When I call and talk to people at businesses the recording always says, this conversation is being recorded. And I always say when they answer the phone well I'm glad you're recording it because I'm recording it too. And then we proceeded talking. Why would it be a secret what a public official tells you? If it's recorded they can't turn around and say, I didn't say that, I never told you that. That is the only reason they would be upset about people recording a conversation. As a matter of fact, me talking into this phone is being recorded and stored in a database somewhere by the government and by Google. And they have not asked my permission to record me. if they can record a conversation and hold it in archive for 25 years or longer. Without our knowledge then why can't we? The government tracks every move you make it tracks everything you say into your phone and tracks everything you look up on your phone. Big trucks everything you buy through your credit card or debt card and Now they're mad because you recorded a conversation between you and them???? That's because they tell you what you want to hear when speaking to you and it's not always the truth. They tell you stuff just to get rid of you, to get you off the phone, or get you to walk away, because they don't want to deal with you. And if it's recorded you can prove what they said to you. They should have no more right than the people do. You've got cameras everywhere and every building on every sidewalk you got these buildings full of monitors that you're watching everything people say under every street light and it's recording your voice if you are standing under the camera. This is nothing but a police state. They just do not want to be held responsible for the things they lie about.
2 party consent shouldn't be needed anyway. Wiretapping, also known as wire tapping or telephone tapping, is the monitoring of telephone and Internet-based conversations by a third party, often by covert means. The wire tap received its name because, historically, the monitoring connection was an actual electrical tap on an analog telephone or telegraph line.
Thats all it is about, and watch they will appeal the ruling and start all over again, just to get him to spend more money....then its law suit time big time and lots of zero's after a large number !! !
Exactly! All 2-party consent laws for recording should be declared unconstitutional. The reason is that the government has no legitimate interest (compelling or otherwise) that justifies the infringement on the recording party’s (“Party A”) freedom of press. The government will say the interest they are trying to protect is the recorded party’s (“Party B”) “privacy”. However, the government will concede that, apart from recording, it is normally NOT unlawful for Party A to simply REPEAT what Party B said-which proves the issue over recording is NOT privacy. Rather, the real issue with recording is that it prevents Party B from plausibly denying what was said to Party A or that the conversation took place at all. In short, preserving Party B’s RIGHT TO LIE about the conversation (which is destroyed by the existence of a recording) is not a legitimate governmental interest.
@@poplarboy7129 -- When the government records your phone calls, that's "zero-party consent" (the government eavesdropper is not a party to the conversation). "One-party consent" (which is the law in most states) is what I support. If you are free to repeat to others what was said in a conversation, you should also be free to record that conversation.
@@user-zt8hq2if1vnot quite. In public, you can record anyone without expectation of privacy hence the bill of rights aka 1st amendment. Two party consent laws is for outside of public scenarios. But even then auditors don’t need people’s consent if they’re in public. Supreme Courts have ruled on this.
This is what FL did to me , except under illegal arrest my seized phone was recording them discussing the illegality of their arrest and they didn't know it was still going, so they wanted to charge me if I introduced the convo in court
@wilburfinnigan2142 right. They also managed to record themselves going thru my photo gallery and "commenting" on my NSFW pics of my gf at the time . I'm sure you can imagine the content of their convo, all tax-funded.
Officers do not have an expectation of privacy, they are PUBLIC SERVANTS, no matter what any court states. WE THE PEOPLE are the final judge and jury and the Constitution is the ultimate law.
American Taxpayers, Families, Spouses, and Children Despise Cops more than War, Hitler, Satan, Sin, and even God ...! (That's a Fact!) - Overturn Terry vs Ohio
This decision is nothing new. This matter was decided by the 11th Circuit Court in the McDonough v Fernandez-Rundle case. Not to mention that there is a carve out in the Statute itself to record govt employees.
Man has every right to record when talking to the police. It's your word against theirs, if they say, we never got a call. You can record them with a camera & sound, when on the clock.
DeSantis is exactly what happens when you don't have any actual convictions or beliefs. Virtue-signaling to the "back the blue" crowd because he thinks that'll score more points than boring stuff, like simply upholding our constitutional rights.
