DA, with no regard to actual justice

In reply to Javelin :

That's absolutely infuriating. That officer needs to be charged with false arrest, falsifying a police report, driving to fast for conditions, etc. Any civilian would be given a sobriety test after crashing into a berkeleying building, I bet this officer wasn't.

LEO's in this country should really be required to have proper training on the law. Tulsa Police Department requires a 4-year college degree.....most departments require you to pass a fitness test and not have any prior felonies. 

Fun fact: Did you know in most states cosmetologists typically have to take 3x the amount of schooling/training as your local police officer? Yeah, let that sink in. 

I would expect that at least on paper there are fewer restrictions on recording the police than a private person.  Our employees are told that since we're public employees we can expect to be photographed/recorded at any time during our day. After 9/11 some rules were made during the anti-terror  paranoia but pretty much none of them are enforceable.  Of course reality is different, if you're the entity that enforces the law you can make it up as you go along unchallenged without issue as long as those being policed don't have a lawyer on standby.  

In reply to z31maniac :

My tattoo artists have more hours of training under their belts before they're allowed to start working on people, and put in more hours every year than any member of law enforcement in the state is required to go through.

I had a long winded rant about a useless DA letting a known pedophile walk and refusing to keep him incarcerated on any charges whatsoever, but decided that it's not worth writing up. The warning I got though is, "if you handle this yourself we'll throw the book at you". So never mind that the justice system won't help you, it will go out of its way to hurt you for making it look bad.