Legality of videotaping an Officer doing his job in Washington State?

[Gray2Hairs]

I have asked a number of Officers and have received conflicting answers. Washington requires notification of videotaping and requires both parties to be informed. I read that a law was passed making it illegal to videotape Officers and that it was overturned by the Federal court and the 9th Circuit Court upheld that decision.

My 1st question is: can someone videotape an Officer doing his duty while in public?

2nd, If that person (suspect) videotaping is using a hidden camera to record the police/suspect dialog, is that legal?

3rd, if a person is videotaping an officer/suspect dialog is not involved with the event other than as a witness (say 50' away), can that person be required to stop recording by the officers involved?

This is not based on any specific event. I belong to various gun-rights groups and have heard numerous "stories" about confrontations while open carrying. Some of the events resulted in Police departments writing training bulletins to help Officers understand the current laws.

In any case there is much confusion among those who carry and LEOs. I have worked with officers from 3 different police departments on the open carry issue and it is not my intention to discuss it here.

I am concerned about plans to videotape such confrontations, the legalities involved and how best to handle a situation of being stopped while open carrying that will protect all involved. I realize this is a sensitive issue for both those who carry and LEOs. Everyone wants to be safe and I in no way want to create a confrontation as that places anyone at risk.

Your assistance is appreciated. Thanks.

[Kimble]

I

My 1st question is: can someone videotape an Officer doing his duty while in public?

Yes, there's even a TV show called "Cops" that does just that.

2nd, If that person (suspect) videotaping is using a hidden camera to record the police/suspect dialog, is that legal?

Different states have different laws on recording without consent. NJ, for example, requires both parties (i.e. the one being recorded and the one doing the recording) to consent to the recording, so having a hidden camera would be illegal in that state.

3rd, if a person is videotaping an officer/suspect dialog is not involved with the event other than as a witness (say 50' away), can that person be required to stop recording by the officers involved?

Depends on the circumstances.

I am concerned about plans to videotape such confrontations, the legalities involved and how best to handle a situation of being stopped while open carrying that will protect all involved. I realize this is a sensitive issue for both those who carry and LEOs. Everyone wants to be safe and I in no way want to create a confrontation as that places anyone at risk.

Open communication is often best, using hidden communication is no way to win friends. I would advise opening a dialog with your local police, letting them know of your concerns and talk through the issues together. As an American you have the right to bare arms, and unfortunately follks have just as much the right to be an @$$hole when there are easier, less confrontational ways to get the same results.

[G35 Mass]

I can't address the entire WA statute, but I'll address the notification issue.

You state WA is a "2-party" notification state. That requires EVERYONE who is being recorded be notified, not just any two people. The law is there so people do not end up in a situation where they are not aware they're being videotaped. If you're recording the police interacting with a 3rd party, both the police and that 3rd party must be notified that they're being recorded.

In contrast, a 1-party consent state only requires that any one person being taped be notified, which means generally the person taping suffices.

[Gray2Hairs]

Thanks for your answers. I completely agree with the open communications and always strive to do so. Thanks for the clarification about requiring everyone to be notified.

[Kimble]

Thanks for your answers. I completely agree with the open communications and always strive to do so. Thanks for the clarification about requiring everyone to be notified.

To clarify again, in 2-party states it's not just notifying the other party, you have to also have their consent (i.e. permission).

[Sgt. Slaughter]

In Arizona, we don't have any of the limitations for consent to recording that other states do, so I don't have personal experience with it. However, I'm not convinced police need to be notified they're being recorded when they're on the clock "in the performance of their duties" as police have no right to privacy in that case. I can see, according to the spirit of the law listed, that if the police are dealing with another party and you just want to record it, you'd need consent of the party the police are dealing with, though.

[retdetsgt]

Oregon has one party consent on telephone conversations, but two party on face to face. The picture is okay, but the sound is protected. That being said, the courts have thrown out every arrest made for recording or tape police on duty. I don't know what the reason is, I quit caring when I retired.

COPS, by the way always gets consent of everyone they tape before broadcasting it. That's why some peoples' faces are blurred out. That's probably because it's a commercial broadcast because news cameras don't have to.

[mcsap]

Open carry is STUPID but what do I know , I am just a cop. The ONLY time I open carry is when I am on duty. At no other time will I EVER open carry. Even though it is legal for me to do so.

[Aussie George]

I'm in Australia. I wear a small video camera on my shirt and film lots of people. I love it when they then complain about what I said and I can show the footage of them and prove they are liars.

It is called covering my butt. It also prevents me from losing my temper and choking the SOB's on a regular basis, even though a lot of them deserve it.