22 ms·

Phone conversations with law enforcement can be recorded without their consent

403 points by jdmark 2y ago

aftbit 2y ago
> The same day as the court’s ruling, DeSantis signed into law two bills affecting law enforcement in Florida. Two judges on the panel that issued the ruling Friday were DeSantis appointees. > One new law makes it illegal after a person has been warned to approach first responders or remain within 25 feet while they are performing a legal duty if the intent is to interfere, threaten or harass them. The new law doesn’t prevent people from recording law enforcement but can require them to move 25 feet back, which can make it more difficult. > The other requires that citizen review boards in Florida – intended to provide independent oversight of law enforcement actions – be re-established so that members are appointed by a sheriff or police chief and that at least one member be a retired law enforcement officer. I wonder if the first will stand up to Constitutional review. I imagine there are many First Amendment protected purposes for recording that may require the recorder to be within 25 feet of the officer. For example, if they're recording during windy conditions and need to hear what the officer says. I also wonder how the "intent" will be interpreted by courts. Probably in a way that is most favorable to LEOs. The second law is just a straightforward neutering of citizen review boards.
- qwerpy 2y ago
  > Probably in a way that is most favorable to LEOs. I think this makes sense. Would be bad if every time a police officer tries to stop a crime, suddenly 20 hard of hearing people need to crowd around him really close in order to record him. Oh look, the criminal got away again. There are situations where different laws will conflict, and I hope in those situations crime prevention and safety take precedence. Modern phone cameras are really good and 25 feet isn't very far. Seems like a good compromise so that cops can do their jobs but there can be some citizen oversight.
  - chatmasta 2y ago
    > suddenly 20 hard of hearing people need to crowd around him really close in order to record him It’s already against the law to interfere with an arrest. A mob of people surrounding officers attempting to arrest someone is already illegal, whether they have cameras in their hands or not.
    - nomel 2y ago
      Laws that rely on an officers/departments personal reading of a situation/interpretation are easily confused and abused, especially when it's something as fuzzy as "interference". Having clarity is nice. I personally think it's fine to give an officer some sort of personal space. If I were an officer arresting someone, I wouldn't want someone affiliated with them standing 5 feet behind me, where I would have to worry about being attacked. Not sure how this works indoors though, where 25 feet would make observation impossible. This assumes sane body camera policies are in place, like immediate dismissal if the camera/mic is turned off/covered, during any part up to or during an arrest.
      - clipsy 2y ago
        > This assumes sane body camera policies are in place, like immediate dismissal if the camera/mic is turned off/covered, during any part up to or during an arrest. Assuming fantasies is rarely helpful when judging the effects of legislation.
        nomel 2y ago
        Without sane body camera policy, deterministic accountability is fantasy. I was speaking from that goal.
      - turdprincess 2y ago
        That seems about as realistic as immediate dismissal from your job if you forget to unmute yourself on zoom.
- renewiltord 2y ago
  Haha, this was pretty good. I think a bunch of them involved police walking towards the videographer, requiring them to walk farther back.
  - jojobas 2y ago
    If the law forbids you from approaching, staying where you are would be fine wouldn't it?
    - wombatpm 2y ago
      Am I allowed to stand my ground with deadly force in such a scenario?
      - bagels 2y ago
        No, you must retreat to your designated free speech zone.
      - Thorrez 2y ago
        What does that mean?
        lazyasciiart 2y ago
        He thinks he can outdraw the cops.
        ang_cire 2y ago
        Most people competent with a gun can. The requirements for firearms practice (and especially draw-and-fire drills) for cops are pretty minimal across the board. Your average 3-gun or USPSA competitors (who admittedly train much more than a bench shooter probably does) likely spend 30x more hours per year training than a cop does. Here's a per-state breakdown of police training requirements. https://www.apexofficer.com/police-training-requirements https://www.apexofficer.com/police-training-requirements Most of them require 20 hours or less PER YEAR, and that is not just firearms training, but total training across e.g. deescalation, driving, EMT, less-than-lethal force, crowd control, etc. Several of them specify that the firearms training is only 2 hours. Most hobby shooters can knock out 12 hours of dedicated firearms training in a month or 2 of weekend range days, so 6x what a cop might have to do in 12 months. Outdrawing the cops isn't the issue, outnumbering them is. Unless you've also got 300+ buddies you can call for support, you're going to lose in the end.
- morkalork 2y ago
  What's the point of a citizen review board if the sheriff or chief appoints everyone on it? Talk about fox guarding the henhous!
  - roughly 2y ago
    > What's the point of a citizen review board if the sheriff or chief appoints everyone on it? I don’t know, but I know what the point of the law was.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - Analemma_ 2y ago
    This sounds like a case of "the citizen review board was created by fed-up voters at the municipal level, and then the state stepped into neuter it". Because DeSantis etc. are about local control except when the locals make a decision they don't like.
    - tadfisher 2y ago
      See also: the Texas "water breaks ban", which actually superceded all county and municipal employee protections in a wide array of classes that exceeded the state minimums.
      - cryptonector 2y ago
        There was no water break ban as such. And no one in Texas will forbid employees from drinking water in the scorching heat unless it is to make a political point.
        tadfisher 2y ago
        Yes, I explained what the law actually was in my comment. The nickname was earned by removing municipal protections for hydration breaks along with every other protection not specified at the state level.
- ImJamal 2y ago
  >The second law is just a straightforward neutering of citizen review boards. It says reestablished. How are they neutering something that doesn't exist?
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    Where does it say it is creating an entity that doesn't already exist?
    - ImJamal 2y ago
      The word reestablished means that it used to be established but is no longer established. It is now coming back.
      - wholinator2 2y ago
        Not completely. It also means to disband something that currently exists, then recreate it, effectively reestablishing the board. You are paying attention to only one possible reading, which is the one not consistent with the truth. Citizen review boards exist in Florida. These currently functioning boards will have their power stripped immediately and members will be replaced with captive appointees. This is not creating citizen review boards, this is destroying them
        refurb 2y ago