Spot on the truth. DeSantis needs to go. He's a straight up cop sucker and backs the blue NO MATTER what they do to you. If you get a court to side with you on a civil rights claim, this asshole makes a law to protect law enforcement on the next claim. Florida is becoming a communist state because of him. You all need to vote him out.
Any state that requires all party consent when recording a conversation on your own phone or device is fascistic. Police usually record phone conversations already, he should FOIA those recordings. How is it OK for them to record and not him.
I would point out that the Supreme Court has specifically stated that there is no expectation of privacy in the workplace. 🙄 We pay taxes and as such we “employ” the public officials. We are the employer, we are entitled to observe our employees at any time.
Pennsylvania has created an unconstitutional law not allowing documentation in a public lobby of a district justice office. In the same breath, they are recording citizens with audio and video in this same lobby without their knowledge
Wiretapping statutes were adopted at the time when government was eavesdropping on the unions, with the goal to stop that practice. The essence of such statute is to criminalize becoming privy to the information you are not supposed to be privy to. Applying it to your own communications is absurd to begin with, because you are already privy to it.
This really comes down to the fact that he didn't intercept anything. He was the intended recipient of the oral communications and he was party to the conversation. Almost no state outlaws recording under those circumstances.
It was explained to me by a very smart legal mind that you never send your actual recording you transcribe that recording word for word give that as sworn testimony of a word for word transcription, and once the other party challenges the truthfulness of your transcription, it will open the back door for your recording to come in and confirm what you have transcribed word for word as the truthful word for word conversation.
Excellent job, thank you for your commitment to exposing tyrannical behavior and what extent LE is willing to go through, since they have unlimited resources.
My friend had the same issue 30 yrs ago. He wore a micro phone on his pen pocket when dealing with police, his recorder was in his pocket, they so much wanted to arrest him for anything do to his long standing battle with the county. He was arrested and jailed, 10 days in solitary, the hearing lasted less than ten minutes, officer dud you see the micro phone on his pen pocket yes, case dismissed. Did you see the cameras, ?
In Canada 🇨🇦 we have a one party consent law regarding recording conversations. If you are a party to the conversation then give yourself consent to record the conversation and you are good to go. Conversely, the other party may record you without your knowledge and consent. This is not legal advice!
This happened to Michael Taylor who is also known as "SoloYaker" and "The Armed Fisherman." He was arrested by the Titusville Police Dept. in FL for recording a phone call with a Brevard Parks and Recreation employee. However, the State Attorney refused to prosecute the case. If the State Attorney has declined to prosecute in the past then this is either a selective prosecution or it is a rule of lenity violation, and either way they should now drop the charges.
A police department can and will record all incoming phone conversations, but a person who is calling commits a felony when they record the same conversation. Remind me again which country we are in.
Anything any, ANY, Government Employee does, writes, reads, or says that is work related is public information unless it is classified by existing standards.
There's no such thing as a wire tapping when recording a personal conversation. It's a fundamental right to keep a record of all encounters anywhere a man happens to be.
News article today said that the wire tap law does not apply since he was recording a police officer was talking on the phone while performing in an official duty. So you can record phone calls with police if they are acting official duty.
Anytime a government employee speaks to a member of the public it should be public record. There should not be a provision for the Public employee to think it's a private conversation. The reason they hate recordings is because the government officials always speak to us and tell us one thing and then when presented to people out in the open, they deny what they said. That's why they don't like our videos because they can't mute them like they can their body cams. They can't hold them in the back somewhere and say you have to file a FOIA request and then deny it. You got your own video you have your own evidence on hand. nothing has changed word for word everything that was said. that's what you call transparency. And any governor, or anybody else that has a problem with that needs to go because they are not on the side of the people. They are not on the side of law-abiding taxpaying citizens. We're not the liberal people we are not the socialist people. We are the ones that's wanting to hold the government accountable. The cast for too long the government has gotten away with anything and everything. And I thought we had a good Governor up until he decided to be on the side of government and not side of people.
Our public officials need to be held accountable. They made an Oath to serve and protect. They obviously are not protecting this individual.. also there blatant disrespect, and disregard for violating there Oaths. But because they were exposed. Now are retaliating, in hopes that if they can abuse there power. And abuse the law, to make it work in the officers favor. And if they could susseed there hoping it could justify themselves. But this is blatant abuse of power. Where's the transparency. This officers obviously was caught doing or saying something he shouldn't have. And now he trying to exonerate himself by abusing the law to cover his abuses. By retaliating.
