4 ms·

That's grasping at straws. What are the chances you're going to happen to need an alibi for the very moment you were filming yourself with a drone, and your dro

That's grasping at straws. What are the chances you're going to happen to need an alibi for the very moment you were filming yourself with a drone, and your drone just happened to be small enough not to be observed? I would also submit that the critical factor in this case was the state's use of a hidden camera. We've already agreed that there is no problem with the FBI posting an actual agent on the steps. Finally, this type of law applies much more to audio than to video. I am allowed to record video to my heart's content. I am only allowed to record a conversation with consent of all parties in my state. But even if I did so, no sane court would prevent me from using such a recording in my own defense.

andrewclunn 11y ago
No sane court? Come on now. If it's inadmissible then it's inadmissible. That's not how the law works. You can either force law enforcement to get warrants for public recordings (which isn't much of a barrier considering the rubber stamping happening now), or you can allow the public to also make such recordings admissible. I want to have just as much a right to record law enforcement in public as they have to record me. I'm not grasping at straws, I'm arguing for openness rather than privacy in public, which I think is a much better and more achievable outcome.
- nikdaheratik 11y ago
  > Come on now. If it's inadmissible then it's inadmissible. That's not how the law works. It really does depend alot on who is making the recordings and for what purpose. Incriminating evidence obtained illegally is always bared because the state is in the business of snooping into people's business and needs strict boundaries set. Exculpatory evidence collected by the neighborhood busybody can be allowed even if the recordings were made illegally. Of course, the Busybody's lawyer may try and get it struck as admitting it would make any civil and/or criminal trial harder to defend against, but that wouldn't necessarily stop them from doing so. Makes it more complex if the Busybody is also the defendant, but then you're trading admission of guilt for a lesser offense (illegal recording) to get you off from a higher offense, like anti-trust type stuff. And that's also assuming that the people you are recording decide they want to press charges.

andrewclunn 11y ago

No sane court? Come on now. If it's inadmissible then it's inadmissible. That's not how the law works. You can either force law enforcement to get warrants for public recordings (which isn't much of a barrier considering the rubber stamping happening now), or you can allow the public to also make such recordings admissible. I want to have just as much a right to record law enforcement in public as they have to record me. I'm not grasping at straws, I'm arguing for openness rather than privacy in public, which I think is a much better and more achievable outcome.

nikdaheratik 11y ago
> Come on now. If it's inadmissible then it's inadmissible. That's not how the law works. It really does depend alot on who is making the recordings and for what purpose. Incriminating evidence obtained illegally is always bared because the state is in the business of snooping into people's business and needs strict boundaries set. Exculpatory evidence collected by the neighborhood busybody can be allowed even if the recordings were made illegally. Of course, the Busybody's lawyer may try and get it struck as admitting it would make any civil and/or criminal trial harder to defend against, but that wouldn't necessarily stop them from doing so. Makes it more complex if the Busybody is also the defendant, but then you're trading admission of guilt for a lesser offense (illegal recording) to get you off from a higher offense, like anti-trust type stuff. And that's also assuming that the people you are recording decide they want to press charges.