        Using the word “reestablish” in that way would be the confusing and odd considering the multiple other word choices that would be far more precise.
        bee_rider 2y ago
        Note that this is just a phrase that occurs in the news article, it doesn’t seem to be present in the actual law as far as I can tell.
      - bena 2y ago
- dmichulke 2y ago
  Is recording someone an expression of > the intent [..] to interfere, threaten or harass them ?
  - GoblinSlayer 2y ago
    Maybe there was a precedent where such a person walked in and demanded something?
  - advisedwang 2y ago
    The police often interpret recording as a threat (to hold them accountable). They then can construct situations to make it impossible to record without intefering.
- jimbob45 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - ThePowerOfFuet 2y ago
    wow.
- vkou 2y ago
  The first is an absolute farce. All an officer who doesn't want to be recorded needs to do is get in your face (or have his partner get in your face) - at which point, you are now recording within 25 feet of an officer, and must either stop, or face arrest. If you take a few steps back, he can, of course, repeat this process ad-infinitum. Sure, you can argue this in a Florida court, and you might even win, but in the meantime, the law accomplishes exactly what it intends.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Its worth reading the actual law as written [1]. Looks like the distance is actually 20 feet, and it specifically states that you can't approach a first responder with intent to harass after being given a verbal warning. If a first responder approaches you then you've done nothing wrong. [1] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/75/?Tab=BillText https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/75/?Tab=BillText
    - enragedcacti 2y ago
      That isn't the correct bill, the bill that passed has the more broad phrasing "to violate such warning and approach or remain within 25 feet of the first responder" https://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/BillSummaries/2024/html/3418 https://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/BillSummaries/2024/html/...
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        Oh thanks, yeah that clarification is an important one! The or remain addition ruins it, though I also don't see that holding up in court with any reasonable jury. In that scenario, if I start more than 25 feet away and stand my ground if a cop approaches me only with the intent of making me move or stop filming, I've truly done nothing wrong and the cop is intending to infringe on my rights. Will a judge or DA see if this way? Almost certainly not. But if I were on the jury I'd throw that shit out, I don't really care what the law says as written if its a law I don't think is constitutional or reasonable. Juries are there, in part, to act as a check on the legal system.
- user_7832 2y ago
  > I wonder if the first will stand up to Constitutional review. I imagine there are many First Amendment protected purposes for recording that may require the recorder to be within 25 feet of the officer. It may be possible to stand 25ft back and hold a 15ft long pole with a camera, or place a phone/camera on the ground and then stand back, to get past this issue.
  - lvncelot 2y ago
    Legality aside, I can't imagine waving a 15ft long pole towards the police will go over well.
    - smolder 2y ago
      Yeah, very many people can't afford a decent lawyer when they need one, and might not get one even if they can, in which case legality really is... aside.
leggomuhgreggo 2y ago
>law enforcement officers performing their official duties can be secretly recorded because they have no expectation of privacy. Sounds about right. I was worried that this referred to personal conversations and was about to say "dang have we gone too far?" but yeah this makes sense. Probably goes without saying but — we don't want to condemn/bastardize/immiserate the entire institution...
- yareal 2y ago
  The institution of uniformed police forces is relatively recent, established in the 1800s, and it reflects an 1800s era sensibility towards crime. In that it is predominantly focused on protecting the property interests of the wealthy. (The original police forces grew out of a desire to socialize the costs of protecting merchant investments -- the warehouses and docks and factories in much of the world, and slaves held as property in the south of the U.S.) Prior to uniformed police, communities maintained order themselves -- often through night watches in which everyone participated, or eventually through hiring people to "cover my watch". Police in the modern era have been used as a threat of violence against common people more or less since their inception in the 1800s, from slave patrols to strikebreaking. They've been used as political assassins killing the political opponents of the state (see Frederick Hampton) to the systematic oppression of gay and trans people (see, for instance, Stonewall inn). Lest these feel like old examples, just this year police shut down a gay bar in Seattle for having "indecent apparel" being worn by the gay men in attendance. I think it's absolutely fair for people to think critically about the history and legacy of the institution and wonder, is this the best institution we can imagine to fill this role? Are there better ways to imagine the roles it fills today? Are there systemic issues that need fixing with it? The reason I bring this forward is that any thoughtful critique of the institution is often painted broadly as, "you are just an anarchist who cannot think beyond your slogans!" Perhaps the institution could do with some immiseration.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Prior to uniformed police, communities maintained order themselves -- often through night watches in which everyone participated, or eventually through hiring people to "cover my watch" Dispensing violence as part of these watches was also generally accepted. I'm not sure how that would work in a modern environment. (You're also referring to a period during which most of the world was feudal or quasi-feudal. The people maintaining order had their own security forces.)
DueDilligence 2y ago
[dead]
Ajay-p 2y ago
I think this is a good thing. The government could record you without your consent, the citizen should be allowed to as well. I understand police need warrants, but what is the citizen to do? Especially when so many courts, judges, and juries take the word of police over the citizen. Seems very fair to me.
- romafirst3 2y ago
  weird take. This makes sense cause the public official doesn't have an expectation of privacy when they are performing their official duties. That makes sense. Nothing they should be doing when they are conversing with a member of the public should be private to them (unless it is private to the person they are talking to - and if it's private to someone else then they probably shouldn't be sharing it with the person recording).
- judge2020 2y ago
  Legally the government can’t record you without your consent. In public, you have no expectation of privacy - so anyone can film anyone, government or non-government. That would be most police activity. Any other police activity - such as when raiding a home - would be subject to standard legal review in terms of admission into discovery and whatnot.
  - PeterisP 2y ago
    With a warrant, they definitely can legally record you without your consent and your knowledge, e.g. secretly invading your home and placing recording devices there - IMHO that's the point of the parent post; while there are checks and balances that require legal review, in the end, the government can do all that unilaterally after a judge approves that it is necessary.
