Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

The REAL POLICE FORUM is a leading community of police officers and law enforcement professionals. The forum includes police chat and restricted areas for police officers only. The ask-a-cop area allows you to ask questions to real police officers and only verified police are allowed to respond. REALPOLICE.com also features law enforcement jobs, news, training materials and expert articles.




decuervo
08-26-05, 06:29 PM
Just read this one in the Penal Code a little closer. It says it's only a crime if the ACTOR (i.e. the idiot doing the stalking) thinks it can be considered threatening to the victim. What is up with that? If I get a stalking call what am I suppossed to do? Some pervert must have written this one up.

Also, what about unauthorized video/audio recording? Is it that only one party has fore-knowledge and approval of said recording for it not to be an offense? Got in a tiff with a class mate over this one.


scott715us
08-26-05, 07:09 PM
Just read this one in the Penal Code a little closer. It says it's only a crime if the ACTOR (i.e. the idiot doing the stalking) thinks it can be considered threatening to the victim. What is up with that? If I get a stalking call what am I suppossed to do? Some pervert must have written this one up.

Also, what about unauthorized video/audio recording? Is it that only one party has fore-knowledge and approval of said recording for it not to be an offense? Got in a tiff with a class mate over this one.

As far as I know with the audio/video, the person that is being recorded has to have a reasonable expectation of privacy for it to be considered illegal (on our part). As far as Joe Citizen recording someone else, I'm not positive. I'll wait for others to chime in.

Old Trooper
08-26-05, 07:24 PM
To my knowledge, if you are part of a conversation/communication, you are okay to record it. You cannot record other people's conversations without their knowledge/permission, i.e. eavesdropping, wiretapping, etc.


retdetsgt
08-26-05, 07:52 PM
To my knowledge, if you are part of a conversation/communication, you are okay to record it. You cannot record other people's conversations without their knowledge/permission, i.e. eavesdropping, wiretapping, etc.

Depends entirely on the state. In Oregon, it's one party consent only. That is, I can record a conversation between myself and someone else without their knowledge. In fact, when I was working, I kept a recorder on my phone at work all the time so I could turn it on if someone started telling me something interesting.

But some states require all parties to be aware of the recording.

Wiretapping requires federal oversight.

Terminator
08-26-05, 09:47 PM
Depends entirely on the state. In Oregon, it's one party consent only.


Exactly. North Carolina is also a one-party consent state.

decuervo
08-27-05, 12:11 AM
Thanks ya'll, I'm not sure what it is here (one or all parties). Hopefully someone from TX will drop their .02.
The situation my friends and I were talking about goes like this: A person in the Air Force, stationed in Texas, was accused of rape, but had recorded the encounter with the female without her knowledge. Would the video be admissible as evidence or would it be considered an illegal video recording and inadmissable?

retdetsgt
08-27-05, 12:47 AM
If it clears him of the rape, it should be admissible. Video recording comes under different laws than sound. For instance, you can stand anywhere and video tape people on the street w/o their permission. People do it to police all the time. But even if it was illegal, the defense could enter it into evidence and could face the consequences of doing the recording. Which I imagine wouldn't be too much.

txinvestigator1
08-27-05, 12:01 PM
Just read this one in the Penal Code a little closer. It says it's only a crime if the ACTOR (i.e. the idiot doing the stalking) thinks it can be considered threatening to the victim. What is up with that? .

Thats not entirely accurate. The penal code states:



(a) A person commits an offense if the person, on more than
one occasion and pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct that
is directed specifically at another person, knowingly engages in
conduct, including following the other person, that:

(1) the actor knows or reasonably believes the other person
will regard as threatening:

(A) bodily injury or death for the other person;

(B) bodily injury or death for a member of the other person's
family or household; or

(C) that an offense will be committed against the other
person's property;

The culpability in the next section is different;



(2) causes the other person or a member of the other person's
family or household to be placed in fear of bodily injury or death or
fear that an offense will be committed against the other person's
property; and

(3) would cause a reasonable person to fear:

(A) bodily injury or death for himself or herself;

(B) bodily injury or death for a member of the person's
family or household; or

(C) that an offense will be committed against the person's
property.




Also, what about unauthorized video/audio recording? Is it that only one party has fore-knowledge and approval of said recording for it not to be an offense? Got in a tiff with a class mate over this one.

Here is the law on that;



21.15. Improper photography or visual recording.

(a) In this section, "promote" has the meaning assigned by
Section 43.21.

(b) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means
visually records another:

(A) without the other person's consent; and

(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; or

(2) knowing the character and content of the photograph or
recording, promotes a photograph or visual recording described by
Subdivision (1).

(c) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

(d) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section
also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor may be
prosecuted under this section or the other law.

decuervo
08-27-05, 12:40 PM
txinvestigator1, so what I'm getting from 21.15 is BOTH parties need to be aware of the recording. Also, if that Air Force person in the situation I described submitted that video to the defense attorney could the prosecutor hook up the Air Force guy for a SJF?
As to the Stalking thing, that's what I was asking, the perp is the one to decide if he/she feels like the other person is threatened by his/her actions? Would it be smart/prudent to give the violator a verbal/written warning that their actions are threatening to the victim and wait for it to happen again so you can say that they were warned and aware of that? Should you get an emergency PO for the victim? Would the judge even issue one for a stalking case? There's still so much I don't know. (enter severely frustrated phrases here) Thanks again for all ya'lls help.

txinvestigator1
08-27-05, 12:53 PM
txinvestigator1, so what I'm getting from 21.15 is BOTH parties need to be aware of the recording. Also, if that Air Force person in the situation I described submitted that video to the defense attorney could the prosecutor hook up the Air Force guy for a SJF? The statute states it is a violation to video another person, "to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person", without the other person's consent.



As to the Stalking thing, that's what I was asking, the perp is the one to decide if he/she feels like the other person is threatened by his/her actions? Would it be smart/prudent to give the violator a verbal/written warning that their actions are threatening to the victim and wait for it to happen again so you can say that they were warned and aware of that? Should you get an emergency PO for the victim? Would the judge even issue one for a stalking case? There's still so much I don't know. (enter severely frustrated phrases here) Thanks again for all ya'lls help.

First of all, we don't say "perp" in Texas :D

You are not reading the statute correctly. Whether or not the offender knew, or reasonably believed is a matter of fact to be decided by a judge or jury. You simply need probable cause to effect an arrest. I believe that the courts look at what a reasonable person in the actor's position would have believed or should have known.

The suspect does not "get to decide", but rather the question is, does he actually know or should he reasonably believe.

Clear as mud yet?

decuervo
08-27-05, 06:35 PM
I think I got it, hopefully everything will fall into place before Oct 16th (first day on the streets). Thanks for being patient.