3 ms·
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 unle
by 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 agoI'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 agoMore weight if you're in the 5th District. It doesn't set precedent in other districts.
- semiquaver 2y agoJust 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.