[Scan-DC] Gazette editorial on journalist's arrest

[Dewey]

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

Now, with that disclaimer out of the way, there are two things to consider concerning wiretapping.   1) Jurisdiction , and 2) consent.  MD, unlike DC and VA is a 2-party state.  All parties privileged to the conversation must be made aware that they are being recorded (there are a very small number of criminal investigations where this is not the case).  DC and VA are 1-party states.  Just one person in the conversation, no matter how many, needs to know that the conversation is being recorded.  This is what got Linda Tripp in trouble in the beginning.  Had her recorded conversation with Monica taken place in DC or VA, there would not have been an argument concerning the recording.  Then number two, was consent given.  I'm with Kurt on this issue.  Since the entire event occurred in open public, my argument would be more geared at where is the expectation of privacy in public?  Does that mean two people in public and whispering in quiet do not have an expectation of privacy... no... they do to an extent.  But this is why they are whispering.  If this event is to be approached from a "wiretapping" perspective, it would have been better for the officer to express that.

Again, just my opinion.
Dewey

-----Original Message-----
From: scan-dc-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:scan-dc-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Brooks, Kurt
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 14:31
To: 'scan-dc at mailman.qth.net'
Subject: Re: [Scan-DC] Gazette editorial on journalist's arrest

I am at work and don't have a chance to give this my full attention so here is an abbreviated response:  Yes police have been trying to claim wiretap when videotaped, but it doesn't hold water in court. The relevent law that allows videotaping goes as follows - in public areas no-one has an inherent right to privacy. Furthermore, when a video camera is being obviously used, anyone who speaks is giving de facto permission to record their voice & image, and I don't have to ask permission to use it or erase it upon request. 

This applies to journalism and private use; commercial (for profit) use is a different beast altogether. That's where building owners try to protect their image and that kind of thing. 

Key points: obvious recording, public areas, no problem. 

That's what our lawyers tell us and that's the way it's always been. 

Rights are like muscles: you have to flex them to keep them strong. 


----- Original Message -----
From: michael rumberg [mailto:m_c_rumberg at hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 02:17 PM
To: oldsdoug at hotmail.com <oldsdoug at hotmail.com>; scan-dc at mailman.qth.net <scan-dc at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [Scan-DC] Gazette editorial on journalist's arrest


the article is pretty good but unfortunately ends with information out of context:

 David Rocah, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland told The Gazette. “Independent of the First Amendment issues, there are no state laws that prohibit any of those things. 
There’s no law that prohibits photographing a police officer; no law that prohibits videotaping a police officer.”

He is correct as far as "photography" goes - however, videotaping is something altogether different.  Most video recording devices also capture audio.  But most states have laws that prohibit the interception of private conversation to which one is not a party.  And it is that audio content part on which police departments hang their hats when confiscating and charging people for videotaping them.  

My understanding is that this is why when you see TV news footage of events it is usually without audio - and that the newscasters provide voice-over.  Perhaps Kurt Brooks can shed some insight into this and maybe how professional TV news crews have been instructed? 

I suspect that had that journo in questions only been taking still photographs the cops wouldnt have been happy but wouldnt have been able to do anything.

Until laws get changed to allow the recording of conversations of public officials performing their duties in public, my suggestion is that cell phone and video recording device manufacturers should include a button that allows the user to cancel the audio recording.  Police will continue to meet out some street justice and possibly confiscate the device and memory but when its proven that there is no audio portion on the recording, then they will have to give it back.  

Ironically, police are allowed to audio record our interaction with them without permission, but we cant record our interaction with them without permission.


> From: oldsdoug at hotmail.com
> To: scan-dc at mailman.qth.net
> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:36:30 -0500
> Subject: [Scan-DC] Gazette editorial on journalist's arrest
> 
> 
> Below is a link to an editorial in the Gazette newspapers concerning the arrest of the journalist from Kensington:
> 
> http://www.gazette.net/article/20120125/OPINION/701259491/-1/a-journal
> ist-s-arrest-and-the-public-s-right-to-know-about-the-police&template=
> gazette
> 
> There has been some related discussion here.
> 
> DK
>  		 	   		  
 		 	   		  
______________________________________________________________
Scan-DC mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/scan-dc
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Scan-DC at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html ______________________________________________________________
Scan-DC mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/scan-dc
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Scan-DC at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html