This is why I don't do business over the phone with public officials. Go face to face, in a public area. Even if that means at a public meeting like the County Board of Supervisors, or something like that. Someplace where VIDEO recording is allowed. Make you complaint PUBLIC, then there is no expectation of privacy.
An aspect missed here is the wiretapping law is about "Intercepting" a communication. Intercepting is a 3rd party surreptitiously gaining access to a conversation between parties. There is no interception here because one member of the conversation is a party to it. Had the phone been on speaker, and a stenographer sitting nearby taking dictation, would the written record have been deemed an intercept? No, because it was a verbatim copy of the conversation. As such, his own recording serves the same purpose.
This is clearly a case were police feel they can use the law how they see it will only help them! It just show the level of corruption in policing andcourts that we have in this country! Police will try even thing to hide there criminal behavior, and the courts will never hold them accountable for it! It's disgusting!
All official call must be RECORDED , for only officials whom would object to being recorded are those whom are doing something illegal , immoral , or embarrassing .
Some wise-ass cop immediately said "Hey, he didn't have permission to record us", and they went hog-wild (pun intended). Those cops are absolutely abusing the system to get back at this poor man, and are trying to potentially put him away for the rest of his life over them being butt-hurt. I see it as a clear abuse of power and the law in retaliation. Those cops ought to be the ones going to jail!
If cops wanted to be sure nobody ever recorded them, they could just insist on only speaking to someone by phone. Nanner Nanner... wiretap rules apply in a two-party state! That let's them say anything they please, and then lie about it and create a he-said/cop-said debate with no evidence to back it.
Multiple court cases across the country have ruled that police officers and law enforcement have no expectation of privacy when on duty and/or performing their official duties. Generally this is in relation to video recording, but there is no stipulation placed on what type of recording is allowed. What limitations are in place, are there to prevent physical interference or obstruction of official duties of a law enforcement officer. As the audio recording is a recording of a public law enforcement officer in the commission of their duties, there is no expectation of privacy. Furthermore, any call a private American makes to a law enforcement agency is typically recorded for evidentiary purposes, E.g. If you make a threat over the phone, that call is recorded and can be used as evidence of your criminal threat. Any and all calls to the FBI are recorded for the same purposes. I would strongly suspect that there is a recording of the conversation captured by the Sheriff's Office that can be requested by a FOIA request, and then entered into evidence for the defense against this charge. If the charges are not immediately dropped, then under fair and equal application of the law, the Sheriff's Office must also be charged with felony wiretapping charges, all officers arrested, fired, and sent to jail for the same actions they charged this individual with.
@@Sarge395you keep crying as it's the conservative Republicans that continue to back these traitors with guns and badges. Thanks for sharing everyone you're in a cult
Law enforcement officers wear body cameras and don't seek consent for the recording devices, they record each others conversations. I know that's not the same as the situation here, but it goes to show that they understand the job they are doing is not "private" and they are subject to recorded observation by third parties.
ALWAYS SAY: "TO SET THIS RECORD STRAIGHT WHATS YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION AND LETTER OF THE LAW ON THE MATTER?" to say in court you informed them of recording at beginning of the conversation if they didn't question it that's on them as I performed my legal due diligence to inform conversation was on the record.
Florida's a toxic mix of get off my lawn retirees, a huge tourist industry that doesn't want any effing around (bad for business), NASA engineers, tons of other sundry federal employees, big land developers who don't want any effing around (bad for business), banana republic refugees who think living in a police state is normal, and a liberal sprinkling of Bible Belt tyrants. People who don't live here must think the entire state is like libertine Key West. LOL. Got news for them.
The law is clear. Must inform and receive consent to record phone calls in and from Florida. Bad decision on the man's part.
