3 ms·
never thought i’d see UHub here! this has been a long-running massachusetts thing: PD hates being recorded in public. MA is also one of the very last remainin
by hprotagonist 6y ago
never thought i’d see UHub here!
this has been a long-running massachusetts thing: PD hates being recorded in public.
MA is also one of the very last remaining two-party consent states, which is also an oddity.
- loeg 6y agoWA is also two-party consent for recording.
- imglorp 6y agoIs that a "reasonable expectation of privacy thing" because that's hard to argue on a public street.
- 8bitsrule 6y agoI found a WA law against recording private communications unless you first announce (or it's apparent) that you're recording it ... or you're a 'frequently-published' media employee (in which case consent can't be withdrawn). https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030 (I didn't find one, but I suspect that any public-recording law would be more restrictive.) "The Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals first acknowledged the First Amendment right of citizens to film police officers carrying out their duties in public in the case Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (1995). Later, in Lewis v. State, Dept. of Licensing, 157 Wash.2d 446 (2006), the Washington State Supreme Court also ruled in favor of recording public police activity in the context of a traffic stop." http://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/August-2019/Rights-and-Limits-on-Filming-in-Public-Facilities.aspx http://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/August-2019/... <== "Rights and Limits on Filming in Public Facilities"