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.




tiffanic
07-26-03, 10:26 PM
is it legal to record a conversation with a police officer or detective without thier knowledge?


zander_zye
07-26-03, 10:35 PM
A disclaimer - I am not an attorney so like anyone else on this board who is not an attorney, I am only giving you my opinion.

Generally, no, it is not legal to record a conversation with an officer (or anyone else for that matter) unless there is no chance of a privacy issue. This generally means that it is OK to record what is said in your car because there is normally no expectation of privacy on the part of the officer in your vehicle. Additionally, I believe that you can record anything in your house (both audio and video)

I would just tell the officer that I was recording them for purposes of evidence (just in case). If they say no, then ask them to turn off their evidence collection (audio and video).

(without a warrant, you cannot record a conversation where none or only one of the parties is aware of the recording).

resqr1
07-26-03, 11:42 PM
There is not a law against recording conversations. However, the recording will most likely not be admissable in court if the other party is not aware of the recording.


P01IC3M4N
07-27-03, 01:29 AM
why do you need to record me? if you want it, i'll already have a copy of our conversation. just make an open records request and it's all yours.

zander_zye
07-27-03, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by resqr1
There is not a law against recording conversations. However, the recording will most likely not be admissable in court if the other party is not aware of the recording.

I found the answer to the question on www.findlaw.com Two attorneys answered that it is generally illegal in all 50 states - and in CA there are even more restrictions. The key element is the expecation of privacy. Did you know as an officer if you come into my home and recorded our conversation without notifying me, (or have a warrant) you have comitted a federal crime where you can be arrested, and charged with a violation of my civil rights? The reasoning is that I have an expectation of privacy in my own home (I can record you because you in fact do not carry that same expectation in my home).

You are right - admissibility and legality are two separate issues.

I like the open and above board approach myself. If you can record, so can I so we both have a copy should someone say or do something they should not. There is a legal issue with digital video or audio recordings as they can easily be manipulated with rudamentary software packages.

NE Cop
07-27-03, 12:23 PM
As long as one of the persons involved in the conversation is aware of the recording, it is legal. For example, I am undercover, wearing a wire. I make a deal for X amount of drugs. The entire conversation is recorded, the suspect has no idea he was being recorded.

I have also had witnesses in crimes call suspects from my office, recording the conversation. In my office its called a "controlled call." The suspect has no idea the call was recorded.

sbrad
07-27-03, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by NE Cop
As long as one of the persons involved in the conversation is aware of the recording, it is legal.
In most states that is correct (including mine), but not all.
If you'll remember, the whole problem with the Monika Lewinsky shenanigan was that she was being recorded by the other party, but she wasn't told. And that was illegal in the state she was in (I believe Maryland).

Swat1
07-27-03, 04:11 PM
Zander is right. It is a federal crime to secretly record a face to face conversation when the other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy (REP). There are exceptions, like NE Cop said regarding a police wire for narcotics cases. It is different in each state. Often a wire order is required to conduct the monitoring, however, several states have exceptions such as narcotics cases, officer safety, etc. However, NE Cop is incorrect in that Joe Blow can record a conversation at his whim just because he is aware of the recording. This concept is called one party consent. Telephone calls are a separate animal, which I will get into in a minute. Back to one party consent. Many of you will remember Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp. Linda committed a crime when she secretly taped Lewinsky before federal investigators were involved. Linda was well aware the conversations were being recorded because she was the one recording them, however, one party consent is not legal in the District of Columbia.

Telephone calls are a completely different animal and what NE Cop is referring to is professionally called Consensual Monitoring. Controlled Calls is a cop slang term for the same thing. Most states are one party consent as is the federal government concerning telephone calls. However, there are some two party consent states out there. So be careful, make sure you understand your' states laws.

Swat1*

zander_zye
07-28-03, 12:46 AM
If an officer is carrying a wire, doesn't he have to in fact have a warrant to record the conversation? I beleive in CA, they do.

Recording laws are interesting and outdated. You can basically video tape anything you want, but making the audio recording is a different beast altogether.