Court disagrees with you and dropped charges
When I call and talk to people at businesses the recording always says, this conversation is being recorded. And I always say when they answer the phone well I'm glad you're recording it because I'm recording it too. And then we proceeded talking. Why would it be a secret what a public official tells you? If it's recorded they can't turn around and say, I didn't say that, I never told you that. That is the only reason they would be upset about people recording a conversation. As a matter of fact, me talking into this phone is being recorded and stored in a database somewhere by the government and by Google. And they have not asked my permission to record me. if they can record a conversation and hold it in archive for 25 years or longer. Without our knowledge then why can't we? The government tracks every move you make it tracks everything you say into your phone and tracks everything you look up on your phone. Big trucks everything you buy through your credit card or debt card and Now they're mad because you recorded a conversation between you and them???? That's because they tell you what you want to hear when speaking to you and it's not always the truth. They tell you stuff just to get rid of you, to get you off the phone, or get you to walk away, because they don't want to deal with you. And if it's recorded you can prove what they said to you. They should have no more right than the people do. You've got cameras everywhere and every building on every sidewalk you got these buildings full of monitors that you're watching everything people say under every street light and it's recording your voice if you are standing under the camera. This is nothing but a police state. They just do not want to be held responsible for the things they lie about.
IMHO, this is terrorism - threats/violence, against a civilian, for a political purpose
Police on duty doing their duty have no expectation of privacy.
@@Snoopy34491the appellate case just came Out two days ago
This is 100% retaliation against a citizen for complaining about a bad cop
They are all rotten to the core
@@StanlyTPT no truer words have been spoken
5 cases of butthurt 😠
Absolutely retaliating against him. There is no other reason.
Yesterday a new law passed in Florida, You're not allowed to file complain against police or any other public servants... Talk about freedom😂
This is an OBVIOUS case of police retaliation. The prosecutor should have thrown this case into the waste can, rather than bring it to a courtroom.
You can beat the rap, but the gang will still make you pay.
Another way to look at "official" retaliation is a form of institutional terrorism
When dealing with local courts, the judge, prosecutor, and police are one team, you and your lawyer are the other.
Prosecutors & judges, just as VINDICTIVE!! THEY'RE ALL IN CAHOOTS!! POLICE, PROSECUTORS AND JUDGES!!
Before that, how could a qualified judge have possibly given them an arrest warrant?
for each charge dismissed, an officer should get 30 days in jail for false charging
But that would mean holding them accountable for their behaviour on duty, so never going to happen.
Actually each falsely sworn charge is perjury, treason and deprivation of rights under the color of law.
Include is this, the cost to the falsely charged victim AND all the charges must be expunged!
1 year.
Judge needs to be disbarred
2 party consent should not apply when it involves the government.
Not sure if is does. Don't they record phone calls on 911 and Police lines?
@@oldtc3615lets just call it what it is...retaliation against an American citizen by the goon squad!
2 party consent shouldn't be needed anyway.
Wiretapping, also known as wire tapping or telephone tapping, is the monitoring of telephone and Internet-based conversations by a third party, often by covert means. The wire tap received its name because, historically, the monitoring connection was an actual electrical tap on an analog telephone or telegraph line.
@@BDRmongoose its very evident that the po po is just retaliating because they filed a complaint on them.
It doesn't, but the tyrants will make everyone believe that it does because it benefits them.
Trying to put someone in a cage for 25 years because he recorded his convo with a public officer is just sick
While they are recirding you.
He’s. Not going to be sentenced to 25 years if he is convicted for which I have my doubts. I predict unsupervised probation.
@@ruthiesea He was actually convicted of it and now overturned.
@@ruthieseanah. Charges were dropped
Chief Carmine Marceno is a major dirty cop.
I came up with a nice ditty for him "Dimes are silver, Pennies are brass, Why does Carmine act like an ass?"
Yeah, he's sorry af.
Mob-ties-like 🍕 💩.
These clowns are evil. They're trying to force him to spend 10s of thousands of dollars on charges they know he can't be convicted on.
Thats all it is about, and watch they will appeal the ruling and start all over again, just to get him to spend more money....then its law suit time big time and lots of zero's after a large number !! !
Imagine if cops actually went after criminals
Imagine if all cops were not criminals?
THEY WOULD BE GOING AFTER THEMSELVES !!!
It's Florida. EVERYONE is suspicious. 👮🇺🇸
They can't do that, as that would make them do something useful, by arresting each other !
they'ed look funny chasing themselves.
