"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."
"Yes, officer, if you don't wish to be recorded, you can get back in
your cruiser and drive away. It IS your choice. If you stay, you agree
to be recorded."
>
> 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.
>
Actually, the 'no reasonable expectation of privacy' as well as the
'right of self defense' rationales could be used together for an
effective defense of recording police interactions with the public. If
you have no reasonable right of privacy, what gives the cop a reasonable
right? If you have a right of fatal self defense against criminally
violent activity by rogue cops, then recording is a decidedly non-fatal
means of self defense and should be protected activity.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:35 MDT