This case was decided by the 5th Circuit this year. So until the Supreme Court reverses the 5th on the matter you have the God given, constitutionally affirmed unalienable right to film on-duty police. (At least in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.)E.Marquez wrote:Its weak on its face in any state, and invalid here in Texas where only one party in the conversation must be aware the conversation is being recorded.Kythas wrote:Not so sure I'd do that with all the people recording police stops being threatened with jail. They say the audio portion of the recordings violates federal wiretap law.dicion wrote:Heck, you can even record the phone call and store the recording in the safe XD
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 66,00.html
Texas Penal Code § 16.02.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.16.htm
"a person who is a party to either a wire, oral, or electronic communication, or who has consent of one of the parties to record a wire, oral, or electronic communication, can legally record the content so long as the person is not doing so for the purpose of committing a crime or tortious act. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 16.02 "
Search found 2 matches
- Sun Sep 10, 2017 2:57 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Lost Handgun...
- Replies: 25
- Views: 14107
Re: Lost Handgun...
- Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:27 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Lost Handgun...
- Replies: 25
- Views: 14107
Re: Lost Handgun...
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2017/ ... amendment/VoiceofReason wrote:Time, along with main stream media, rarely gets something like this right.Kythas wrote:Not so sure I'd do that with all the people recording police stops being threatened with jail. They say the audio portion of the recordings violates federal wiretap law.dicion wrote:Heck, you can even record the phone call and store the recording in the safe XD
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 66,00.html
U.S. Code TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 119
§ 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited
(d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.
IANAL but I have worked in communications for 35 years (15 with Bell) on both wire and RF communications.
I will do more research on this and post when I have time.
Cornell Law School has a great online library.
I will move the rest of my reply to this subject to “Off Topic” in order to not hijack this thread.