Thin Blue Line gang has no expectation of privacy... and SHOULD be held accountable.
In due time people will start investing we're are the Popo sleeping 😴
2 party consent states need to be contested as constitutional violations. How is recording a call any different than having email records?
Exactly! All 2-party consent laws for recording should be declared unconstitutional. The reason is that the government has no legitimate interest (compelling or otherwise) that justifies the infringement on the recording party’s (“Party A”) freedom of press. The government will say the interest they are trying to protect is the recorded party’s (“Party B”) “privacy”. However, the government will concede that, apart from recording, it is normally NOT unlawful for Party A to simply REPEAT what Party B said-which proves the issue over recording is NOT privacy. Rather, the real issue with recording is that it prevents Party B from plausibly denying what was said to Party A or that the conversation took place at all. In short, preserving Party B’s RIGHT TO LIE about the conversation (which is destroyed by the existence of a recording) is not a legitimate governmental interest.
Do you really want the government recording your phone calls? Oh wait, they already do
@@musicmaker4797auditors hate 2 party states. Their the ones that need to give themselves permission to film people
@@poplarboy7129 -- When the government records your phone calls, that's "zero-party consent" (the government eavesdropper is not a party to the conversation). "One-party consent" (which is the law in most states) is what I support. If you are free to repeat to others what was said in a conversation, you should also be free to record that conversation.
@@user-zt8hq2if1vnot quite. In public, you can record anyone without expectation of privacy hence the bill of rights aka 1st amendment. Two party consent laws is for outside of public scenarios. But even then auditors don’t need people’s consent if they’re in public. Supreme Courts have ruled on this.
Gross over reach and malicious prosecution
Crimes. Just crimes. Stop giving them cover in legalese nonsense.
It has been said that we have more to fear from stupid people than evil ones.
Sometimes it's really hard to tell where one stops and the other begins.
The stoopid ones are the ones who support the evil ones. Cheers
Can be both
@@fftunes It almost invariably is.
If the individual has a badge, they are both
Evil begins with stupid. Stupid is the stepping stones upon which evil walks.
This is what FL did to me , except under illegal arrest my seized phone was recording them discussing the illegality of their arrest and they didn't know it was still going, so they wanted to charge me if I introduced the convo in court
screw em !! They were caught in their own trap, you did not have posession of your phone !!!!
@wilburfinnigan2142 right. They also managed to record themselves going thru my photo gallery and "commenting" on my NSFW pics of my gf at the time . I'm sure you can imagine the content of their convo, all tax-funded.
@@gypsytarot333 And they wonder why they're called PIG. THUGS,BULLIES & COWARDS!!!
Those calls are probably recorded on the police end and are public record. He actually created a public record himself.
No, only incoming and 911 calls are normally recorded in Florida.
@@mr.otterpockets3854 You know their department policy? Did you help write it?
@@brandexample1776 Do you actually believe they record every outgoing call?
@@mr.otterpockets3854 when it has to do with an investigation, yes
Recorded and used as evidence against him!
Florida cops have long been out of control
Officers do not have an expectation of privacy, they are PUBLIC SERVANTS, no matter what any court states. WE THE PEOPLE are the final judge and jury and the Constitution is the ultimate law.
Public serpents
Those cops are why we have the secnd amendment.
Facts
That time is approaching.
American Taxpayers, Families, Spouses, and Children Despise Cops more than War, Hitler, Satan, Sin, and even God ...! (That's a Fact!)
- Overturn Terry vs Ohio
That time has passed @@patrickscopas9133
Time is long overdue. @@patrickscopas9133
When law is tyranny. Compliance is treason.
Total overreach from corrupt cops
Financially burdening this individual by govt claiming crimes were committed.
This is a case of an Ego that got hurt!
They didn't like the fact that he was filing a complaint, so they did everything in their power to discredit his Complaint!!!
Obviously.
This decision is nothing new. This matter was decided by the 11th Circuit Court in the McDonough v Fernandez-Rundle case. Not to mention that there is a carve out in the Statute itself to record govt employees.
Bad faith arguments from the government! I’m shocked 😊
This was a clear-cut case of "Contempt of Cop."