    - Ajay-p 2y ago
      Yes. Not just with a warrant, but often without a warrant or just cause. The police can lie to you, violate your rights, and do almost anything they want to you, but if you don't have body cam or other video/audio evidence, as so many, many people have found, you are screwed. There is an excellent shortcut called "Hey Siri, I'm being pulled over" that "will dim your phone, pause any music being played, and start recording video from your front-facing camera." Not all cops are bad, but the power imbalance makes these issues necessary for citizens to protect themselves. https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/17/21293996/siri-iphone-shortcut-pulled-over-police-starts-recording-video https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/17/21293996/siri-iphone-shor...
modeless 2y ago
Apparently all that's required to make recording a phone call legal is to play a 3 second recorded message saying "This call may be recorded for quality and training purposes" because that's what every corporation does. They don't ask, or verify consent. Why can't I do that on my phone? I will happily have my phone say "This call may be recorded" before every call I pick up, so that every call can be recorded.
- colechristensen 2y ago
  Presumably you could.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > all that's required to make recording a phone call legal is to play a 3 second recorded message In some jurisdictions, all that is required is an audible beep (or even no notice at all). In others, full consent [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#...
- jojobas 2y ago
  The idea is that if you don't consent you hang up after hearing the message. Funnily, the phrasing "may be recorded" is not interpreted by the corporations as "the customer may be recording as well" and in many cases their default policy is to not talk to you if you've declared you're recording. Single-party consent jurisdictions make it even more muddy.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Single-party consent jurisdictions make it even more muddy Don't they simplify it? You're on the call. If you consent to recording, you've given your single-party consent. You don't need to tell the company you're calling you're recording.
    - jojobas 2y ago
      You don't but if you do they'll hang up. The whole "the call may be recorded, but only by us" is rather idiotic still.
lesuorac 2y ago
> “As soon as I grabbed his arms to put him under arrest, to put them behind his back, that’s when I catch an elbow to my face, to my lower right jaw,” said Glaze, the deputy who arrested Waite. I would love to know how the deputy is grabbing arms. I mean try this at home, get a friend to face away from you and once you touch their arms they can try to elbow you in the face. Like the guys 63 and somehow he can extend half his arm length (it's elbows) to hit you in the face?
- rahimnathwani 2y ago
  Assuming the person's arms were behind their back, making a V shape, the officer might have needed to bend a little to maintain a firm grip.
- jimbob45 2y ago
  You turn 45 degrees to the right, violently yank away an arm, and slam its elbow into their face. You see it on Cops and LivePD all the time.
gamepsys 2y ago
I think this is an interesting decision for a two party consent state. Typically in a two party consent state all private conversations cannot be recorded unless both parties agree to have it recorded. This means it is illegal to secretly record a private conversation. However, the judge ruled that “conversations concerned matters of public business, occurred while the deputies were on duty, and involved phones utilized for work purposes.” have no expectation of privacy. As someone living in a two party consent state that is not Florida I am curious if this precedent will carry weight in my home state.
- ender341341 2y ago
  I'm not a lawyer so take this with a grain of salt, especially with the current scotus, but I wouldn't be super surprised if courts found it legal to record government officials in general. Other forms of communication (like email) for government employees are already subject to FOI requests, and the barrier for them to block FOI requests when it's about an interaction you were a part of is much much higher in general than for asking about interactions with other people.
- bagels 2y ago
  More weight if you're in the 5th District. It doesn't set precedent in other districts.
  - semiquaver 2y ago
    Just to be clear, this was a decision of Florida’s 5th district of appeal, not a federal district court. So there is zero precedential effect outside Florida.
- cryptonector 2y ago
  > As someone living in a two party consent state that is not Florida I am curious if this precedent will carry weight in my home state. A Florida decision carries no precedential power outside Florida, but judges in other states can nonetheless refer to the Florida decision for its analysis.
nntwozz 2y ago
In Sweden it's legal to record any conversation you are part of, secretly recording as a third party is not. Just common sense really. Just sayin'
- gamepsys 2y ago
  Sometimes in a private conversation I will say things I would not want the public to hear me say. In places where there is one party consent it requires much more trust to have these types of private conversations, because any conversation could be recorded and placed on twitter. For example, I think it's awful that in some places it's legal to privately tell you friend about a mental health struggle you are having, and for that friend to, without your knowledge, share a recording of that conversation with other people. In my mind two party consent is a basic data-privacy law. You cannot create a record of something you expected to be private. You can have an expectation of a private conversation to be private.
  - judge2020 2y ago
    What a bad take. Private doesn’t mean “off the record”. Making it so that you can’t record unless you ask the other party for consent to record makes it harder to hold people accountable for their actions, gather proof of labor law violations, and confess to other types of crimes. If you’re saying something that “could be placed on twitter”, maybe reflect on the harm your statement is causing that the rest of society agrees about. Even if this was a law, the only defense is suing anyone who records your conversation and brings it to the limelight - the JKR approach.
  - planede 2y ago
    Taking a recording and sharing the recording are two different things. I think the intention universally is to deter from sharing the recording. Punishing taking the recording is also a way to do that, but I don't see much harm in having private recordings for personal use.
- o11c 2y ago
  That's the same as one-party consent (that is, one of the parties having the conversation, not random passersby), which in the US applies federally as well as in about 3/4 of the states. But most states - whether one-party or two-party - do not require consent to record a broad swathe of exceptions (particularly extortion, but not just that). Exact laws vary quite a bit - honestly one of the worst things about America is how different laws (of all sorts) can be in different jurisdictions.
tjtang2019 2y ago
[dead]
alsetmusic 2y ago