Lfpdlieu302
07-28-03, 11:43 AM
in arkansas an undercover officer does not need a warrant to carry a hidden wire on a deal.

txinvestigator1
07-28-03, 11:53 AM
I find nothing in Texas law regarding the recording of person to person conversations.

Scruit
07-28-03, 12:42 PM
The easiest way to get around the legal hurdles is to inform the officer that you are recording the conversation. They may request that you discontinue recarding and that is their right (as if you are being recorded by your CC company when you call them "Calls are recorded for quality assurance". If the officer requests that you discontinue recording then do so, but remember you have the right to remain silent, so it's not an unreasonable request.

Also be aware that you may piss off the officer... Police record people for evidence of crimes that have been, or are being comitted, because they believe the person who is being recorded is involved in said illegal activity. Hoemowners use video security cameras in the hopes of catching images of someone who may commit a crime against them, for evidenciary and investigative purposes. SO it follows that if you inform an LEO that you are recording the conversation, the office may interpret that as you saying that you expect them to be involved in some kind of illegal activity, like framing you or something. Not saying you do, or he will or anything concrete - but you can understand why he may feel that way, yeah?

Phone calls are funky. Even state law is useless when the calls are interstate - both parties must know of the recording (LE may be able to get around this with warrants, I dunno). I was embroiled in a dispute one time and I would only ever call and talk to them about it when I was in a different state to them, and my conversations always started with; "I am an Pennsylvania calling ohio." She couldn't use any recordings she made as evidence to sue me. Any attempt to do so would leave her criminally liable for wiretap offences.

Hightower
07-30-03, 12:15 AM
In Minnesota as long as one of the people involved in the conversation has knowledge of the recording, it is legal to do. we are not required to notify the other person involved in the conversation of the recording taking place.

I am not a lawyer, just a street cop. This is what we were taught all through my schooling.


Hightower

sw2copgirl
07-30-03, 08:28 PM
My understanding of the legality of this (gleaned while I was in the academy recently), is that as long as one person knows the conversation is being recorded (in this case, yourself), it is legal to use a tape recorder. However, as far as its admissibililty in court, I don't know enough about it to say for sure.

My own reason for asking the question while in the academy was to acertain the legality of recording a conversation while at a call (such as in a domestic) to ensure accuracy in my report notes. Yet, my understanding was that it was perfectly legal to do for any reason (this is in Maine).

P01IC3M4N
07-30-03, 11:28 PM
case law handed down by the US supreme court applies to all states...

http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/us%20v%20white.htm

it is legal as long as one person is aware of it. it is admissible in court. you can be taped while in your home.

gdowkpc
08-02-03, 11:07 PM
Oregon law explicitely prohibits recording someone's audio without their knowledge. Police investigative reasons are exempt.

You can't even record a telephone conversation without consent.

Video is a different story.

barneyfife
08-03-03, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by sw2copgirl


My own reason for asking the question while in the academy was to acertain the legality of recording a conversation while at a call (such as in a domestic) to ensure accuracy in my report notes. Yet, my understanding was that it was perfectly legal to do for any reason (this is in Maine).

If I may interject an ancillary issue regarding your comments.

Did your supervisors advise you in cases where you interview people and make an arrest, you must turn the original copy of your tape recording over to prosecutors?

txinvestigator1
08-03-03, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by barneyfife
If I may interject an ancillary issue regarding your comments.

Did your supervisors advise you in cases where you interview people and make an arrest, you must turn the original copy of your tape recording over to prosecutors?

Are you asking if this happened, or suggesting that it is a requirement?

Can you quote a federal, state or local law? Or perhaps a case law?

barneyfife
08-03-03, 02:43 AM
Originally posted by txinvestigator1
Are you asking if this happened, or suggesting that it is a requirement?

Can you quote a federal, state or local law? Or perhaps a case law?

I have never been stalked before. It's kind of exhilarating.

