This is interesting from NYTimes

Saw this on the NYTIMES, about how just recording a cop can get you in trouble

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/us...ping.html?_r=1

Did some reading up and it seems most states do not forbid you from recording a face to face as long as the device is in plain view. Which brings up a question:
Smart phones can have apps installed or already have the ability to record a conversation....

This means all I would have to do is lay my cell phone on the table and the person would never think anything about it

Some states (I know California is one) require that both parties to a conversation must consent to its recording. Other states (such as Texas) require that only one party consent. In Texas a person may record conversations they have in person, on the phone, or otherwise without running afoul of the law.

Before a person records their conversation with someone else they should consult the law of their state. I'd also advise a person intending to record a phone conversation with someone located out of state without that person's consent to research the law of the state where the other person is located.

The thing that might present a "gray" area is is the "attached device" rule. How many house phones out there have speaker phone capabilities and once on speakerphone (you can tell the other party you are putting them on speaker) you can have a recording device sitting on the table to record both sides. It is technically not attached to a wire and is recording an open air conversation.

I would however advise anyone doing this to tell the party on the phone that you will be recording it to cover your tush.

I have used call recording to stop a bill collector, I recorded me asking them to give consent to this and any other calls in the future, and by not giving their consent all calls in the future will result in being prompted for consent, if none given, the call will be terminated. They did not give and I hung up.

3rd call later they finally decided to give consent to wit they got a bit hostile on the phone. Big mistake on their part.

NY is another state where only one party involved in the conversion need know that it is being recorded. with no need to notify the other party. You can do it but not legally required. As SJ noted its very useful in getting back at Collectors that overstep the legal boundaries.

As a sidebar It was Maryland Cops that were making the Big stink about be recorded during Traffic & other Incidents. Recent Court decision there did bitch slap them down a peg or two though they plan to appeal. Basically the Judge stated there was no reasonable expectation of privacy on the part of the Cops in a public situation like Traffic stops, road blocks, etc. (cops were just trying to protect their asses while the broke the law in order to enforce it). I'm Sure S.Jon can add loads to this & I hope he does.

NY is another state where only one party involved in the conversion need know that it is being recorded. with no need to notify the other party. You can do it but not legally required. As SJ noted its very useful in getting back at Collectors that overstep the legal boundaries. Originally Posted by Stud Daddy

Spirit13 mentioned using an audio recording device to fend off bill collectors, not me.

As a sidebar It was Maryland Cops that were making the Big stink about be recorded during Traffic & other Incidents. Recent Court decision there did bitch slap them down a peg or two though they plan to appeal. Basically the Judge stated there was no reasonable expectation of privacy on the part of the Cops in a public situation like Traffic stops, road blocks, etc. (cops were just trying to protect their asses while the broke the law in order to enforce it). I'm Sure S.Jon can add loads to this & I hope he does. Originally Posted by Stud Daddy

I'm somewhat familiar with the Maryland case from reading about it in legal journals. There's a good write-up about it here, along with the video at issue:

"Anthony Graber’s Case Dismissed, but Videotaping Police is Still an Issue"

The notion that videotaping an agent of the state carrying out official public (as opposed to covert) duties being a violation of the officer's privacy is absurd and repugnant on so many different levels. The case makes me think of Lord Acton's famous quote: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

As we surrender more and more power over our lives to the state, it is often the police that assume the power. And while we may naively think the role of the police is to protect us, the function of the police is to use its power to the fullest extent permitted, with only the furtherance and perpetuation of power as its goal.

But I digress. Other than trolling cops, presumably everyone reading this sentence engages in an illegal hobby. With the technology at our fingertips, such as cell phones that record audio clips and take photos, a person who encounters LE and who keeps their wits about them may be able to use the technology to make a record of the encounter. If that objective record conflicts in material respects with the subjective recollection of events by the officer, there's a good chance any charge would be dismissed. The criminal justice system is broken, but checks are still present in the system to ensure that official misconduct is of more concern than some petty sex crime.

I am in Texas and we do not have to tell the other party we are recording, and on a few traffic stops I recorded what the cop said via the cell phone which was in its holder up on my dash.