It makes me sad that this positive ruling is in a case of a SovCit. It’ll just empower them to believe even harder that their magic incantations are valid. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/sovereign-citizens-movement https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideo... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement
- shkkmo 2y ago
  The only evidence provided of that is the word of a police officer and is specifically disputed by the victim.
  - alsetmusic 2y ago
    They hate being called SovCits because they know it’s associated with crazy behavior. I watched a video recently of an arrest where one said that term was like making a racist comment. She and her husband both used some other nebulous term, but they were part of the same belief system as SovCits. But you’re right, I’m going on a single statement from LEO. Though I wouldn’t expect them to use that term pejoratively if it wasn’t true and they wished to discredit him. They’d make a claim having something to do with a law violation.
    - helpfulclippy 2y ago
      Police can be extremely vindictive. For instance, they tried to put this guy away in prison for potentially decades because he recorded phone calls of statements they made in an official capacity. I've seen cops make statements that they must have known were not truthful to people's employers, seemingly for no purpose other than to damage the person's reputation after a heated (but legally protected) conversation. I've worked on bills where multiple members of law enforcement turned up to testify to say things that I'm pretty sure they knew were wrong, just to get their way in policy. The sad reality is that there are many cops out there who lie to get their way and hurt people they don't like, and so I really don't find it hard to believe that they would accuse this guy of being a sovcit to damage his credibility. edit: also in this case, remember that they've also accused him of resisting arrest when they went to get him for recording phone calls. So they've also made many claims that WERE about law violations.
sans_souse 2y ago
One-party consent as a law never made sense to me. Our whole system of governance relies on consent of all parties involved, or at least a majority of. Even the definition itself of consent requires this - in other words 1 party consent = 1 party non-consenting..
- fsckboy 2y ago
  New York is one-party consent; however, such recordings are not admissible as evidence in court, that requires two-party; one-party recordings can be used to embarrass.
blendo 2y ago
He emailed the evidence to the police: “Waite emailed his recording of the call to the sheriff's office records department and requested an internal investigation. A month later, Waite was accused of five counts of illegal wiretapping for recording the conversation with the sergeant and four other calls with sheriff’s employees.“
- johnisgood 2y ago
  That reminded me of a case where an employee was recording their coworker sleeping through the night shift, and it was the employee recording that got into trouble because recording a video (or audio) is against the rules. Nothing happened to the employee sleeping through the night shift. Crazy. What to even do in such cases, really? The recording was just proof or evidence, otherwise it would have been one employee's words against the other.
can16358p 2y ago
> Sorry, you have been blocked You are unable to access orlandoweekly.com Just why?
chad42 2y ago
I can’t access the content because the security service blocks me.
RyanAdamas 2y ago
So what's the penalty for not moving back 25 feet? Death? Seems like officers in the USA have carte blanche to just shoot the crap out of anyone not complying with their 'lawful' orders - whatever the hell lawful means these days.
- GordonS 2y ago
  It likely depends on the colour of your skin, and what kind of day the officers have had so far - but given US police history, I can't imagine it's long before they shoot someone in the back while claiming they were "interfering".
- rtkwe 2y ago
  Arrest, even if you're not charged ultimately there's a lot of power in being able to just initiate an arrest suddenly you're resisting arrest if you aren't cowed immediately and even if the original charge is bogus you've got the cops get out of liability free card of slapping on a resisting charge. And even if they don't pull that legal judo move you're still stuck in the system for a while and that's majorly disruptive to your livelihood even if you don't ultimately get charged with anything and get released asap.
  - RyanAdamas 2y ago
    How is that not fruit from the poisoned tree? If the initial charge is bunk, all subsequent charges must be by default since the origin of the conflict was unjust. Which means, if a cop hits you with "resisting arrest" when the initial offense isn't worthy of arrest, then hitting that cop square in the face should not be punishable by law. If cops can't be sued for their actions due to qualified immunity, then they should absolutely fear the response of people unjustly detained. This American cop carte blanche is going to fucking stop.
Samuel_w 2y ago
[flagged]
- user_7832 2y ago
  Do you really expect to hook anyone from HN? Begone, bot/scammer.
smeej 2y ago
> Waite was separately convicted of battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting arrest with violence after he was accused of striking a deputy with his elbow when they arrived to arrest him on the wiretapping charges. > Waite surrendered after a detective shocked him with an electrical device. > “Waite did not demonstrate a lack of good faith and should have complied without resorting to violence,” the judges said. Love this double standard. Armed men can show up at your door, shackle your wrists behind your back, and haul you off to a cage, all in bad faith, but if you resort to meeting violence with violence, you're the one who gets sentenced.
- Cacti 2y ago
  we generally agree as a society that police, military, etc. have a monopoly on the use of force. That is kind of the entire point of the system.
  - smeej 2y ago
    I don't speak for your society, but this isn't true of mine.
    - piloto_ciego 2y ago
      To be clear, where is your society at and are you guys taking people from mine? Lol, because people getting the utter shit beat out of them by the police irrationally and with zero consequences is remarkably common here in America. I have managed to avoid it, but I know more than a few people who’ve been roughed up in bad faith…
    - metalcrow 2y ago
      What country are you in? I'd be shocked if any country allowed it's citizens the legal right to use violence against the government.
avsteele 2y ago
Readers please note: recording consent laws vary state to state. Do not read the headline and assume it applies to yours. Some states are single party consent, some two, some might be more subtle.
pif 2y ago
Please, add a [USA] or [Florida] tag to the title, thanks!
NickC25 2y ago
FL resident here. Really disappointed in DeSantis. Not that I'm even remotely shocked - he's an outright fascist and this sort of ruling and law is right out of 1984. Let's hope that the Supreme Court strikes down both laws. Can't wait to vote his ass out of office.
rtkwe 2y ago
A classic Florida move of one step forwards and two back. Sure you can record law enforcement now but the review boards will be stocked with people hand picked by the sheriff when you go to complain about their abuses.
aiejrilawj 2y ago
FYI this only applies to Florida. Laws regarding consent for recording vary from one state to the next.
more_corn 2y ago
Because there’s no expectation of privacy when a public servant is performing their duties.

