TexasCHLforum.com

Are there any laws preventing a private citizen in Texas from recording video and audio in public?

Most have us have probably seen the video of the interaction between Sgt. J. Kuehnlein and Mr. B. Darrow. In some states, it's illegal for citizens to video their interactions with law enforcement, perhaps to cover up that kind of widespread abuse. Earlier this summer, Carlisle, PA police arrested a man for videotaping a traffic stop. The charge was felony wiretapping. Would it be legal to make such recordings in Texas? I already have a camera but I'm not recording audio yet because I'm unsure of the legality.

boomerang wrote:In some states, it's illegal for citizens to video their interactions with law enforcement...

Where?

boomerang wrote: ...perhaps to cover up that kind of widespread abuse.

I highly doubt any legislative body would intentionally try to protect corruption or a lack of integrity in their police forces.

boomerang wrote: Earlier this summer, Carlisle, PA police arrested a man for videotaping a traffic stop. The charge was felony wiretapping.

References? Did it hold up in court? Did they even try to prosecute? If so, I'd have to say that in my admittedly unqualified opinion, that would have to be a horribly poorly written wiretapping law to be so ridiculously broad.

In Texas, as far as I know, it is only illegal to videotape in public if it is done with the intent to arouse or gratify any person. I think that taking a video with sound of a police transaction (a la Rodney King) is legal. I will caution you that it will probably not endear you to the police though.

boomerang wrote: Earlier this summer, Carlisle, PA police arrested a man for videotaping a traffic stop. The charge was felony wiretapping.

Ah...Found it. As I thought...Nothing there.

Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed withdrew wiretapping charges this morning filed against a Carlisle man who videotaped a borough police officer during a May 24 traffic stop...

...Freed said his review of state case law does not support the wiretapping charge against Brian D. Kelly, 18, who was charged under a state law that forbids the recording of oral communications without consent.

http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2007 ... ews630.txt

Xander wrote:Ah...Found it. As I thought...Nothing there.

Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed withdrew wiretapping charges this morning filed against a Carlisle man who videotaped a borough police officer during a May 24 traffic stop...

Nothing? How long did he sit in jail, and how much did he spend on attorney's fees/bond?

KD5NRH wrote: Nothing? How long did he sit in jail, and how much did he spend on attorney's fees/bond?

He spent 26 hours in jail, and yes, I consider a single arrest, particularly when the circumstances are such that they DA pledges to make sure that it won't happen again to be "nothing" when it comes to the factors one should consider when decided how to deal with similar situations in an entirely different state.

Whether that particular individual deserves redress is not at issue here. The point is, the facts of that case are immaterial to this thread.

Xander wrote:He spent 26 hours in jail, and yes, I consider a single arrest, particularly when the circumstances are such that they DA pledges to make sure that it won't happen again to be "nothing" when it comes to the factors one should consider when decided how to deal with similar situations in an entirely different state.

Whether that particular individual deserves redress is not at issue here. The point is, the facts of that case are immaterial to this thread.

May I ask why you seem so emphatic in insisting that "there's nothing to see here"?

What is the threshold for injustice that is worthy or unworthy of protest?

- Jim

From what I was told recently, it is not illegal to record a conversation for whatever purpose...

You are not required to notify that person you are recording as long as one person (you) are aware it is being recorded...

Sounds funny, but I have no reason to doubt that persons understanding of the law here in this State...

You cannot though, record a conversation you are not participating in between two other people that do not know what you are doing...That's where I believe the person (in this story) got into trouble through some twist in the wiretapping and or eavesdropping issue...

Just be aware, that there is equipment that can detect a recording in progress, if you are recording from a source like a base station for a cordless phone in your home (like the "memo" button", that can be used to record for a short time)...So just be careful, someone may not like that very much...

Of course the law may be different in other states...

seamusTX wrote:May I ask why you seem so emphatic in insisting that "there's nothing to see here"?

What is the threshold for injustice that is worthy or unworthy of protest?

- Jim

Perhaps I'm not properly conveying my tone, and that's the issue here, if so I apologize, and maybe this will clarify.

