On 3 Feb 2001, at 2:08, Michael M. Butler wrote:
> Solution: full disclosure? "Officer, for quality purposes, I am
> recording this conversation. No, I can't turn it off, it doesn't work
> like that, sorry; the system is designed to roll non stop whenever my
> car is not parked in my garage. I wish I could help you. I need to be
> going now."
**"Outta the car, a**hole. We'll tallk over there."
Even if we could do this--prior warning defeats the purpose and
encourages work-arounds. "Audio recording? Well, gee, maybe we should
poke him with our batons instead of trotting out those racial slurs
we had planned..."
**Legislate legality of recording conversations of peace officers in
the performance of their duties. If a surveiled citizen is supposedly
a good citizen, stands to reason a surveiled cop is a good cop. Make
**Like they say when you won't let them execute their warrantless
searches: "Whaddya got to hide..?"
> As far as video recording (not audio) goes, the courts appear to have
> mostly ruled using the notion of "a reasonable expectation of privacy".
> One court at least ruled that a woman trapped in a car begging to be
> killed to put her out of her misery later had no recourse against
> ride-along media recording and broadcasting not merely her image, but
> her voice as well.
> Strange days, indeed.
> Spike Jones wrote:
> > > John Marlow wrote: Guy in MA, I believe it was, audio-recorded the
> > > cops stopping him and brought it up in court to support his
> > > contention that he was harassed. Result? He was convicted of
> > > illegally recording the cops.
> > This is absurd. Is that a Massachusetts law? That desperately
> > needs to be changed. Transparency must be universal. There
> > ya go, John, theres a political cause for ya. spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:35 MDT