403 points by jdmark 2y ago

> The same day as the court’s ruling, DeSantis signed into law two bills affecting law enforcement in Florida. Two judges on the panel that issued the ruling Friday were DeSantis appointees. > One new law makes it illegal after a person has been warned to approach first responders or remain within 25 feet while they are performing a legal duty if the intent is to interfere, threaten or harass them. The new law doesn’t prevent people from recording law enforcement but can require them to move 25 feet back, which can make it more difficult. > The other requires that citizen review boards in Florida – intended to provide independent oversight of law enforcement actions – be re-established so that members are appointed by a sheriff or police chief and that at least one member be a retired law enforcement officer. I wonder if the first will stand up to Constitutional review. I imagine there are many First Amendment protected purposes for recording that may require the recorder to be within 25 feet of the officer. For example, if they're recording during windy conditions and need to hear what the officer says. I also wonder how the "intent" will be interpreted by courts. Probably in a way that is most favorable to LEOs. The second law is just a straightforward neutering of citizen review boards.

qwerpy 2y ago
> Probably in a way that is most favorable to LEOs. I think this makes sense. Would be bad if every time a police officer tries to stop a crime, suddenly 20 hard of hearing people need to crowd around him really close in order to record him. Oh look, the criminal got away again. There are situations where different laws will conflict, and I hope in those situations crime prevention and safety take precedence. Modern phone cameras are really good and 25 feet isn't very far. Seems like a good compromise so that cops can do their jobs but there can be some citizen oversight.
- chatmasta 2y ago
  > suddenly 20 hard of hearing people need to crowd around him really close in order to record him It’s already against the law to interfere with an arrest. A mob of people surrounding officers attempting to arrest someone is already illegal, whether they have cameras in their hands or not.
  - nomel 2y ago
    Laws that rely on an officers/departments personal reading of a situation/interpretation are easily confused and abused, especially when it's something as fuzzy as "interference". Having clarity is nice. I personally think it's fine to give an officer some sort of personal space. If I were an officer arresting someone, I wouldn't want someone affiliated with them standing 5 feet behind me, where I would have to worry about being attacked. Not sure how this works indoors though, where 25 feet would make observation impossible. This assumes sane body camera policies are in place, like immediate dismissal if the camera/mic is turned off/covered, during any part up to or during an arrest.
    - clipsy 2y ago
      > This assumes sane body camera policies are in place, like immediate dismissal if the camera/mic is turned off/covered, during any part up to or during an arrest. Assuming fantasies is rarely helpful when judging the effects of legislation.
      - nomel 2y ago
        Without sane body camera policy, deterministic accountability is fantasy. I was speaking from that goal.
    - turdprincess 2y ago
      That seems about as realistic as immediate dismissal from your job if you forget to unmute yourself on zoom.
renewiltord 2y ago
Haha, this was pretty good. I think a bunch of them involved police walking towards the videographer, requiring them to walk farther back.
- jojobas 2y ago
  If the law forbids you from approaching, staying where you are would be fine wouldn't it?
  - wombatpm 2y ago
    Am I allowed to stand my ground with deadly force in such a scenario?
    - bagels 2y ago
      No, you must retreat to your designated free speech zone.
    - Thorrez 2y ago
      What does that mean?
      - lazyasciiart 2y ago
        He thinks he can outdraw the cops.
        ang_cire 2y ago
        Most people competent with a gun can. The requirements for firearms practice (and especially draw-and-fire drills) for cops are pretty minimal across the board. Your average 3-gun or USPSA competitors (who admittedly train much more than a bench shooter probably does) likely spend 30x more hours per year training than a cop does. Here's a per-state breakdown of police training requirements. https://www.apexofficer.com/police-training-requirements https://www.apexofficer.com/police-training-requirements Most of them require 20 hours or less PER YEAR, and that is not just firearms training, but total training across e.g. deescalation, driving, EMT, less-than-lethal force, crowd control, etc. Several of them specify that the firearms training is only 2 hours. Most hobby shooters can knock out 12 hours of dedicated firearms training in a month or 2 of weekend range days, so 6x what a cop might have to do in 12 months. Outdrawing the cops isn't the issue, outnumbering them is. Unless you've also got 300+ buddies you can call for support, you're going to lose in the end.
morkalork 2y ago
What's the point of a citizen review board if the sheriff or chief appoints everyone on it? Talk about fox guarding the henhous!
- roughly 2y ago
  > What's the point of a citizen review board if the sheriff or chief appoints everyone on it? I don’t know, but I know what the point of the law was.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- Analemma_ 2y ago
  This sounds like a case of "the citizen review board was created by fed-up voters at the municipal level, and then the state stepped into neuter it". Because DeSantis etc. are about local control except when the locals make a decision they don't like.
  - tadfisher 2y ago
    See also: the Texas "water breaks ban", which actually superceded all county and municipal employee protections in a wide array of classes that exceeded the state minimums.
    - cryptonector 2y ago
      There was no water break ban as such. And no one in Texas will forbid employees from drinking water in the scorching heat unless it is to make a political point.
      - tadfisher 2y ago
        Yes, I explained what the law actually was in my comment. The nickname was earned by removing municipal protections for hydration breaks along with every other protection not specified at the state level.
ImJamal 2y ago
>The second law is just a straightforward neutering of citizen review boards. It says reestablished. How are they neutering something that doesn't exist?
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  Where does it say it is creating an entity that doesn't already exist?
  - ImJamal 2y ago
    The word reestablished means that it used to be established but is no longer established. It is now coming back.
    - wholinator2 2y ago
      Not completely. It also means to disband something that currently exists, then recreate it, effectively reestablishing the board. You are paying attention to only one possible reading, which is the one not consistent with the truth. Citizen review boards exist in Florida. These currently functioning boards will have their power stripped immediately and members will be replaced with captive appointees. This is not creating citizen review boards, this is destroying them
      - refurb 2y ago
        Using the word “reestablish” in that way would be the confusing and odd considering the multiple other word choices that would be far more precise.
        bee_rider 2y ago
        Note that this is just a phrase that occurs in the news article, it doesn’t seem to be present in the actual law as far as I can tell.
    - bena 2y ago
dmichulke 2y ago
Is recording someone an expression of > the intent [..] to interfere, threaten or harass them ?
- GoblinSlayer 2y ago
  Maybe there was a precedent where such a person walked in and demanded something?
- advisedwang 2y ago
  The police often interpret recording as a threat (to hold them accountable). They then can construct situations to make it impossible to record without intefering.
jimbob45 2y ago
[flagged]
- ThePowerOfFuet 2y ago
  wow.
vkou 2y ago
The first is an absolute farce. All an officer who doesn't want to be recorded needs to do is get in your face (or have his partner get in your face) - at which point, you are now recording within 25 feet of an officer, and must either stop, or face arrest. If you take a few steps back, he can, of course, repeat this process ad-infinitum. Sure, you can argue this in a Florida court, and you might even win, but in the meantime, the law accomplishes exactly what it intends.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Its worth reading the actual law as written [1]. Looks like the distance is actually 20 feet, and it specifically states that you can't approach a first responder with intent to harass after being given a verbal warning. If a first responder approaches you then you've done nothing wrong. [1] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/75/?Tab=BillText https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/75/?Tab=BillText
  - enragedcacti 2y ago
    That isn't the correct bill, the bill that passed has the more broad phrasing "to violate such warning and approach or remain within 25 feet of the first responder" https://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/BillSummaries/2024/html/3418 https://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/BillSummaries/2024/html/...
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Oh thanks, yeah that clarification is an important one! The or remain addition ruins it, though I also don't see that holding up in court with any reasonable jury. In that scenario, if I start more than 25 feet away and stand my ground if a cop approaches me only with the intent of making me move or stop filming, I've truly done nothing wrong and the cop is intending to infringe on my rights. Will a judge or DA see if this way? Almost certainly not. But if I were on the jury I'd throw that shit out, I don't really care what the law says as written if its a law I don't think is constitutional or reasonable. Juries are there, in part, to act as a check on the legal system.
user_7832 2y ago
> I wonder if the first will stand up to Constitutional review. I imagine there are many First Amendment protected purposes for recording that may require the recorder to be within 25 feet of the officer. It may be possible to stand 25ft back and hold a 15ft long pole with a camera, or place a phone/camera on the ground and then stand back, to get past this issue.
- lvncelot 2y ago
  Legality aside, I can't imagine waving a 15ft long pole towards the police will go over well.
  - smolder 2y ago
    Yeah, very many people can't afford a decent lawyer when they need one, and might not get one even if they can, in which case legality really is... aside.

