Police Threaten Eavesdropping Charges Unless Evidence is Destroyed

Police come to private property in Michigan and seize several cameras and an audio recorder, presumably for evidence. A search warrent for reviewing the recordings is obtained after the fact. Apparently the recordings are backed up at a State crime lab.

9 months later the equipment is returned except for the audio recorder which the police claim recorded two officers having a conversation while sitting in a vehicle on the property. The police indicate that if they must return the recorder without first erasing the recording of themselves they will make a criminal eavesdropping complaint against the property owner.

A year later the police still have the audio recorder. The property owner is intimidated by the officers' criminal arrest threat and hesitates to demand the recorder be returned as is.

This doesn't feel right.

How did the owner manage to have a recording device in a vehicle, recording the officers, when he wasn't present?

Quote:

---

Quoting plato 3

---

This doesn't feel right.

---

Neither does your post.

I suspect that there is much more to the story than you are telling. Like why the police were sitting there being recorded and why you want the contents of the recording.

If you are the homeowner, please write in the first person, not the third person.

PS: You should be intimidated by the threat of criminal charges. It was a crime in Michigan to secretly record their conversation.

The police seized the recorder without warning or consent and obviously didn't turn it off.

Quote:

---

Quoting plato 3

---

Police come to private property in Michigan and seize several cameras and an audio recorder, presumably for evidence. A search warrent for reviewing the recordings is obtained after the fact. Apparently the recordings are backed up at a State crime lab.

9 months later the equipment is returned except for the audio recorder which the police claim recorded two officers having a conversation while sitting in a vehicle on the property. The police indicate that if they must return the recorder without first erasing the recording of themselves they will make a criminal eavesdropping complaint against the property owner.

A year later the police still have the audio recorder. The property owner is intimidated by the officers' criminal arrest threat and hesitates to demand the recorder be returned as is.

This doesn't feel right.

---

What's your actual question? If you want your stuff back, then file a motion with the court. If criminal charges are brought against you, defend yourself against the charges. You're either going to have to call their bluff or give up on the stuff.

May be this is posted in the wrong catagory. If nobody sees a civil rights issue there is still the question of whether the incident is eavesdropping. Should this be posted in the criminal charges section?

You're playing "hide the ball" with the facts. Tell your friend to discuss exactly what he did with his lawyer and, if he chooses to try to get the recorder back without agreeing to the destruction of the recording, if the facts would support prosecution for felony eavesdropping.

I think what the OP is saying is that the police seized video- and audio-recording devices from a home. The devices were in the police car. The police had forgotten to turn off the audio device, and the device recorded the conversation they had in the car.

The police are now saying that THEIR mistake in not turning off the device, means that the owner of the device committed eavesdropping. So, the OP's question is, is the police's reasoning correct?

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

You're playing "hide the ball" with the facts.

---

I like that.

:friendly_wink:

Quote:

---

Quoting John_28

---

I think what the OP is saying is that the police seized video- and audio-recording devices from a home. The devices were in the police car. The police had forgotten to turn off the audio device, and the device recorded the conversation they had in the car.

The police are now saying that THEIR mistake in not turning off the device, means that the owner of the device committed eavesdropping. So, the OP's question is, is the police's reasoning correct?

---

Or the owner could have deliberately and surreptitiously turned the recorder on in order to record the police after they seized the device. The facts do matter, and thus we should be given the relevant facts instead of being expected to guess. Even if the OP claims that the police accidentally recorded themselves without his knowledge because nobody realized the recording device was on, the police and prosecutor don't have to believe him, nor does the judge or jury trying the case.

If charges were filed, the defendant should already have copies of the state police crime lab's report through discovery -- or should speak to his lawyer if discovery has not been fully pursued. If not, the defendant can discuss with his lawyer whether he faces the risk of charges and whether he should seek a court order trying to compel the return of his recording devices.

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.