I was *not* attempting to minimize the injustice suffered by the individual in Pennsylvania. I was simply attempting to show express my belief that this particular case was not relevant to the question posed in this thread, which was "Are there any laws preventing a private citizen in Texas from recording video and audio in public? " I read into the initial thread that the poster was presenting this case as an example of either an explicit law preventing citizens from filming traffic stops, or a Rosenthal-esque situation where a DA would prosecute any behaviour he didn't approve of. After reading the facts of the case, I found that wasn't the case, and I didn't feel it was relevant to answering the question, and I wanted to make that clear. My only intention was (and is) to attempt to help keep the thread on track, nothing more or less.

-Xander

boomerang,

Good question. The guy PA was looking at felony charges for awhile. Certainly "nothing" to sneeze at, and a legitimate starting point for wondering what the law is in our own state. I remember when the PA case was happening -- the DA did accept the charges at first, only dropped them later when there was a lot of negative publicity. Some other cases of people being arrested for photographing or audio recording the police are referenced in this article:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,284075,00.html.

Seems wiretapping laws are sometimes used (inappropriately, in my opinion) when the police in some instances want to take action against being recorded. However, one of the articles linked in the Fox news article I linked to above seemed to indicate that at least one state has tried to outlaw photography/recording of police. I do not see how this is constitutional.

I looked into recording laws a couple years ago, altho not in relation to the police. A few states require "two-party" consent, meaning that if you want to tape a conversation between you and another, you must have their permission as well. I believe California falls in this category.

Most states have laws against recording the conversations (and presumably the images) of other people when you are not part of the conversation. However, you are free to tape your own conversations with anyone else without notifying them. I believe Texas falls into this category, but I do not have a reference at hand. I briefly searched without success the Texas Statutues at http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/statutes.html, but I didn't use the right search terms, I think.

I have not heard of any instances of someone in Texas being arrested for recording the police, and I don't believe that recording by itself, in a public venue, would be illegal. However, if you got in the way while doing it, you might find yourself in other kinds of trouble.

As they say, I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. Just my two cents.

Best wishes,

elb

stevie_d_64 wrote:Of course the law may be different in other states...

Trust me, it's very different!

One of the things my friends in New Hampshire are trying to get rid of is their wiretapping law. In any situation in which a person has an expectation of privacy (meaning, he has no notice that he is subject to being recorded), it is a 5-year felony to intercept or record their "oral communication", even if you're a party to it.

A fellow named Michael Gannon in Nashua spent a lot of time and money fighting felony wiretapping charges last year. When two local detectives banged on his door late at night looking for his son, a bit of impolite language ensued. When he went to the police department the next day to complain about their language and behavior, he took along his surveillance tape. They went in the back and watched it, then came back out and arrested him!

After many months of wrangling, the charges were dropped because he had notices on the side of his house warning of audio/video recording. Plus, he told the police, "Smile, you're on Candid Camera."

I've talked to Mike a couple of times, and they never did return his equipment.

Nashua Telegraph article.

I went poking around some more, on Google's Expert Law site and such -- didn't run into anything about Texas, but whoa! Watch out for Massachusetts! (as if we didn't know that.)

Check out this post:
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1164051408.shtml

In short -- someone was prosecuted, convicted, and the Mass Supreme Judicial Court denied his appeal for surreptitiously recording a traffic stop for which he received no traffic citation. Ouch.

And...worse... the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court also ruled that a man secretly taping a phone call from his brother's KIDNAPPER was illegal! Shazzam.

One more reason to be glad to live in Texas.

elb

Xander wrote:My only intention was (and is) to attempt to help keep the thread on track, nothing more or less.

Thanks for your reply.

- Jim

so it's legal as long as you don't find taping a corrupt official especially gratifying :)

sorry, i just had to throw that in. I find it hilarious that the law makes a distinction over how you feel about something. I suppose there are other laws like that. The concept just feels a bit foreign to me.

LedJedi wrote:I find it hilarious that the law makes a distinction over how you feel about something. I suppose there are other laws like that.

All the obscenity and lewdness laws deal with motivation and intent.

We probably can't discuss the matter further in this forum.

- Jim