leggomuhgreggo 2y ago

>law enforcement officers performing their official duties can be secretly recorded because they have no expectation of privacy. Sounds about right. I was worried that this referred to personal conversations and was about to say "dang have we gone too far?" but yeah this makes sense. Probably goes without saying but — we don't want to condemn/bastardize/immiserate the entire institution...

yareal 2y ago
The institution of uniformed police forces is relatively recent, established in the 1800s, and it reflects an 1800s era sensibility towards crime. In that it is predominantly focused on protecting the property interests of the wealthy. (The original police forces grew out of a desire to socialize the costs of protecting merchant investments -- the warehouses and docks and factories in much of the world, and slaves held as property in the south of the U.S.) Prior to uniformed police, communities maintained order themselves -- often through night watches in which everyone participated, or eventually through hiring people to "cover my watch". Police in the modern era have been used as a threat of violence against common people more or less since their inception in the 1800s, from slave patrols to strikebreaking. They've been used as political assassins killing the political opponents of the state (see Frederick Hampton) to the systematic oppression of gay and trans people (see, for instance, Stonewall inn). Lest these feel like old examples, just this year police shut down a gay bar in Seattle for having "indecent apparel" being worn by the gay men in attendance. I think it's absolutely fair for people to think critically about the history and legacy of the institution and wonder, is this the best institution we can imagine to fill this role? Are there better ways to imagine the roles it fills today? Are there systemic issues that need fixing with it? The reason I bring this forward is that any thoughtful critique of the institution is often painted broadly as, "you are just an anarchist who cannot think beyond your slogans!" Perhaps the institution could do with some immiseration.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Prior to uniformed police, communities maintained order themselves -- often through night watches in which everyone participated, or eventually through hiring people to "cover my watch" Dispensing violence as part of these watches was also generally accepted. I'm not sure how that would work in a modern environment. (You're also referring to a period during which most of the world was feudal or quasi-feudal. The people maintaining order had their own security forces.)

DueDilligence 2y ago

[dead]

Ajay-p 2y ago

I think this is a good thing. The government could record you without your consent, the citizen should be allowed to as well. I understand police need warrants, but what is the citizen to do? Especially when so many courts, judges, and juries take the word of police over the citizen. Seems very fair to me.

romafirst3 2y ago
weird take. This makes sense cause the public official doesn't have an expectation of privacy when they are performing their official duties. That makes sense. Nothing they should be doing when they are conversing with a member of the public should be private to them (unless it is private to the person they are talking to - and if it's private to someone else then they probably shouldn't be sharing it with the person recording).
judge2020 2y ago
Legally the government can’t record you without your consent. In public, you have no expectation of privacy - so anyone can film anyone, government or non-government. That would be most police activity. Any other police activity - such as when raiding a home - would be subject to standard legal review in terms of admission into discovery and whatnot.
- PeterisP 2y ago
  With a warrant, they definitely can legally record you without your consent and your knowledge, e.g. secretly invading your home and placing recording devices there - IMHO that's the point of the parent post; while there are checks and balances that require legal review, in the end, the government can do all that unilaterally after a judge approves that it is necessary.
  - Ajay-p 2y ago
    Yes. Not just with a warrant, but often without a warrant or just cause. The police can lie to you, violate your rights, and do almost anything they want to you, but if you don't have body cam or other video/audio evidence, as so many, many people have found, you are screwed. There is an excellent shortcut called "Hey Siri, I'm being pulled over" that "will dim your phone, pause any music being played, and start recording video from your front-facing camera." Not all cops are bad, but the power imbalance makes these issues necessary for citizens to protect themselves. https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/17/21293996/siri-iphone-shortcut-pulled-over-police-starts-recording-video https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/17/21293996/siri-iphone-shor...

