Off Duty Forums >> Locker Room (Public Access) >> Poll: video and voice recording of traffic stop

+2

Poll: video and voice recording of traffic stop

4,352 Views
29 Replies Flag as inappropriate

Poll: Would you change your approach in any way if there's a recording

Me_max600_max50

10 posts

back to top

Posted about 4 years ago

 

 


SEPTEMBER 27, 2010

Motorcyclist wins taping case against state police

A Harford County Circuit Court judge ruled this afternoon that a motorcyclist who was arrested for videotaping his traffic stop by a Maryland State Trooper was within his rights to record the confrontation.


Judge Emory A Pitt Jr. tossed all the charges filed against Anthony Graber, leaving only speeding and other traffic violations, and most likely sparing him a trial that had been scheduled for Oct. 12. The judge ruled that Maryland's wire tap law allows recording of both voice and sound in areas where privacy cannot be expected. He ruled that a police officer on a traffic stop has no expectation of privacy.


"Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public," the judge wrote. "When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation."


 

 

White_shirt_max50

5094 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

I never had the luxury of working with a dash cam recorder. I carried a pocket recorder. I was cleared on some complaints by recording the incidents. I also realize citizens are within their rights to record law enforcement.   

The_cops_max50

137 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

Most of my stops are recorded anyway, aslong as the camera is working.  In IL the law just changed to allow us to record more contacts but they have to be close to the car.  In IL both parties being recorded have to give permission so we were only allowed to record  traffic investigations until the start of this year.  

-191 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

If it is working, my traffic stops are recorded in vidoe and audio x 2, and i carry a pocket voice recorder (better audio that the in car system), in fact I'm on my 2nd recorder, got a little more that 300 stops on my first one, started a 2nd recorder, by the time the 2nd is fairly full, I should be able to delete all the stops on the first one and use it again.

Csi_squirrle_max600_1__max50

1471 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

Casscocop says ...



If it is working, my traffic stops are recorded in vidoe and audio x 2, and i carry a pocket voice recorder (better audio that the in car system), in fact I'm on my 2nd recorder, got a little more that 300 stops on my first one, started a 2nd recorder, by the time the 2nd is fairly full, I should be able to delete all the stops on the first one and use it again.



Why don't you pull the audio from your recorder and dump it on your hard drive, or get an external hard drive.  You could then store years worth of stops if you wanted to.  Back in the day I used microcassette recorder, I had stacks of tape.  Today I can record and then dump onto my hard drive and burn the audio to a CD as needed. 

-191 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

mmmm says ...



Casscocop says ...



If it is working, my traffic stops are recorded in vidoe and audio x 2, and i carry a pocket voice recorder (better audio that the in car system), in fact I'm on my 2nd recorder, got a little more that 300 stops on my first one, started a 2nd recorder, by the time the 2nd is fairly full, I should be able to delete all the stops on the first one and use it again.



Why don't you pull the audio from your recorder and dump it on your hard drive, or get an external hard drive.  You could then store years worth of stops if you wanted to.  Back in the day I used microcassette recorder, I had stacks of tape.  Today I can record and then dump onto my hard drive and burn the audio to a CD as needed. 



I have an inexpensive voice recorder, it does not have a data port or other means of downloading the contents.

White_shirt_max50

5094 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

It appears I taught you well Casscocop.

Newpatch_sq90_max50

6057 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

I am recording them, so I guess it's okay if they record me.  If I need their recording, I just tell the DA to Subpoena it into court. 


Photobucket
In Memory of the Fallen Officers

MODERATOR 3

-50 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

Ditto to all.  I hear guys all the time complaining about this very topic.  For the life of me I don't understand why.  The poll is confirming my thoughts, if you ain't doing nothing wrong in the first place the video/audio will only help you. 

Th_detective_max50

5076 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

As long as the audio/video recording doesn't interfere with the officer's duties or put anyone at risk of injuries or death then let them roll out a Hollywood film crew for all I care.  Once the officer has completed the task at hand he should be allowed to demand identification from the individual/s doing the taping so that subpoenas can be issued for the video if the case ends up going to trial.  If the video/audio has been "doctored" or edited in any way to blur the facts or to put a "spin" on it then the person who made the changes should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If they want to shoot video then they should be held to the same standards as the LE Community in regards to video/audio tapings.  JMHO!


"Be a yardstick of quality. Some people aren't used to an environment where excellence is expected."
Steve Jobs

Retleo (MODERATOR #8)
Mentoring Team Member

Jpd_new_max50

1893 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

Video taping is ok in Illinois.  Audio taping is a big no-no.  Illinois has tough eavsdropping laws.  With all the video cameras out there, everyone is on tape.


"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
George Orwell

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu

PL Mentoring Team Member

Jpd_new_max50

1893 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

I agree with Retleo.  If citizens want to tape, they should be held to the same standards as LE.


"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
George Orwell

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu

PL Mentoring Team Member

The_cops_max50

137 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

The other thing is if someone else is recording it, sieze it disc, tape, or whole camcorder,  and log it for evidence.  Video works both ways.

