Is it Against the Law to Film a Police Officer

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Florida

I had heard it was since you can "expose their identities" if they ever need to go undercover or something along those lines. However, I also heard it was legal as long as it was in a public area?

Quote:

---

Quoting Kanti

---

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Florida

I had heard it was since you can "expose their identities" if they ever need to go undercover or something along those lines. However, I also heard it was legal as long as it was in a public area?

---

It is legal to record the police. There are something like three states that seem to be fighting this idea, but in the end they will lose.

It is one thing to surreptitiously record an officer with the intent release their image to cause them harm. It is another entirely to record them going about their business in public.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

It is legal to record the police. There are something like three states that seem to be fighting this idea, but in the end they will lose.

It is one thing to surreptitiously record an officer with the intent release their image to cause them harm. It is another entirely to record them going about their business in public.

---

That would include if they pulled you on the side of the road to give you a speeding ticket, correct?
I had a cousin who filmed an officer while he was issuing him a ticket and the officer told him it was against the law to record him and made him put the camera away or he'd have to confiscate it.
But I'd think they need a warrant or something to confiscate a camera. I'm completely unsure though, hah.

Quote:

---

Quoting Kanti

---

That would include if they pulled you on the side of the road to give you a speeding ticket, correct?

---

Yes.

SO long as what you are doing does not interfere with or threaten the officer, you can have a device running. Some officer who does not know the law well might think otherwise, but you should be good.

Quote:

---

I had a cousin who filmed an officer while he was issuing him a ticket and the officer told him it was against the law to record him and made him put the camera away or he'd have to confiscate it.

---

The officer was wrong. That's an erroneous presumption that many officers make and it is not supported by the status of case law. But, some states and jurisdictions might still try to argue the issue - particularly if the state is a "two party" consent state for recorded conversations, even though the provisions do not generally apply in public places where no expectation of privacy exists. And since the courts have ruled that YOU have no expectation of privacy in your conversation with an officer - and he can record YOU - then the reverse would be true.

Quote:

---

But I'd think they need a warrant or something to confiscate a camera. I'm completely unsure though, hah.

---

Warrant, probable cause, or consent depending on the circumstances. As you outline it, none comes to mind.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

The officer was wrong. That's an erroneous presumption that many officers make and it is not supported by the status of case law. But, some states and jurisdictions might still try to argue the issue - particularly if the state is a "two party" consent state for recorded conversations, even though the provisions do not generally apply in public places where no expectation of privacy exists. And since the courts have ruled that YOU have no expectation of privacy in your conversation with an officer - and he can record YOU - then the reverse would be true.

---

The reason the officer gave was that he did not consent to the "audio recording". Apparently you can't release audio without the consent of all participants, and even though he seemed to not care at first, he changed his mind halfway through and told my cousin to put the camera away or he would place him under arrest.
If that's true, I don't think it's very just at all. Police have mounted cameras recording our every move and we can't even record them to have proof of any ill behavior?

Quote:

---

Quoting Kanti

---

The reason the officer gave was that he did not consent to the "audio recording". Apparently you can't release audio without the consent of all participants, and even though he seemed to not care at first, he changed his mind halfway through and told my cousin to put the camera away or he would place him under arrest.

---

The officer is operating under the mistaken impression that the two party consent applies to contacts in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy.

As I mentioned, there are still some states that have agencies or counties that are trying to stand by this old idea, but the federal cases just don't seem to support that contention. I had not heard that FL was one of those states.

What you have to ask yourself in those situations is: "Do I want to be the test case?" If, yes, then you go to the mat and risk the arrest. If, no, then you turn it off.

"The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest." Smith v. City of Cumming (11th Cir., 2000). And similar in most other Circuits.

Despite the clear federal mandate, some states (e.g., Massachusetts) claim some kind of wiretapping violation when you record a police officer in public performing their public duties. Such applications are unconstitutional, but can still cause grief for citizens.

State courts seem inclined to uphold the laws; I believe there is a compelling case that the recording of police officers performing their duties in public should not be subject to criminal sanction, but the issue hasn't yet worked its way through the federal system. So perhaps we should be saying, "It should be held unconstitutional."

Here's a good article with case references..

http://aglr.wordpress.com/2010/11/13...-police-abuse/

Seems to depend on which judge you get.

I also found this for Florida:
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Migut v. Flynn 131 Fed.Appx. 262 (2005), held that just because a traffic stop takes place on a public street does not mean that the police officer's communication is not protected under § 934.03 and whether a particular communication is protected under § 934.03(1)(a) is an intensely fact-specific inquiry, and we are not prepared to hold that the Florida legislature intended to exclude from the protections of § 934.03 all citizen communications with all police officers during all traffic stops on a public street.

For something really ****ed up, the statute has a specific provision that allows police officers an exemption if they are recording a conversation to which they are a party to, given that they are conducting a lawful investigation.

In summary, Florida police can record a motorist that they stop for a traffic offense, but the same motorist is prohibited from recording them.

Quote:

---

Quoting mittens

---

In summary, Florida police can record a motorist that they stop for a traffic offense, but the same motorist is prohibited from recording them.

---

In time, that will almost certainly change. As Aaron pointed out, some states are still upholding these archaic interpretations. In time, the handful of states that still hold to this one way interpretation will likely find themselves forced to change their tune.

well, the problem with the Florida situation, as I see it;

the law was not actually challenged on a constitutional basis. What was contested was the applicability of the law in regards to the situation. Since the guy was not arguing the charge itself but the arrest, the constitutionality of the law was not in question but whether the officers actions were proper given the circumstances. It was ruled that the officers actions were acceptable.

Now, if the guy was actually prosecuted for the violation, then he could have challenged the constitutionality of the law but as it was, that was not the question at hand.