4 ms·
The recording isn't illegal. The argument is over whether it's admissible. Even the article, which clearly favors throwing it out, admits to that.
by andrewclunn 11y ago
The recording isn't illegal. The argument is over whether it's admissible. Even the article, which clearly favors throwing it out, admits to that.
- mikeash 11y agoI thought evidence was inadmissable iff it was gathered illegally (by the government).
- andrewclunn 11y agoThe term illegal is not the same as inadmissible. The recording isn't illegal, and isn't going to get anybody prosecuted for making it. Whether it's admissible is another question, but the article itself states: "What the government did here is not unlawful only because it occurred outside a courthouse..." The headline says illegal, but that's not what the term actually means. I know it's semantics, but the argument you appear to be making is that law enforcement broke laws here. They did not. They may have a recording that they can't use in court, but the recording itself is not illegal.
- mikeash 11y agoHow was it not illegal? California law prohibits recording communications without the consent of all parties unless they have no expectation of privacy. If the argument is that there was no such expectation because they were in public, then what causes the recording to be inadmissible?
- andrewclunn 11y agoThe law favors the defense in these situations. If charges were brought against the agents, then the burden of proof would be to prove that they knew there was no expectation of privacy. By challenging whether it's admissible the burden of proof goes the other way and it and to be shown that those speaking did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It's a quirk of the law.
- mikeash 11y agoI understand that, but you yourself are making the much stronger claim that the recordings aren't illegal. You're saying they're legal but inadmissible, which makes no sense to me.