This is just ridiculous and malicious prosecution
Man has every right to record when talking to the police. It's your word against theirs, if they say, we never got a call. You can record them with a camera & sound, when on the clock.
This situation is a Ron DeSantis cream-dream.
💯
I would've backed him in the future if he hadn't have made copwatching a crime now... pos
Yep, Desantis can never be trusted after signing those new bills into law.
DeSantis is exactly what happens when you don't have any actual convictions or beliefs. Virtue-signaling to the "back the blue" crowd because he thinks that'll score more points than boring stuff, like simply upholding our constitutional rights.
Spot on the truth. DeSantis needs to go. He's a straight up cop sucker and backs the blue NO MATTER what they do to you. If you get a court to side with you on a civil rights claim, this asshole makes a law to protect law enforcement on the next claim. Florida is becoming a communist state because of him. You all need to vote him out.
Your Governor started out as a governor for the people, and now he's turning toward a governor for the government.
I hate to say it but you're right
Attention all freedom lovers. Sunny Isles Beach FL is attempting to engage in some of the most egregious 1st ammendment violating you could imagine.
All of FL has become a police state under fat Ron DeSantis. Anti 1st and 2nd am
Any state that requires all party consent when recording a conversation on your own phone or device is fascistic. Police usually record phone conversations already, he should FOIA those recordings. How is it OK for them to record and not him.
That seems like a perfect defense.
How does someone "intercept" their own conversation?
no Uniform haz an expectation of privacy- take it to the Supreme Court! set a more confirmed precedence
Public Servents, just as We The People, must create our own, Privacy in public, personal opinion 😊
The legal system is septic. Thank you for taking time a lot of time no doubt for documenting this. We all need to hear. ❤❤❤❤
I would point out that the Supreme Court has specifically stated that there is no expectation of privacy in the workplace. 🙄 We pay taxes and as such we “employ” the public officials. We are the employer, we are entitled to observe our employees at any time.
Florida is a 2 party consent state, both parties must agree to any recordings. That being said if 911 records massages that would also be illegal.
Doesn’t apply to public officials in their official capacity
It sounds as though the department didn't read the law, before laying down the charges. Just pigs, being pigs. No less, no more.
Anything you say can and will be used against you. Goes doubt for officers in public. In their official capacity.
Thanks for pointing out the conclusion! Love it
Pennsylvania has created an unconstitutional law not allowing documentation in a public lobby of a district justice office. In the same breath, they are recording citizens with audio and video in this same lobby without their knowledge
So let me get this straight. You tap your own phone and they say you can be charged for wire tapping ? LOL
Shocking that the Local court would side with the cops, and had to be overturned on Appeal!
I given-up since a long time believing in "JUSTICE" !
@@petermastenbroek7719 Right, most local courts and some upper courts are not out for justice, just a conviction.
We need to know who the judge was so we can vote their corrupt ass out
So glad I am in a one-party consent state!
Same here
I hope all is well, James and everyone! Watching now!
R-E-T-A-L-I-A-T-I-O-N
Wiretapping statutes were adopted at the time when government was eavesdropping on the unions, with the goal to stop that practice. The essence of such statute is to criminalize becoming privy to the information you are not supposed to be privy to. Applying it to your own communications is absurd to begin with, because you are already privy to it.
any more there is no wiretapping everything you say is free to be intercepted OVER THE AIRWAYS by having a radio tuned to that frequency
CELL PHONES
“We are God” and we can do whatever we want-the citizens do not need to be protected or served 🤬
How was a SEARCH for recording devices under "Incident for arrest"???
If the cop called him on a recorded line, he has no expectations of privacy
This really comes down to the fact that he didn't intercept anything. He was the intended recipient of the oral communications and he was party to the conversation. Almost no state outlaws recording under those circumstances.
Semper Fi Brother
Thanks for bringing this to us
👍👍🇺🇸🇺🇸
The kops name is glaze LMFAO
Fingers crossed 🤞
Hopefully the gentleman can sue for malicious prosecution.
The government scares me more than any criminal.
It was explained to me by a very smart legal mind that you never send your actual recording you transcribe that recording word for word give that as sworn testimony of a word for word transcription, and once the other party challenges the truthfulness of your transcription, it will open the back door for your recording to come in and confirm what you have transcribed word for word as the truthful word for word conversation.
