4 ms·

Won't this be illegal in states that require both parties to consent to recording?

• k_sh 8y ago
  "...the First Amendment protects the right to record [police/gov't officials carrying out their duties in public places] regardless of whether the police/officials consent. This constitutional right would override any state or federal laws that would otherwise prohibit such recording." http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-police-officers-and-public-officials http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-police-officers-an...
  • gammateam 8y ago
    if you're rich enough for appeals court and that motivates me
• justin66 8y ago
  You're thinking of the rules regarding phone conversations (one party vs. two party states). You're allowed to record your interactions with police, although sometimes they'll lie and tell you you aren't.
  • teej 8y ago
    Two-party consent laws do not just apply to telephone calls. In California, Cal. Penal Code § 632 applies to "confidential communication".
    • CocaKoala 8y ago
      Sure, but being arrested by the cops isn't confidential communication.
• tptacek 8y ago
  See Glik v. Cunniffe; you can record the police in public spaces, and laws that state otherwise are unconstitutional.
  • meddlepal 8y ago
    It doesn't seem like that's entirely settled yet since the ACLUM is still battling it out in court according to: https://www.metro.us/news/local-news/boston/can-you-record-the-police-massachusetts https://www.metro.us/news/local-news/boston/can-you-record-t... I dunno.
    • mmt 8y ago
      My reading of that article is that what's currently being fought over is the secrecy of the recoring activity, rather than consent. That it is this level of nuance that is being argued in court suggests that the issue of consent is well seettled.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]