modeless 2y ago

Apparently all that's required to make recording a phone call legal is to play a 3 second recorded message saying "This call may be recorded for quality and training purposes" because that's what every corporation does. They don't ask, or verify consent. Why can't I do that on my phone? I will happily have my phone say "This call may be recorded" before every call I pick up, so that every call can be recorded.

colechristensen 2y ago
Presumably you could.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> all that's required to make recording a phone call legal is to play a 3 second recorded message In some jurisdictions, all that is required is an audible beep (or even no notice at all). In others, full consent [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#...
jojobas 2y ago
The idea is that if you don't consent you hang up after hearing the message. Funnily, the phrasing "may be recorded" is not interpreted by the corporations as "the customer may be recording as well" and in many cases their default policy is to not talk to you if you've declared you're recording. Single-party consent jurisdictions make it even more muddy.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Single-party consent jurisdictions make it even more muddy Don't they simplify it? You're on the call. If you consent to recording, you've given your single-party consent. You don't need to tell the company you're calling you're recording.
  - jojobas 2y ago
    You don't but if you do they'll hang up. The whole "the call may be recorded, but only by us" is rather idiotic still.

lesuorac 2y ago

> “As soon as I grabbed his arms to put him under arrest, to put them behind his back, that’s when I catch an elbow to my face, to my lower right jaw,” said Glaze, the deputy who arrested Waite. I would love to know how the deputy is grabbing arms. I mean try this at home, get a friend to face away from you and once you touch their arms they can try to elbow you in the face. Like the guys 63 and somehow he can extend half his arm length (it's elbows) to hit you in the face?

rahimnathwani 2y ago
Assuming the person's arms were behind their back, making a V shape, the officer might have needed to bend a little to maintain a firm grip.
jimbob45 2y ago
You turn 45 degrees to the right, violently yank away an arm, and slam its elbow into their face. You see it on Cops and LivePD all the time.

gamepsys 2y ago

I think this is an interesting decision for a two party consent state. Typically in a two party consent state all private conversations cannot be recorded unless both parties agree to have it recorded. This means it is illegal to secretly record a private conversation. However, the judge ruled that “conversations concerned matters of public business, occurred while the deputies were on duty, and involved phones utilized for work purposes.” have no expectation of privacy. As someone living in a two party consent state that is not Florida I am curious if this precedent will carry weight in my home state.

ender341341 2y ago
I'm not a lawyer so take this with a grain of salt, especially with the current scotus, but I wouldn't be super surprised if courts found it legal to record government officials in general. Other forms of communication (like email) for government employees are already subject to FOI requests, and the barrier for them to block FOI requests when it's about an interaction you were a part of is much much higher in general than for asking about interactions with other people.
bagels 2y ago
More weight if you're in the 5th District. It doesn't set precedent in other districts.
- semiquaver 2y ago
  Just to be clear, this was a decision of Florida’s 5th district of appeal, not a federal district court. So there is zero precedential effect outside Florida.
cryptonector 2y ago
> As someone living in a two party consent state that is not Florida I am curious if this precedent will carry weight in my home state. A Florida decision carries no precedential power outside Florida, but judges in other states can nonetheless refer to the Florida decision for its analysis.

nntwozz 2y ago

In Sweden it's legal to record any conversation you are part of, secretly recording as a third party is not. Just common sense really. Just sayin'

gamepsys 2y ago
Sometimes in a private conversation I will say things I would not want the public to hear me say. In places where there is one party consent it requires much more trust to have these types of private conversations, because any conversation could be recorded and placed on twitter. For example, I think it's awful that in some places it's legal to privately tell you friend about a mental health struggle you are having, and for that friend to, without your knowledge, share a recording of that conversation with other people. In my mind two party consent is a basic data-privacy law. You cannot create a record of something you expected to be private. You can have an expectation of a private conversation to be private.
- judge2020 2y ago
  What a bad take. Private doesn’t mean “off the record”. Making it so that you can’t record unless you ask the other party for consent to record makes it harder to hold people accountable for their actions, gather proof of labor law violations, and confess to other types of crimes. If you’re saying something that “could be placed on twitter”, maybe reflect on the harm your statement is causing that the rest of society agrees about. Even if this was a law, the only defense is suing anyone who records your conversation and brings it to the limelight - the JKR approach.
- planede 2y ago
  Taking a recording and sharing the recording are two different things. I think the intention universally is to deter from sharing the recording. Punishing taking the recording is also a way to do that, but I don't see much harm in having private recordings for personal use.
o11c 2y ago
That's the same as one-party consent (that is, one of the parties having the conversation, not random passersby), which in the US applies federally as well as in about 3/4 of the states. But most states - whether one-party or two-party - do not require consent to record a broad swathe of exceptions (particularly extortion, but not just that). Exact laws vary quite a bit - honestly one of the worst things about America is how different laws (of all sorts) can be in different jurisdictions.

