Digital Tape Recorders

[BP348]

The trouble with recordings is it's discoverable at trial.

+ 1

We have a winner!

I don't remember the details anymore but a few years ago I remember hearing a story about an officer/agent who was charged witha title 3 violation because he taped his wife and the guy she was cheating on him with. He called that guys wife and asked her if she wanted to hear the tapes. She shows up with her "divorce" lawyer who was really an AUSA and listened to the tapes. Next thing the guy knew he was being charged with a title 3 violation :confused:

I don't do title 3 stuff so I don't really know why that turned into a big deal. I also don't understand the other wife showing up with an AUSA :confused::confused:

[Brendon]

Yeah. No party consent will get you in trouble in any state. The only way it would work out is if he taped it in his own house/car.

Thanks for answering!

[Creeker]

I cleared everyone out of the scene when the forensics guys showed up for that very reason. In fact, the whole idea is to keep people away until you guys do your job.....

Outdoors, the only problem I might have would be uniform guys who aren't used to the drill. Before the forensics person started filming, I told them what was going on and asked them to be quiet until the filming stopped. They were always good about it.

Yeah, we came up with a Log Sheet, which was to be kept by the Primary Deputy as to who came and went thru the banner guard into a non-traffic Crime Scene. They logged every swinging nametag both in and out until the scene was complete. If the Primary couldn't do it, a Super. appointed one that he could spare, but by the time us and the Suits got on scene, the Primary was going to do nothing but his initial IR and log names.

It kept a lot of lookyloos out, especially when they knew it was going to be part of the case file and go to the Solicitor/Defense Attorney.

That was also one of the best benefits of digital imaging, initially. Rather than take 3000 Polaroids (@$1.25 per), I was able to justify a digicam to take some over-alls to illustrate the scene to the Brass, after which they didn't seem to have as big an urge to trample the usable Evidence anymore.:cool:

[retdetsgt]

That was also one of the best benefits of digital imaging, initially. Rather than take 3000 Polaroids (@$1.25 per), I was able to justify a digicam to take some over-alls to illustrate the scene to the Brass, after which they didn't seem to have as big an urge to trample the usable Evidence anymore.:cool:

We rarely took Polaroids at a crime scene. The criminalistics guys could get us the 35 mm prints usually by the time we got back to the office. Which was usually several hours (like 7 or 8) later anyway unless we had a suspect in tow. I hate to deal with that big a stack of Polaroids anyway.....

Our guys also video taped homicide scenes too, but I rarely looked at them. They were more for the prosecutor at trial.