Recording a conversation with a police officer

[tiffanic]

is it legal to record a conversation with a police officer or detective without thier knowledge?

[zander_zye]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

in arkansas an undercover officer does not need a warrant to carry a hidden wire on a deal.

[txinvestigator1]

I find nothing in Texas law regarding the recording of person to person conversations.

[Scruit]

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]

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]

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]

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.