Police Threaten Eavesdropping Charges Unless Evidence is Destroyed

Usually I wade into these threads with the knowledge that we're probably not getting the whole story.

In this case, I don't think we're getting 1/3 of the story.

The equipment was seized on private property but outdoors.

The police seem to be claiming the recorder was running when they seized it but offer no evidence. They also claim they were told nothing was being recorded but provide no evidence for that claim. It's not obvious those claims matter but the only way to verify them is listen to the recording. Then, how do you rule out tampering?

If charges have been filed they have not been disclosed and this started more than a year ago.

Why was the equipment seized in the first place. You indicated it was for evidence. Evidence of what?

The wording and 3rd person reference makes me think its a homework question.

No reason was given for taking the equipment. Do they have to give that? This is real life but it might be a good student question too. I'm assuming they were investigating a crime because there would be no other proper purpose, right?

The affidavit of the Search Warrant should contain information as to what they were looking for.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mephis

---

The affidavit of the Search Warrant should contain information as to what they were looking for.

---

You're right. Some one called the police and complained they, and children with them, were being harassed and the harassment included taking photos or video. Since the cameras were returned without charges it seems reasonable to conclude that the cameras didn't have any evidence of a crime. An audio recorder can't be used for taking pictures so it also seems reasonable that it is retained for the reasons given by the police. BTW, at the time the cameras were returned it wasn't clear why the audio recorder was held back. The eavesdropping claim only came up several months later when the police were asked to return the recorder.

- - - Updated - - -

To search someone's property the police need to persuade a judge there is probable cause to believe the search will find evidence of a crime, right? If the judge agrees he gives them permission via a search warrant. Then the police are supposed to examine the evidence, investigate, and decide if a crime was comitted in a reasonable amount of time and start an action or return the property. If they decide not to start an action they are obliged to return the property and they shouldn't be able to change their minds about criminal charges unless it's based on new evidence, right?

The officers who recorded themselves have the option of starting a civil action regardless of the outcome of the investigation, right?

Is the crime lab expected to review all the recordings and make a report? Could the property owner obtain that now? That might be useful.

Thinking things through in this forum has been helpful so far. Thanks to all for your support and thanks in advance for any additional assistance.