Recording a conversation with a police officer

[barneyfife]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. ;)