tjtang2019 2y ago

[dead]

alsetmusic 2y ago

It makes me sad that this positive ruling is in a case of a SovCit. It’ll just empower them to believe even harder that their magic incantations are valid. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/sovereign-citizens-movement https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideo... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement

shkkmo 2y ago
The only evidence provided of that is the word of a police officer and is specifically disputed by the victim.
- alsetmusic 2y ago
  They hate being called SovCits because they know it’s associated with crazy behavior. I watched a video recently of an arrest where one said that term was like making a racist comment. She and her husband both used some other nebulous term, but they were part of the same belief system as SovCits. But you’re right, I’m going on a single statement from LEO. Though I wouldn’t expect them to use that term pejoratively if it wasn’t true and they wished to discredit him. They’d make a claim having something to do with a law violation.
  - helpfulclippy 2y ago
    Police can be extremely vindictive. For instance, they tried to put this guy away in prison for potentially decades because he recorded phone calls of statements they made in an official capacity. I've seen cops make statements that they must have known were not truthful to people's employers, seemingly for no purpose other than to damage the person's reputation after a heated (but legally protected) conversation. I've worked on bills where multiple members of law enforcement turned up to testify to say things that I'm pretty sure they knew were wrong, just to get their way in policy. The sad reality is that there are many cops out there who lie to get their way and hurt people they don't like, and so I really don't find it hard to believe that they would accuse this guy of being a sovcit to damage his credibility. edit: also in this case, remember that they've also accused him of resisting arrest when they went to get him for recording phone calls. So they've also made many claims that WERE about law violations.

sans_souse 2y ago

One-party consent as a law never made sense to me. Our whole system of governance relies on consent of all parties involved, or at least a majority of. Even the definition itself of consent requires this - in other words 1 party consent = 1 party non-consenting..

fsckboy 2y ago
New York is one-party consent; however, such recordings are not admissible as evidence in court, that requires two-party; one-party recordings can be used to embarrass.

blendo 2y ago

He emailed the evidence to the police: “Waite emailed his recording of the call to the sheriff's office records department and requested an internal investigation. A month later, Waite was accused of five counts of illegal wiretapping for recording the conversation with the sergeant and four other calls with sheriff’s employees.“

johnisgood 2y ago
That reminded me of a case where an employee was recording their coworker sleeping through the night shift, and it was the employee recording that got into trouble because recording a video (or audio) is against the rules. Nothing happened to the employee sleeping through the night shift. Crazy. What to even do in such cases, really? The recording was just proof or evidence, otherwise it would have been one employee's words against the other.

can16358p 2y ago

> Sorry, you have been blocked You are unable to access orlandoweekly.com Just why?

chad42 2y ago

I can’t access the content because the security service blocks me.

RyanAdamas 2y ago

So what's the penalty for not moving back 25 feet? Death? Seems like officers in the USA have carte blanche to just shoot the crap out of anyone not complying with their 'lawful' orders - whatever the hell lawful means these days.

GordonS 2y ago
It likely depends on the colour of your skin, and what kind of day the officers have had so far - but given US police history, I can't imagine it's long before they shoot someone in the back while claiming they were "interfering".
rtkwe 2y ago
Arrest, even if you're not charged ultimately there's a lot of power in being able to just initiate an arrest suddenly you're resisting arrest if you aren't cowed immediately and even if the original charge is bogus you've got the cops get out of liability free card of slapping on a resisting charge. And even if they don't pull that legal judo move you're still stuck in the system for a while and that's majorly disruptive to your livelihood even if you don't ultimately get charged with anything and get released asap.
- RyanAdamas 2y ago
  How is that not fruit from the poisoned tree? If the initial charge is bunk, all subsequent charges must be by default since the origin of the conflict was unjust. Which means, if a cop hits you with "resisting arrest" when the initial offense isn't worthy of arrest, then hitting that cop square in the face should not be punishable by law. If cops can't be sued for their actions due to qualified immunity, then they should absolutely fear the response of people unjustly detained. This American cop carte blanche is going to fucking stop.

Samuel_w 2y ago

[flagged]

user_7832 2y ago
Do you really expect to hook anyone from HN? Begone, bot/scammer.

smeej 2y ago

> Waite was separately convicted of battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting arrest with violence after he was accused of striking a deputy with his elbow when they arrived to arrest him on the wiretapping charges. > Waite surrendered after a detective shocked him with an electrical device. > “Waite did not demonstrate a lack of good faith and should have complied without resorting to violence,” the judges said. Love this double standard. Armed men can show up at your door, shackle your wrists behind your back, and haul you off to a cage, all in bad faith, but if you resort to meeting violence with violence, you're the one who gets sentenced.

Cacti 2y ago
we generally agree as a society that police, military, etc. have a monopoly on the use of force. That is kind of the entire point of the system.
- smeej 2y ago
  I don't speak for your society, but this isn't true of mine.
  - piloto_ciego 2y ago
    To be clear, where is your society at and are you guys taking people from mine? Lol, because people getting the utter shit beat out of them by the police irrationally and with zero consequences is remarkably common here in America. I have managed to avoid it, but I know more than a few people who’ve been roughed up in bad faith…
  - metalcrow 2y ago
    What country are you in? I'd be shocked if any country allowed it's citizens the legal right to use violence against the government.

avsteele 2y ago

Readers please note: recording consent laws vary state to state. Do not read the headline and assume it applies to yours. Some states are single party consent, some two, some might be more subtle.

pif 2y ago

Please, add a [USA] or [Florida] tag to the title, thanks!

NickC25 2y ago

FL resident here. Really disappointed in DeSantis. Not that I'm even remotely shocked - he's an outright fascist and this sort of ruling and law is right out of 1984. Let's hope that the Supreme Court strikes down both laws. Can't wait to vote his ass out of office.

rtkwe 2y ago

A classic Florida move of one step forwards and two back. Sure you can record law enforcement now but the review boards will be stocked with people hand picked by the sheriff when you go to complain about their abuses.

aiejrilawj 2y ago

FYI this only applies to Florida. Laws regarding consent for recording vary from one state to the next.

more_corn 2y ago

Because there’s no expectation of privacy when a public servant is performing their duties.