Nintendo_max50

881 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

I'm not a LEO, but it seems to me that most of the time the recording of the stop would only help the officer.  Generally, the officer is doing their job by the policy when some psycho flips on them. 


When I do become a LEO, I won't mind if my stops are recorded because I plan on conducting all my business as if cameras watching me at all times. 


 


Youtube is huge......


"I have a strict gun control policy. If there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it."

- Clint Eastwood

Bronzestarribbon_max50

2080 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

I agree I don't do anything wrong, so have reason not to be recorded since I'm recording them.  I do it the same way everytime and have done so throughout my entire career.  What is funny is the look on their face when they figure out a CSI guy has stopped them and writing them a ticket.


My only concern would be, if I'm going to be put out on the internet and viewed, how do I get royalties for my performance?

1979_max50

3272 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

uncledennis1 says ...



I never had the luxury of working with a dash cam recorder. I carried a pocket recorder. I was cleared on some complaints by recording the incidents. I also realize citizens are within their rights to record law enforcement.   



This is a very common reply you should see from us older and retired guys. All I can say Chief is "me too".

-3 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

I use a voice recorder on all my traffic stops. Any advice on how to video/audio record? I don't wanna shell out hundreds of dollars. Maybe $50-200 would be fair.

Fto_davidson_photo_max50

16 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

Integrity check ladies & gents...  We all know as soon as those I-phone video recorders or cam corders come out we all go into that mode and don't say it isn't so!


"For those who fought for it, freedom has the flavor that the protected will never know" & "I'd rather be judged by 12... Than carried by 6..."

Usmc_max50

3224 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

Retleo says ...



As long as the audio/video recording doesn't interfere with the officer's duties or put anyone at risk of injuries or death then let them roll out a Hollywood film crew for all I care.  Once the officer has completed the task at hand he should be allowed to demand identification from the individual/s doing the taping so that subpoenas can be issued for the video if the case ends up going to trial.  If the video/audio has been "doctored" or edited in any way to blur the facts or to put a "spin" on it then the person who made the changes should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If they want to shoot video then they should be held to the same standards as the LE Community in regards to video/audio tapings.  JMHO!



Ditto.


Happiness is a belt fed weapon.
Great danger lies in the notion that we can reason with evil.

-44 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

Retleo has a good point, but since when have the general Public EVER been held to the same standard as us? It's been my experience that people who are filming the Police, are looking for trouble anyway.

Star_max160_max160_max50

5873 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

BSL1123 says ...



Retleo has a good point, but since when have the general Public EVER been held to the same standard as us? It's been my experience that people who are filming the Police, are looking for trouble anyway.



Looking for trouble.......................or a CHECK.


It is what it is.............and.........these things too shall pass.

Jack_bauer_max50

455 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

If you want to record your stops, just use your cell phone, even my cheap one had a voice recorder. That or spend a hundred bucks for the Uzi law cam for 99 bucks. Great audio/video and easy to download. The run time is limited as well as the battery, but for about a hundred bucks you can't beat it. There are plenty of tools out on the market that are similar, but none this small. Plus it comes with lots of goodies. They sell it at Botach tactical online.


 


As for recorded stops, I trained to use these or other in car systems.....so I always conduct my traffic stops the same way.You only need to see yourself on video once acting less than professional to make a lasting impression.

-30 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

Record me, Please!   

Star_max160_max160_max50

5873 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

Taffy says ...



Retleo says ...



As long as the audio/video recording doesn't interfere with the officer's duties or put anyone at risk of injuries or death then let them roll out a Hollywood film crew for all I care.  Once the officer has completed the task at hand he should be allowed to demand identification from the individual/s doing the taping so that subpoenas can be issued for the video if the case ends up going to trial.  If the video/audio has been "doctored" or edited in any way to blur the facts or to put a "spin" on it then the person who made the changes should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If they want to shoot video then they should be held to the same standards as the LE Community in regards to video/audio tapings.  JMHO!



Ditto.



"Double Ditto" or should it be "Ditto Ditto"


It is what it is.............and.........these things too shall pass.

Img00039_max50

322 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

so I guess I should be ditto ditto double double ditto ?

My_kids_027_max50

36 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

As we all know all too well we are recorded all of the time.  I try to treat every situation as if there is someone recording.  Our department is currently working on buying dashcams for all of our cars, so I had just as well be getting used to it.  In my personal opinion if you are worried about being recorded you might want to revamp your approach to situations.  There are entirely too many different types of recording devices out there to take any chances.

0 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

Our base is cheap, so there is no voice or videotape.


I am guessing th only thing I would do- which I do as muh as possible now, is watch my sailor mouth... it out runs me at times, but other than that I wouldn'tchange a thing

-191 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 4 years ago

 

Redlight says ...



Our base is cheap, so there is no voice or videotape.