I once had to speak to a cop about something face to face at a station an I brought in my digital recorder and recorded the entire conversation. The cop knew it was there since he had a recorder for the session and I told him up front.

I then copied the file to a safe location on a server so that it cannot be found except by me.

Here is the interesting part.. the cop started to get a bit hostile with me during the session. So when I got home and copied the file offsite, I then called the station to speak to his supervisor.
I played the recording to him the next day and told the supervisor that I felt threatened by the cop. I got a letter from the supervisor 1 week later stating he was no longer handling the issue and that he has reviewed the same issue and purged it from files.

TY SJ for your usual fine insights & info. sorry if I got that 1 point confused I was in a hurry.

Bottom-line is the Cops & other Authority Figures are becoming more & more annoyed with the good citizenry as we attempt to document their actions, especially those that dance on the edge of the razor of legality. For far too long our elected leaders have chosen to exempt themselves from scrutiny & accountability whenever they can. Even in those cases where the recordings are inadmissible in court they still have the effect of outing a corrupt rascal in the court of public opinion. God Bless our 1st amendment (and all of the Bill of Rights).

TY SJ for your usual fine insights & info. sorry if I got that 1 point confused I was in a hurry.

Bottom-line is the Cops & other Authority Figures are becoming more & more annoyed with the good citizenry as we attempt to document their actions, especially those that dance on the edge of the razor of legality. For far too long our elected leaders have chosen to exempt themselves from scrutiny & accountability whenever they can. Even in those cases where the recordings are inadmissible in court they still have the effect of outing a corrupt rascal in the court of public opinion. God Bless our 1st amendment (and all of the Bill of Rights). Originally Posted by Stud Daddy

I am sure everyone has heard "Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it" but if you know your Rights, and can understand the law somewhat, you can point that out to cops and authority figures who are COUNTING on your ignorance.

Granted nobody likes to be proven wrong, but sometimes it has to happen.

This is why many of us require a cell phone be turned off or left away from the playing area.

Interesting discussion above. I had no previous knowledge of the Illinois law which seems rather Draconian in nature.

However, I would observe that, had a tv news team showed up during the Chicago "art" confrontation, there is no doubt in my mind that any recording of the incident would not face any prosecution. Even if no participants objected to the recording, or even if they did.

Now, to take a leap of faith.... the Courts have found it very difficult to determine who is and -- especially -- who isn't a journalist.

"Your honor, I run a blog, therefore I am a journalist and the First Amendment trumps" could be a workable defense. Especially if the defendants manage to enlist support from get real media and first amendment groups.

Bottom line, however, an expensive proposition, for sure.

Interesting discussion above. I had no previous knowledge of the Illinois law which seems rather Draconian in nature.

However, I would observe that, had a tv news team showed up during the Chicago "art" confrontation, there is no doubt in my mind that any recording of the incident would not face any prosecution. Even if no participants objected to the recording, or even if they did.

Now, to take a leap of faith.... the Courts have found it very difficult to determine who is and -- especially -- who isn't a journalist.

"Your honor, I run a blog, therefore I am a journalist and the First Amendment trumps" could be a workable defense. Especially if the defendants manage to enlist support from get real media and first amendment groups.

Bottom line, however, an expensive proposition, for sure. Originally Posted by ck1942

You bring up a good point.. I have a few blog sites so if doing so means I am protected by the 1st amendment and recording a conversation with LE would be protected even if it was against that state's law.

I see this as being a GRAY area that can lead to some cops getting into trouble as well as hobbyists and providers.

Even if recording a cop without telling them is illegal and in-admissible in a court of law, it CAN be posted on a blog site for the "court of public opinion" to listen to

What is the burden of proof held by the recorder that demonstrates the identity of the person being recorded? How does he/she prove to LE that the person being recorded is actually that person?

What is the burden of proof held by the recorder that demonstrates the identity of the person being recorded? How does he/she prove to LE that the person being recorded is actually that person? Originally Posted by Energy

other than voice recognition, usually you can get a cop to repeat his name and badge number while you "write it down" asking him to spell it.

if its a video then you have their photo.