unless a police officer is present all communications in the presence of a law enforcement officer has no expectation of privacy and is legal to record. The list of cases decided by the SCOTUS is a long list. LEO is a state actor and their on duty communications are government action. And in the case of a LEO being a witness it is in their expectation of normal duties.When the man said it was on tape their was no crime. Because, the state and the people are joint partcipants to what the officer heard. And did the lady inform her former father in law that the officer could have leagly been audio recording. Since a communication that does not have an expectation the recording of the communication is not a crime and that is indicated by the former father in law not being arrested. If he was arrested then the officer would be looking at loss of qualified immunity and a big headache. But that is a different issue.
anonymous
Posted almost 14 years ago.
unless a police officer is present all communications in the presence of a law enforcement officer has no expectation of privacy and is legal to record. The list of cases decided by the SCOTUS is a long list. LEO is a state actor and their on duty communications are government action. And in the case of a LEO being a witness it is in their expectation of normal duties.When the man said it was on tape their was no crime. Because, the state and the people are joint partcipants to what the officer heard. And did the lady inform her former father in law that the officer could have leagly been audio recording. Since a communication that does not have an expectation the recording of the communication is not a crime and that is indicated by the former father in law not being arrested. If he was arrested then the officer would be looking at loss of qualified immunity and a big headache. But that is a different issue.