Poll: Should a concealed carrier wear a body cam?

[CRBMoA]

I'm getting a body cam. But I'm only gonna turn it on when I'm on the toilet.

I think there is a genre for that!

 

[sobo]

Two Girls, One Cup...

And no, I won't link to it...

 

[leadcounsel]

Interesting ideas presented.

 

[Ura-Ki]

So, how does this apply with all the cell phone video that is allowed in court? Why would a body cam be any different?

They convicted Mike Strickland based on cell phone video as acceptable proof, and I know damn well they are also using cell phone video to go after folks in Seattle, so, where is the lawsuits making the laws of video disclosure moot? You can't legislate folks from taking video, not can you dissallow it as proof, so........

 

[308]

I'm getting a body cam. But I'm only gonna turn it on when I'm on the toilet.

Pics or it didn't happen

 

[bbbass]

Pics or it didn't happen

Thanx, but I'm pretty darn sure that I don't want to see anybody's triple coiler...

 

[Hawaiian]

Only if you wear your body cam on your chest next to your concealed carry badge.

 

[PaulB47]

RCW 9.73.030: Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication—Consent required—Exceptions.

Seems to me that the risk of having to face a jury with an illegal wiretapping charge, is worth it if the camera gets you out of facing a murder charge. Of course that assumes the judge admits the video as evidence. It would be kinda pissy not to, but then this is Clown World...

Eventually so many people are going to be wearing body cams or just turning on their phone cams, that (you'd think) the law will just be ignored if it is not changed.

Keep in mind that to make this charge stick, they might have to prove the start button didn't inadvertently get pushed. Just another reason this is a silly, unenforceable law.

 

[awshoot]

RCW 9.73.030: Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication—Consent required—Exceptions.

Seems to me that the risk of having to face a jury with an illegal wiretapping charge, is worth it if the camera gets you out of facing a murder charge. Of course that assumes the judge admits the video as evidence. It would be kinda pissy not to, but then this is Clown World...
...

There is a statute which says the evidence is not admissible: RCW 9.73.050: Admissibility of intercepted communication in evidence. The penalty for taking a prohibited recording is only a gross misdemeanor: RCW 9.73.080: Penalties.

Paragraph 1(a) of 9.73.030 ONLY applies to communications occurring over some sort of communication device, like a phone, radio, telegraph, or whatever.

The real question is rooted in paragraph 1(b):

(b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.

What is meant by "private conversation"? Installing a bug in a conference room -- yeah I can see that as prohibited. Recording video walking down a public street? What is private about a public street? I don't know for certain but have a hard time believing there is any expectation of privacy from video recording while on a public street.

Then there's also the exception for when a threat is involved. In that case, consent of the party being recorded is NOT required (paragraph 2). I would expect any self-defense scenario to involve a threat (verbal or non-verbal) and thus the recording would not violate that law and would not be excluded from trial.