Earning the hate daily
Another example of the police not knowing the law they are trying to miss apply........
Excellent job, thank you for your commitment to exposing tyrannical behavior and what extent LE is willing to go through, since they have unlimited resources.
My friend had the same issue 30 yrs ago. He wore a micro phone on his pen pocket when dealing with police, his recorder was in his pocket, they so much wanted to arrest him for anything do to his long standing battle with the county.
He was arrested and jailed, 10 days in solitary, the hearing lasted less than ten minutes, officer dud you see the micro phone on his pen pocket yes, case dismissed.
Did you see the cameras, ?
In Canada 🇨🇦 we have a one party consent law regarding recording conversations. If you are a party to the conversation then give yourself consent to record the conversation and you are good to go. Conversely, the other party may record you without your knowledge and consent. This is not legal advice!
Same in Wisconsin.
This happened to Michael Taylor who is also known as "SoloYaker" and "The Armed Fisherman." He was arrested by the Titusville Police Dept. in FL for recording a phone call with a Brevard Parks and Recreation employee. However, the State Attorney refused to prosecute the case. If the State Attorney has declined to prosecute in the past then this is either a selective prosecution or it is a rule of lenity violation, and either way they should now drop the charges.
Of course it’s in Florida.
A police department can and will record all incoming phone conversations, but a person who is calling commits a felony when they record the same conversation. Remind me again which country we are in.
Anything any, ANY, Government Employee does, writes, reads, or says that is work related is public information unless it is classified by existing standards.
A lot of people talk about the “free state of Florida” but those same people ignore the numerous examples of the tyrannical state of Florida.
CRIMINAL conduct for searching his "Castle" without a warrant.
"Arrest Warrant isn't search warrant!
There's no such thing as a wire tapping when recording a personal conversation. It's a fundamental right to keep a record of all encounters anywhere a man happens to be.
The fact that a judge signed off on this is the real problem.
The only reason the cops are going after him is they know what they are doing is wrong. And they want to shut him up.
So....how many years in jail will a cop face if they record you while beating you up ?
Another example of NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE 😮
News article today said that the wire tap law does not apply since he was recording a police officer was talking on the phone while performing in an official duty. So you can record phone calls with police if they are acting official duty.
I don't even get surprised anymore from everything that bad cops do.
Anytime a government employee speaks to a member of the public it should be public record. There should not be a provision for the Public employee to think it's a private conversation. The reason they hate recordings is because the government officials always speak to us and tell us one thing and then when presented to people out in the open, they deny what they said. That's why they don't like our videos because they can't mute them like they can their body cams. They can't hold them in the back somewhere and say you have to file a FOIA request and then deny it. You got your own video you have your own evidence on hand. nothing has changed word for word everything that was said. that's what you call transparency. And any governor, or anybody else that has a problem with that needs to go because they are not on the side of the people. They are not on the side of law-abiding taxpaying citizens. We're not the liberal people we are not the socialist people. We are the ones that's wanting to hold the government accountable. The cast for too long the government has gotten away with anything and everything. And I thought we had a good Governor up until he decided to be on the side of government and not side of people.
Our public officials need to be held accountable. They made an Oath to serve and protect. They obviously are not protecting this individual.. also there blatant disrespect, and disregard for violating there Oaths. But because they were exposed. Now are retaliating, in hopes that if they can abuse there power. And abuse the law, to make it work in the officers favor. And if they could susseed there hoping it could justify themselves. But this is blatant abuse of power. Where's the transparency. This officers obviously was caught doing or saying something he shouldn't have. And now he trying to exonerate himself by abusing the law to cover his abuses. By retaliating.
An arrest by the Police, stemming from a complaint about the Police, investigated by the Police.
The process is the punishment. Lawfare.
This is why I don't do business over the phone with public officials. Go face to face, in a public area. Even if that means at a public meeting like the County Board of Supervisors, or something like that. Someplace where VIDEO recording is allowed. Make you complaint PUBLIC, then there is no expectation of privacy.
This "Appeal" clause sounds like "double jeopardy" for the defendant.
Not till lawsuits cost the state to file bankruptcy every time. Will training and education standards for government employees will change.