I am guessing th only thing I would do- which I do as muh as possible now, is watch my sailor mouth... it out runs me at times, but other than that I wouldn'tchange a thing



Get yourself a pocket voice recorder and record some of your incidents, then play them back later.  I, if you will pardon the expression will 'swear like a sailor' on traffic stops, not on the actual stop but at dumbazz drivers who won't yeild to my emergency vehicle (lights and siren going)


This is what i use (I have 2 of them) on a normal setting it will record over 55 hrs. http://cgi.ebay.com/Olympus-VN-5000-Digital-Voice-Recorder-VN5000-512MB-/230341694154?pt=Voice_Recorders&hash=item35a16f52ca

Photo_user_blank_big

1 post

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

From WTWO in Terre Haute, Indiana:

"Michael Allison faces 75 years in prison for recording law enforcement officials without their consent in Robinson, Illinois.

Illinois is one of the states applying old eavesdropping and wiretapping statutes to new technologies like cell phones or anything else that records audio.

Those laws technically make it illegal to record on-duty law enforcement officials without their consent. The penalty for that crime here in Illinois, is a class 1 felony."

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

A. Kantor writes:

I wrote a column on photographer's rights, in which I explained where you were allowed to shoot pictures and what you were allowed to do with them. I was glad to see people were reading and spreading it.

Since then, I've seen an incredible amount of misinformation bandied about, and I've had a lot of questions posted on my blog that tell me people aren't getting the message. Worse, I've read accounts of photographers being harassed for perfectly legal behavior by people whose ignorance of the law ought to get them in trouble.

The most notable was the story of Neftaly Cruz, a senior at Penn State who on July 19 was not only harassed but taken into custody by Philadelphia police for obstructing an investigation. How did he do this? By taking pictures of the cops while standing on a public street.

Cruz's actions were absolutely and undoubtedly legal, and not surprisingly he was released without being charged with anything.

It's not just cops who need reeducation classes. Last week I received a note from a reader:

"Today I was stopped by a security guard with the North County Transit District in Solana Beach, California, and prevented from taking photos of a great new train station they have," he wrote. "The guard said they don't allow it since 9/11."

Note to security guard: Just because you or your boss "don't allow" something doesn't mean it's not legal. I can post a sign on my lawn, "Hopping on one foot in front of this house is prohibited," but I'll have a tough time enforcing it.

Stories like these all have something in common. Invariably, it seems, the guards or cops either invoke non-existent laws (e.g., "It's illegal to shoot any building on 3rd Street"), or they use the all-encompassing "security."

Well guess what: Neither "security" nor "9/11" are magic words that will cause everyone to follow your every unjustifiable instruction. Say either as often or as loud as you want. It doesn't let you take away someone's rights.

Keeping it simple

The law in the United States of America is pretty simple. You are allowed to photograph anything with the following exceptions:

• Certain military installations or operations.

• People who have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That is, people who are some place that's not easily visible to the general public, e.g., if you shoot through someone's window with a telephoto lens.

That's it.

You can shoot pictures of children; your rights don't change because of their age or where they are, as long as they're visible from a place that's open to the public. (So no sneaking into schools or climbing fences.)

Video taping has some more gray areas because of copyright issues, but in general the same rules apply. If anyone can see it, you can shoot it.

And yes, you can shoot on private property if it's open to the public. That includes malls, retails stores, Starbucks, banks, and office-building lobbies. If you're asked to stop and refuse, you run the risk of being charged with trespassing, but your pictures are yours. No one can legally take your camera or your memory card without a court order.

You can also shoot in subways and at airports. Check your local laws about the subway, but in New York, Washington, and San Francisco it's perfectly legal. Airport security is regulated by the Transportation Security Administration, and it's quite clear: Photography is A-OK at any commercial airport in the U.S. as long as you're in an area open to the public.

Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Restrictions

There are a few more restrictions on publishing photos or video, though, as mentioned back in December.

You can't show private facts — things a reasonable person wouldn't want made public — unless those facts were revealed publicly. So no long-lens shots of your neighbors' odd habits.

You also can't show someone in a negative false light by, for example, using Photoshop tricks or a nasty, untrue caption.

And you can't put someone else's likeness to commercial use without their permission. This is usually mentioned in terms of celebrities, but it applies to making money from anyone's likeness.

For example, if you shoot individual kids playing in a school football game, you can't try to sell those shots to the parents; the kids have a right to the use of their likeness. You can sell photos of the game in general, though, and any shots where what's happening ("A player celebrates a goal") is more important than who's doing it ("Star running back John Doe takes a momentary rest").

Sound like a gray area? It is if you're planning to sell the pictures, but not if you're simply displaying them. And if you're using them for news purposes, all bets are off — you can pretty much publish whatever you want if it happens in public view.

The other gray area is copyrighted material. Even if it's in public, you can't sell pictures of copyrighted work — a piece of art, for example. But if the art is part of a scene you can probably get away with it.

All this in mind, it's almost always a good idea to get permission where you can and to be polite and friendly with anyone you deal with. Like good urban legends, people are absolutely sure they know the law about photography, and they're absolutely wrong.

If you want to know more, I've got a PDF on my site with all this spelled out, and you shouldn't miss Bert Krages's "The Photographer's Right." Print 'em and carry 'em.

Andrew Kantor is a technology writer, pundit, and know-it-all who covers technology for the Roanoke Times. He's also a former editor for PC Magazine and Internet World. Read more of his work at kantor.com. His column appears Fridays on USATODAY.com.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you think?