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.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 66,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
VoiceofReason replied:
Time, along with main stream media, rarely gets something like this right.
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.
Follow up post.
TEXAS PENAL CODE
TITLE 4. INCHOATE OFFENSES
CHAPTER 16. CRIMINAL INSTRUMENTS, INTERCEPTION OF WIRE OR ORAL COMMUNICATION, AND INSTALLATION OF TRACKING DEVICE
Sec. 16.02. UNLAWFUL INTERCEPTION, USE, OR DISCLOSURE OF WIRE, ORAL, OR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.
(c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (b) that:
(4) a person not acting under color of law intercepts a wire, oral, or electronic communication, if:
(A) the person is a party to the communication; or
(B) one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing an unlawful act;
I found the above
I read the article and it sounds like so much bullying. If as they say “Prosecutors across the U.S. claim the videotaping violates wiretap laws — a stretch, to put it mildly” then logic would dictate those same prosecutors should be filing charges against the officers because by using dash cams they would be “wiretapping” without a warrant. News reporters would also be guilty of violating “wiretap” laws.
This really irks me. Law enforcement in those instances are trying to use the authority of their office to illegally deny people their civil rights and prosecutors are aiding them. I respect most law enforcement officers and I used to be one. When I was a law enforcement officer I showed respect for those that showed me respect. However when I see something like this that hurts the public image of law enforcement I see red.
I am not a lawyer but as I stated I have worked in communications for 35 years and had good reason to be familiar with the law.
Take the laws I researched for what it says. I am making no attempt to interpret it. I am stating only my opinion.
I would like to see the opinion of Charles on this subject.