Rosario....

txinvestigator1
08-03-03, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by barneyfife
I have never been stalked before. It's kind of exhilarating.

Rosario....

You gonna answer the question chump?

barneyfife
08-04-03, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by txinvestigator1

You gonna answer the question chump?

I did.

I notice you brand yourself as a former cop. Obviously you did not work in the confines of the USA. Perhaps you patrolled Dogpatch?

If you are going to continue to disparage me, please use a upper case "C" in Chump.

I'll bet you did not know I really enjoy your "TWAT" thread. Real classy.

Once they become aware of the caliber of discussions taking place here, I'll bet advertisers are clammoring to display their wares at this site.

Stump
08-04-03, 09:25 AM
Barney,
Place nice or I'll take your ball away.

:)

txinvestigator1
08-04-03, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by barneyfife
I did.

I notice you brand yourself as a former cop. Obviously you did not work in the confines of the USA. Perhaps you patrolled Dogpatch?

If you are going to continue to disparage me, please use a upper case "C" in Chump.

I'll bet you did not know I really enjoy your "TWAT" thread. Real classy.

Once they become aware of the caliber of discussions taking place here, I'll bet advertisers are clammoring to display their wares at this site.

No you did not answer the question. Put up or shut up. Where is your evidence?

barneyfife
08-04-03, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by txinvestigator1

No you did not answer the question. Put up or shut up. Where is your evidence?


Excuse me, Mr Texas Wannabee. I already answered your question.

You asked for case law and I provided the answer. I cannot be responsible for your lack of knowledge.

barneyfife
08-04-03, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by Stump

Barney,

Place nice or I'll take your ball away.

:)

Let me get this straight. A poster here calls me a "chump", and you want to chastise me?

I have to admit, I am not impressed by your style.

txinvestigator1
08-04-03, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by barneyfife
Excuse me, Mr Texas Wannabee. I already answered your question.

You asked for case law and I provided the answer. I cannot be responsible for your lack of knowledge.

No, you did not because you cannot. There is no law or case law stating
in cases where you interview people and make an arrest, you must turn the original copy of your tape recording over to prosecutors

There is no case law or statute to back this up.


BTW...wannabee, ohhhhhhhhhhhh you really got me there. I served 10 years on a large metropolitan department. What is your LE experience?

P01IC3M4N
08-04-03, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by barneyfife
I did.

I notice you brand yourself as a former cop. Obviously you did not work in the confines of the USA. Perhaps you patrolled Dogpatch?

If you are going to continue to disparage me, please use a upper case "C" in Chump.

I'll bet you did not know I really enjoy your "TWAT" thread. Real classy.

Once they become aware of the caliber of discussions taking place here, I'll bet advertisers are clammoring to display their wares at this site.

it's AN upper case "C" in Chump. and it's "I'll bet you did not know THAT I really enjoyed your "TWAT" thread. Past tense would indicate you've already perused it. Otherwise, you would currently be reading it and writing this post at the same time; which given your terrible lack of intelligence, I highly doubt that to be a possibility.

It is also general practice to place two spaces between sentences. there is also a comma after obviously in your third sentence.

It would behoove you to stay away from a dictionary. Your evident lack of grammatical skills only acts as a catalyst that enhances your inherent misuse of the English language.

zander_zye
08-05-03, 12:08 AM
Now, now children. You can stop it now or I will send you all to your room (Talia and Stump, you can go to my room :D ;) )

barneyfife
08-05-03, 03:28 AM
Originally posted by txinvestigator1

Are you asking if this happened, or suggesting that it is a requirement?

Can you quote a federal, state or local law? Or perhaps a case law?

Of course I can...Rosario

http://www.mcacp.org/issue4.html

barneyfife
08-05-03, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by txinvestigator1

No, you did not because you cannot. There is no law or case law stating

There is no case law or statute to back this up.

Are you sure?

BTW...wannabee, ohhhhhhhhhhhh you really got me there. I served 10 years on a large metropolitan department.

Your former department deserves credit for recognizing your plug should be pulled at 10 years.

