Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

oregon man arrested for filming police raid

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Mbeef61, Sep 8, 2014.

  1. Mbeef61

    Mbeef61 SW PDX Active Member

    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    77
    forefathersrback likes this.
  2. IronMonster

    IronMonster Washington Opinionated Member Diamond Supporter

    Messages:
    4,184
    Likes Received:
    6,651
    I just saw that on another site, Going to jail for operating a camera on your private property? Seems like something I would expect out of North Korea....
     
  3. Joe13

    Joe13 NW of Vancouver Opinionated & Blunt Bronze Supporter 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    6,710
    Likes Received:
    10,886
    There are apps that will let you record straight onto a remote server (like the cloud).

    I would highly recommend everyone look into it if you ever plan on being the filmer. Your phone won't make it to trial the way you left it.
     
    U201491, chemist, tiggers97 and 4 others like this.
  4. 44mag2ndamend

    44mag2ndamend Round the ole tree stump, Down by the crick Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    790
    Likes Received:
    455
    No doubt this guy has a possible case against the police. Cant they be taught to handle things like this better, obviously not. This is why the Federal Guberment had to over see changes in Portland PD dept.
     
    Redcap likes this.
  5. Fast Eddie

    Fast Eddie Vancouver Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    583
    In Oregon, you may not film an officer without their consent. Because of Oregon's ban on eavesdropping, it's technically illegal to film police if the video would pick up a conversation without the officer's permission. It is a violation of Oregon's wiretapping laws.

    http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/165.540

    If you don't think that's all that kosher, several bills aimed at changing this law have been defeated.
     
  6. Redcap

    Redcap Lewis County, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,990
    Likes Received:
    2,731
    Whoa...I had no idea Oregon sucked that bad. Glad I turned down that offer to work for PGE.
     
  7. Mbeef61

    Mbeef61 SW PDX Active Member

    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    77
    So they can film and record us, but we cannot film/record them?

    I still record officers if I am pulled over or confronted in any way. I don't care. I will still cover my bases, just like I will carry concealed in business that say I cannot.
     
  8. Stomper

    Stomper Oceania Rising White Is The New Brown Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    12,903
    Likes Received:
    19,515
    He wasn't arrested for the act of recording the raid, was was arrested "interfering" with a police operation. Which was probably a slimy cop trick to end his recording of the operation.

    The above ORS does not apply to a person who is NOT surreptitiously recording the police, i.e. you're standing there with your camera, smart phone, or iPad right there out in the open recording an incident.

    Also, it is established case law that no one, not even the police have an expectation to privacy in a place open to the general public.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 8, 2014
    RBid, Barefoot African and Redcap like this.
  9. Doc In UPlace

    Doc In UPlace Tacoma-ish Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,643
    Likes Received:
    2,030
    That's how we see it up here. Public places and no reasonable expectation of privacy with loud conversations and a group of people negate so-called two party consent and electronic interception of private conversations.

    As they say YMMV. I have no problem submitting surveillance video with an audio track as evidence IF the recording was made in a public place.
     
  10. Nick Burkhardt

    Nick Burkhardt NE Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    Likes Received:
    1,824
    The way I read ORS 165.540, and apparently darn near every open carry Oregon video posted on YouTube, is that all parties have to be informed of audio recording NOT that they have to consent to it. You have no expectation of privacy in a public place.

    Now if the officers would have lead with the go inside for your own safety instead of that interfering BS it may have gone better.
     
    Barefoot African likes this.
  11. BDA.45

    BDA.45 oregon Well-Known Member 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    633
    Filming police in public is absolutely legal...you do not need consent in Oregon when in public....and you don't need to inform them
     
    Barefoot African, JRuby and Redcap like this.
  12. Martini_Up

    Martini_Up NW USA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,632
    Likes Received:
    1,733
    Wrong.

    Did you even read the link? :s0037:
     
  13. Jamie6.5

    Jamie6.5 Western OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,196
    Likes Received:
    4,388
    That's like having Col. Sanders guard the chicken coop isn't it?
    Al Capone enforcing prohibition? IRS tax law?
    Ray Rice writing domestic abuse policies?


    I could go on, but I'm sure some of us get the gist.
     
  14. solv3nt

    solv3nt Portland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,914
    Likes Received:
    1,298
    This is partially correct, if you have a hidden camera, and you do not inform the other party that the conversation is being recorded, then you are violating ORS 165.540(1)(C)

    1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 133.724 (Order for interception of communications) or 133.726 (Interception of oral communication without order) or subsections (2) to (7) of this section, a person may not:

    C) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained.

    However, if the individual was standing on his porch, and the police specifically told him to stop recording, then it would be assumed that the police were aware that they were being recorded, in which case, satisfying the notification of all parties involved. The individual will win against the Gresham Police Department and will cost the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. It's a shame that the police are unaware of the laws that they are supposed to be upholding.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2014
  15. 44mag2ndamend

    44mag2ndamend Round the ole tree stump, Down by the crick Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    790
    Likes Received:
    455
    Not sure if I do, but we do have buttons that tell other buttons what to do! That is of course if the other buttons do not perform their own buttoning function in according with BUTTON LAW!

    I just think its ridiculous that a non-targeted, maybe by stander was ASSUALTED for using a picture phone, come on there is members here of the law enforcement community? Lets here from you uninvolved LE members and tell us what you think.
     
  16. python287

    python287 Neskowin,OR Active Member

    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    55
    This applies to audio recordings - If you want to record a conversation you must advise the other party that the conversation is being recorded - it has nothing to do with video recording a police officer - that is not illegal in Oregon and you cannot be prosecuted for it. It is only if you want to audio record anyone -including a police officer-
     
  17. Gunguy45

    Gunguy45 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    360
    My response is SEVERAL federal court rulings which say ANYTHING a public official does is subject to recording.

    They have ZERO right to privacy.

    That any lower court at this point would enforce such blatantly unconstitutional measures says rather a lot about the court. Sure as Hell, you'll find the liberals siding with the cops, every time.
     
    U201491 likes this.
  18. 1337BaldEagle

    1337BaldEagle Earth Active Member

    Messages:
    385
    Likes Received:
    225

    No, if you actually read the law all it effectively says is that both parties need to be aware that a person is recording a telecom "Conversation."

    It says nothing of recording actions that are not a "conversation." So, he is good up unto the point at which he is recording a "conversation."

    Further, you need not consent, they just need to "be specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained."


    Further he wasn't arrested for Obtaining contents of communications.

    He was arrested for "interfering with a public official."

    This is not to say that I think that filming an officers actions is actually "Interfering with a public official."



    Special thanks to Salv3nt for beating me to the punch and actually reading the law instead of just pulling it out of your bubblegum.



    Eagle
     
  19. solv3nt

    solv3nt Portland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,914
    Likes Received:
    1,298
    The law specifically states that you may not record audio. If your video camera records audio, you are breaking the law if you do notify all parties involved. The laws are archaic, and need to be updated, but the lawmakers like Burdick and Greenlich would prefer to wage a war with gun owners.

    Arresting him for interfering with a police officer is on par with arresting a guy open carrying for disturbance of the peace.
     
  20. The Heretic

    The Heretic Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,092
    Likes Received:
    6,857
    In such situations, don't go outside.

    A LEO can hardly arrest you for interfering if you stay inside.

    Better yet, don't be seen.

    Then call the local TV news stations and ask them if they want a vid of the cop doing something wrong (assuming that is what you are recording).
     
    Mbeef61 likes this.