|
|
It is currently Sat May 11, 2024 9:25 am
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 5 posts ] |
|
Author |
Message |
kimberman
|
Post subject: Defense of videotaping Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:38 am |
|
Wise Elder |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm Posts: 2782 Location: St. Paul
|
Available soon. Quote: "Undermining Excessive Privacy for Police: Citizen Tape Recording to Check Police Officers' Power" Yale Law Journal, Vol. 117, pp. 1549-58, 2008 DINA MISHRA, affiliation not provided to SSRN Email: dina.mishra@aya.yale.eduIn the recent case of Jean v. Massachusetts State Police, the First Circuit suggested that a man who secretly audiotaped and videotaped police officers conducting a warrantless search of his home might have violated the Massachusetts tape recording law, because Massachusetts (along with several other states) criminalizes recording a communication without the knowledge or consent of all parties to the communication. This Comment argues that citizen tape recording, such as the recording that was made in Jean, provides a necessary check against police abuses of power and furthers privacy values underlying the Constitution and other laws. But the Comment acknowledges that police officers’ interests in privacy and safety must be balanced as well. Therefore, it argues that states should permit citizens to record police officers in the line of duty without those officers’ consent, as long as the citizens' recordings are made in a physically unintrusive manner and do not capture police communications that the officers could reasonably expect not to be recorded.
_________________ President of AACFI, GOCRA, CCRN, and A2A
|
|
|
|
|
Pakrat
|
Post subject: Re: Defense of videotaping Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:09 pm |
|
Forum Moderator/<br>AV Geek |
|
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:56 am Posts: 2422 Location: Hopkins, MN
|
I don't know Mass' law (other than 2 party consent), but really, in the person's home should give them the right to record whatever they want.
Add the fact that we the people should be able to record the police in the course of their duties.
Hey wait... Do their police have microphones on them? Probably not on a warrant, but traffic... I would think that opens the door. If the police are allowed to record, then the people should take that as consent to be recorded.
|
|
|
|
|
Traveler
|
Post subject: Re: Defense of videotaping Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:22 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:46 pm Posts: 845 Location: Saint Paul
|
How then would a television station, or a television network, go about videotaping anything where there might be someone depicted that has not given a release? I imagine that Massachusetts television crews go to fires, auto accidents, aircraft crashes, etc and videotape police and firemen in the line of duty there.
|
|
|
|
|
BrianB
|
Post subject: Re: Defense of videotaping Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:08 pm |
|
Member |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 9:24 pm Posts: 40 Location: St. Louis Park, MN
|
Traveler wrote: How then would a television station, or a television network, go about videotaping anything where there might be someone depicted that has not given a release? I imagine that Massachusetts television crews go to fires, auto accidents, aircraft crashes, etc and videotape police and firemen in the line of duty there. News crews shoot their footage from public right of ways. Anything shot from public right of ways does not need a release, unless it is used for a commercial purpose. News gathering is not considered a commercial purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
SethB
|
Post subject: Re: Defense of videotaping Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:08 am |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:02 pm Posts: 818 Location: downtown Mpls
|
Laws generally are about audio taping, not video. If the audio is turned off (or you're too far away to capture it), the video part is perfectly legal.
The fact that someone is in a "public right of way" does not affect his rights to tape (or not be taped). In an all-parties state (where audio recording requires the consent of all parties to a conversation), the location is irrelevant. (In a one-party state, it's likewise irrelevant, but if you're taping a conversation you're involved in, your consent is a given.)
I wonder what the effect would be of a sign stating that the homeowner reserves the right to record and publish the recording of anything done inside his home. Presumably, entering past that sign provides consent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 5 posts ] |
|
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|
|