What is your LE experience?

Substantially more than yours.

barneyfife
08-05-03, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by P01IC3M4N

and it's "I'll bet you did not know THAT I really enjoyed your "TWAT" thread. Past tense would indicate you've already perused it.

Unfortunately, you are assuming I will not go back and continue to enjoy a current thread. But you did entertain me. Don't stop now.

Otherwise, you would currently be reading it and writing this post at the same time; which given your terrible lack of intelligence, I highly doubt that to be a possibility.

What is it that led you to conclude I am unintelligent?

It is also general practice to place two spaces between sentences. there is also a comma after obviously in your third sentence.

Damn, I wish I knew what it is that causes me to attract loonies.

It would behoove you to stay away from a dictionary. Your evident lack of grammatical skills only acts as a catalyst that enhances your inherent misuse of the English language.

I'm curious what precipitated this horiffic attack. Are you jealous of me? Or do you derive pleasure from displaying your innate ability to criticize others who make relevant comments to threads.

txinvestigator1
08-05-03, 11:23 AM
Barnyfife

The text of "Rosario"

"Another leading case in New York, seemingly far afield from Molineux, is People v Rosario. Under this 1961 Court of Appeals decision (9 NY2d 286, 213 NYS2d 448), the prosecution at trial must turn over to the defense all statements of a prosecution witness relating to the witness's trial testimony. The Rosario rule is a strict one: on direct appeal, a per se rule applies for failure to turn over."

This is well known, but where is there a requirement for a LEO "where you interview people and make an arrest, you must turn the original copy of your tape recording over to prosecutors"?

IF the tape itself is going to used in court, then I agree that the officer must make the tape available as evidence, and Rosario requires that the tape is made available to the defense. But if the tape itself is not going to be used or presented as evidence, then the tape does not have to be submitted.

In fact, this only affects the trial of a defendant, and failure of an officer to submit the evidence offers the defense an opportunity to exclude any evidence on the tape. There is no legal requirement for an officer to submit the tape. No where does the law or courts place a requirement that an officer "must" surrender such tape.

There is no consequence or sanction if an officer fails to submit a tape to prosecutors.

And to address your other insults, no one "pulled my plug". I left to earn WAY more money and have a better life. I was highly decorated, and never had a sustained complaint. I was one of the highest producers on my shift, and the second highest in district for 3 years. I have a drawer full of citizen appreciation letters. When I submitted my resignation, I was courted by the department with offers to transfer to other divisions and stay on. (this was pretty common for the dept to do for good officers)

KottonmouthKING
09-02-03, 09:59 PM
They can record you without notice, but you can't record them...
one more time, I'm glad not to live in america no more...

government and police control EVERYTHING, they probably can videotape you taking a sh**

Scruit
09-02-03, 10:51 PM
You *CAN* record them. They just have as much right as you do in terms of notification and to decline consent to be taped.

gdowkpc
09-03-03, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by KottonmouthKING
They can record you without notice, but you can't record them...
one more time, I'm glad not to live in america no more...

government and police control EVERYTHING, they probably can videotape you taking a sh**

And I'm sure you live in a country that affords more rights and freedoms than this one. :rolleyes:

I have to congratulate you on actually heeding the phrase, 'love it or leave it', though by the grammer in your post it would appear that you weren't a native anyways.

Semper Fi
09-03-03, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Swat1
Back to one party consent. Many of you will remember Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp. Linda committed a crime when she secretly taped Lewinsky before federal investigators were involved. Linda was well aware the conversations were being recorded because she was the one recording them, however, one party consent is not legal in the District of Columbia.
Swat1*
Actually they met and Linda Tripp recorded the conversation at the Pentagon City Ritz-Carlton in Arlington, Virginia. It is illegal to secretly record audio(but not video) in Virginia, apparently it is not illegal in D.C. or Mrayland. If she had just arranged to meet somewhere in D.C. or Maryland instead she would have avoided a lot of additional trouble, acording to Greta Van Sustren at least. ;)