[HN Gopher] Phone conversations with law enforcement can be reco...
___________________________________________________________________
Phone conversations with law enforcement can be recorded without
their consent
Author : jdmark
Score : 47 points
Date : 2024-04-15 19:49 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.orlandoweekly.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.orlandoweekly.com)
| aftbit wrote:
| > The same day as the court's ruling, DeSantis signed into law
| two bills affecting law enforcement in Florida. Two judges on the
| panel that issued the ruling Friday were DeSantis appointees.
|
| > One new law makes it illegal after a person has been warned to
| approach first responders or remain within 25 feet while they are
| performing a legal duty if the intent is to interfere, threaten
| or harass them. The new law doesn't prevent people from recording
| law enforcement but can require them to move 25 feet back, which
| can make it more difficult.
|
| > The other requires that citizen review boards in Florida -
| intended to provide independent oversight of law enforcement
| actions - be re-established so that members are appointed by a
| sheriff or police chief and that at least one member be a retired
| law enforcement officer.
|
| I wonder if the first will stand up to Constitutional review. I
| imagine there are many First Amendment protected purposes for
| recording that may require the recorder to be within 25 feet of
| the officer. For example, if they're recording during windy
| conditions and need to hear what the officer says. I also wonder
| how the "intent" will be interpreted by courts. Probably in a way
| that is most favorable to LEOs.
|
| The second law is just a straightforward neutering of citizen
| review boards.
| qwerpy wrote:
| > Probably in a way that is most favorable to LEOs.
|
| I think this makes sense. Would be bad if every time a police
| officer tries to stop a crime, suddenly 20 hard of hearing
| people need to crowd around him really close in order to record
| him. Oh look, the criminal got away again. There are situations
| where different laws will conflict, and I hope in those
| situations crime prevention and safety take precedence.
|
| Modern phone cameras are really good and 25 feet isn't very
| far. Seems like a good compromise so that cops can do their
| jobs but there can be some citizen oversight.
| chatmasta wrote:
| > suddenly 20 hard of hearing people need to crowd around him
| really close in order to record him
|
| It's already against the law to interfere with an arrest. A
| mob of people surrounding officers attempting to arrest
| someone is already illegal, whether they have cameras in
| their hands or not.
| nomel wrote:
| Laws that rely on an officers/departments personal reading
| of a situation/interpretation are easily confused and
| abused, especially when it's something as fuzzy as
| "interference". Having clarity is nice. I personally think
| it's fine to give an officer some sort of personal space.
| If I were an officer arresting someone, I wouldn't want
| someone affiliated with them standing 5 feet behind me,
| where I would have to worry about being attacked. Not sure
| how this works indoors though, where 25 feet would make
| observation impossible.
|
| This assumes sane body camera policies are in place, like
| immediate dismissal if the camera/mic is turned
| off/covered, during any part up to or during an arrest.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| I struggle to think of examples where a suspect has actually
| ELUDED law enforcement due to citizens recording an
| interaction or arrest, and I'd be very curious to see any
| such thing.
|
| I will agree that such recording has interfered with the
| arrest process at times, and that is more problematic.
|
| But I'm a paramedic/firefighter and often have to work on
| patients (in an MVA, for example) in much closer proximity to
| rubberneckers.
| leggomuhgreggo wrote:
| >law enforcement officers performing their official duties can be
| secretly recorded because they have no expectation of privacy.
|
| Sounds about right.
|
| I was worried that this referred to personal conversations and
| was about to say "dang have we gone too far?" but yeah this makes
| sense.
|
| Probably goes without saying but -- we don't want to
| condemn/bastardize/immiserate the entire institution...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-15 23:00 UTC)