Matt said:
So I guess the moral of the story is that if you must record the police you should do so clandestinely.
The Court addressed this: "Followed to its logical conclusion, the dissent would encourage drug manufacturers to mount hidden video cameras in their facilities so they can capture the moment of truth when the police execute a search warrant and would authorize drug dealers secretly to tape record conversations with suspected undercover officers or with informants in order to protect the dealers' rights against hypothetical police abuse.... Every police encounter would be available for secret recording; even meter maids would not be spared. The value of obtaining probative evidence of occasional official misconduct does not justify a failure to enforce the clear terms of the statute." ---- I can't suggest a client to do anything "against the law," even though I would argue nothing is deserving of greater "transparency" than acts of the government against its citizens, and by the government's own admission, surreptitious recording uncovers wrongdoing. I think the judiciary is capable of recognizing legitimate interests so as to avoid stalked meter maids, compromised investigations and endangering the lives of UC agents. As to the privacy interests of enforcement officers in acts of enforcement: "One of the costs associated with participation in public affairs is an attendant loss of privacy." @ <http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1687.ZS.html> As for bad guys recording... The REAL bad guys usually don't want to be recorded, which is why they have taken up bodywear countermeasures. At any rate, criminal laws are only a deterrent to law-abiders. (Our electronic surveillance statutes are, to a significant extent, the legacy of political espionage. They were protecting themselves -- against themselves.) Miniaturization, affordability and availability has made *covert* surveillance a viable protective strategy for citizens. (i.e., "Tape is the best testimony.") One-party recording statutes are in recognition of this protective interest. Recording statutes, especially the new visual recording and "paparazzi" bills are deserving of scrutiny, even though many are *extremely* well-intentioned. Not only do they increasingly implicate the First Amendment, they risk limiting the citizen-use of legitimate, protective covert surveillance in certain circumstances involving citizen/government conflict -- as seen in the Hyde case. You can protect privacy without depriving people of the right to protect themselves. ~Aimee