Its the people versus tyrannical law enforcement who abuse their power to satisfy their emotions.
An aspect missed here is the wiretapping law is about "Intercepting" a communication. Intercepting is a 3rd party surreptitiously gaining access to a conversation between parties. There is no interception here because one member of the conversation is a party to it. Had the phone been on speaker, and a stenographer sitting nearby taking dictation, would the written record have been deemed an intercept? No, because it was a verbatim copy of the conversation. As such, his own recording serves the same purpose.
MA is also a two party state, YET citizens can secretly record police in public.
This is clearly a case were police feel they can use the law how they see it will only help them! It just show the level of corruption in policing andcourts that we have in this country! Police will try even thing to hide there criminal behavior, and the courts will never hold them accountable for it! It's disgusting!
Keep up the good work. Government continues to overreach. Thanks for exposing this.
All official call must be RECORDED , for only officials whom would object to being recorded are those whom are doing something illegal , immoral , or embarrassing .
Some wise-ass cop immediately said "Hey, he didn't have permission to record us", and they went hog-wild (pun intended).
Those cops are absolutely abusing the system to get back at this poor man, and are trying to potentially put him away for the rest of his life over them being butt-hurt. I see it as a clear abuse of power and the law in retaliation. Those cops ought to be the ones going to jail!
Every conversation with public officials should be recorded. Smdh pos police and judge and prosecutor. Wow curript
If cops wanted to be sure nobody ever recorded them, they could just insist on only speaking to someone by phone. Nanner Nanner... wiretap rules apply in a two-party state! That let's them say anything they please, and then lie about it and create a he-said/cop-said debate with no evidence to back it.
Multiple court cases across the country have ruled that police officers and law enforcement have no expectation of privacy when on duty and/or performing their official duties.
Generally this is in relation to video recording, but there is no stipulation placed on what type of recording is allowed.
What limitations are in place, are there to prevent physical interference or obstruction of official duties of a law enforcement officer.
As the audio recording is a recording of a public law enforcement officer in the commission of their duties, there is no expectation of privacy.
Furthermore, any call a private American makes to a law enforcement agency is typically recorded for evidentiary purposes, E.g. If you make a threat over the phone, that call is recorded and can be used as evidence of your criminal threat.
Any and all calls to the FBI are recorded for the same purposes.
I would strongly suspect that there is a recording of the conversation captured by the Sheriff's Office that can be requested by a FOIA request, and then entered into evidence for the defense against this charge.
If the charges are not immediately dropped, then under fair and equal application of the law, the Sheriff's Office must also be charged with felony wiretapping charges, all officers arrested, fired, and sent to jail for the same actions they charged this individual with.
New movie just came out . Its called CIVIL WAR . I wonder if this was going to happen in real life .
It's a libt4rd version of what might happen so I doubt it.
@@Sarge395you keep crying as it's the conservative Republicans that continue to back these traitors with guns and badges. Thanks for sharing everyone you're in a cult
@@Sarge395 It may . I hear a little from the Militia . Who knows .
Law enforcement officers wear body cameras and don't seek consent for the recording devices, they record each others conversations. I know that's not the same as the situation here, but it goes to show that they understand the job they are doing is not "private" and they are subject to recorded observation by third parties.
ALWAYS SAY: "TO SET THIS RECORD STRAIGHT WHATS YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION AND LETTER OF THE LAW ON THE MATTER?" to say in court you informed them of recording at beginning of the conversation if they didn't question it that's on them as I performed my legal due diligence to inform conversation was on the record.
The judge that authorized the Warrent is either incompetent or corrupt or both. Get him off the Bench.
fascist Florida is getting worse every day
This
Florida's a toxic mix of get off my lawn retirees, a huge tourist industry that doesn't want any effing around (bad for business), NASA engineers, tons of other sundry federal employees, big land developers who don't want any effing around (bad for business), banana republic refugees who think living in a police state is normal, and a liberal sprinkling of Bible Belt tyrants.
People who don't live here must think the entire state is like libertine Key West. LOL. Got news for them.
There is no surprise that there is a cop crying wolf.
Now all we need is a young girl with a red cape.
It would appear to be retaliation and the officer should be liable for his actions.
He should sue for malicious prosecution.