The Legalities of Dash Cams - The Podcast

"SteveLehto" (stevelehto)
09/24/2015 at 09:00 • Filed to: None

Someone suggested I do a podcast on the legalities of dash cams and I thought: “Hey, that saves me the trouble of coming up with a topic on my own.” Plus, it is an interesting topic. After all, the things are ubiquitous.

Prices are dropping on dash cams and the quality of what they shoot is remarkable. And some of the stuff they have captured has been great. Crazy traffic accidents? !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . Stuff falling from the sky? !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

But what about when they catch people talking? Turns out the law might not be as clear as when you simply film the world outside your windshield. So !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! the techs beating on test driving the Mustang? There may have been some legal issues there, depending on what state it was shot in and what the techs had been told - if anything - about the dash cam which, for some reason, was recording what they did that day.

Or, what if your dash cam was running and it recorded you doing something stupid? Like crossing the centerline or running a red light - just before you slammed into that busload of nuns. You’ll be sorry you had that dash cam but you better not lose that memory card.

So, here is the podcast:

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

And the video.

There is no dash cam in the top picture. I’m sure the story it would have told would have been fascinating though.

Follow me on Twitter: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

Hear my podcast on iTunes: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

Steve Lehto has been practicing law for 23 years, almost exclusively in consumer protection and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! He wrote !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

This website may supply general information about the law but it is for informational purposes only. This does not create an attorney-client relationship and is not meant to constitute legal advice, so the good news is we’re not billing you by the hour for reading this. The bad news is that you shouldn’t act upon any of the information without consulting a qualified professional attorney who will, probably, bill you by the hour.

Photo courtesy of !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

DISCUSSION (100)

Le Monstre > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 09:32

My wife just got one for her car, and it has come in handy with a few close calls, not of my wife’s fault, just people cutting into lanes, and stopping in the middle of intersection cause they missed their exit, but I have had to tell her to watch what she says, anything can be used as evidence. None the less, I suggest everyone get one, it could be the difference of he said/she said in court.

Urambo Tauro > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 09:32

If you’re a horrible driver, do not get the dashcam.

If you’re a horrible driver, step your game up. Someone else’s dashcam is watching anyway.

Stan > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 09:35

I love my dash cam. I know it has already saved me from a couple of tickets where they were trying to bag people for running a red light at an intersection where the light transitions from yellow to red extremely fast. Got pulled over there twice when the light went from yellow to red while I was 75% of the way through the intersection, and both times they let me go as soon as they saw the dash cam. I also caught a crash on cam once and was able to help the police with the footage. Love it.

SteveLehto > Urambo Tauro
09/24/2015 at 09:36

But don’t get the cam until after your game has been up-stepped.

Le Monstre > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 09:36

Steve, I have a piece of paper from a local dealership they force people to sign given certain circumstances, do you have an email I might be able to send it to and get your feedback on it for a possible post?

Urambo Tauro > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 09:36

Me pointing a camera at you while you’re talking shouldn’t affect you in any way. But we all know that it does kinda mess with a person’s head.

I’m not touching you. I’m not touching you. This shouldn’t affect you.

SteveLehto > Le Monstre
09/24/2015 at 09:37

Lehto@kennon.com

Fire away!

SteveLehto > Urambo Tauro
09/24/2015 at 09:38

We’ve all seen a video or two where someone starts filming as the police officer walks toward the car . . .

Resolute Blue > Le Monstre
09/24/2015 at 09:39

What state are you in? This I gotta see.

bjchase55 > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 09:42

The dash cam I have has the option to turn off capturing sound. I have it set to capture sound but have been debating on turning capture sound off. I’m at work so haven’t listened to the pod cast yet but if this isn’t covered in the podcast, any thoughts?

Paullubbock > Le Monstre
09/24/2015 at 09:43

Ever wonder why Russians always playing loud jams? It covers any convesation up since usually speakers next to cam. Also, it’s not that hard to turn speaker off or volume down on cam settings if you don’t want to record inside noise. My cam did that by default.

SteveLehto > bjchase55
09/24/2015 at 09:44

Sound is the primary issue. Depends on who gets recorded, which state you are in, and whether that state allows you to record others without their permission.

Urambo Tauro > bjchase55
09/24/2015 at 09:46

One one hand, I wonder if that could be seen as spoliation of evidence. On the other hand, it sounds like a good way to avoid the in-car eavesdropping issue.

Urambo Tauro > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 09:49

How critical is it to correctly set the timestamp feature? Would such evidence still be valid if it reads 01/01/2000 12:00 ?

SteveLehto > Urambo Tauro
09/24/2015 at 09:54

It would affect the credibility to a degree but would not render it inadmissible. I know the time stamp on my Nikon is off by a day and I have never sat down to try and correct it. But all you need is jurors who own microwaves and they’ll understand.

But a crafty defense attorney would TRY to undermine the tape’s veracity (but if it shows the subject collision, how could the date be “right”? - there were two collisions between these two cars?)

schwartz > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 09:55

What about video recording of the interior/exterior WITHOUT sound?

Urambo Tauro > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 09:58

It always seems to raise the tension level, doesn’t it? No one ever gets let off with a warning when the officer knows he’s being watched like this.

My X-type is too a real Jaguar > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 09:58

I saw a commercial for one last night during Wheeler Dealers, it was interesting

SteveLehto > schwartz
09/24/2015 at 09:59

In most places, shooting through your windshield without sound would be fine (since it is awfully hard to drive your car into some private place where people have an expectation of privacy). Even sound within the car generally wouldn’t be a problem unless there are people in the car who don’t consent to being recorded - and don’t know they are being recorded.

This is why I have always wondered why some wisacre mechanic out there doesn’t go nuts and sue the car owner who put the camera in the car which was then recorded being joyridden with commentary.

SteveLehto > Urambo Tauro
09/24/2015 at 10:00

I think it is getting to the point now where some people start filming hoping something will happen, knowing that the camera itself is fueling the odds of that . . .

Struts MacPherson > Le Monstre
09/24/2015 at 10:02

Intreagued. Let’s see it!

bjchase55 > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 10:08

This has prompted me to do some searching. Most searches came up with the legality of audio recording police. All it did was make me disgusted at the police. They can record us but we can’t record them. Luckily it looks like Cook County (IL) finally has clarified the law and audio recording of police is now legal (from 2013). Of course I have no idea if that has changed and have yet to find that in my search. Not sure this applies to general audio recording (of us non-police types). I will have to do more searching later.

The Undecider > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 10:14

The subject of dash cams came up yesterday here at work (I work for a larger insurance carrier subrogation department). This answered a lot of questions we were pondering. Thanks!

SteveLehto > bjchase55
09/24/2015 at 10:14

That topic is whether you can record them if they ask you to stop, right? That is a whole ‘nuther question.

ThePro > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 10:18

Steve, I’m still listening to the podcast so I’m not sure if you mentioned this, but some cams have GPS and show the speed where the timestamp is.

Could the police take the cam and use that speed (even though one could argue there’s no way of knowing that’s 100% correct) to fine you? Could they claim that you were at fault in an accident for light speeding (5-10 over)?

gatorbait28 > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 10:19

In regards to the issue of recording sound, especially in the case where you are not in the car, would some sort of sign inside the car stating that sound is always being recorded clear up the consent issue? I would think that this would both state your consent to record sound as well as give the proper notice to the other occupants of the car that they are being recorded. Obviously this sign would need to be in a noticeable location and not concealed and I would think the wording of the sign could be key. Can you weigh in on this? I have a dash cam in my car, but I typically unplug it when I turn leave the car so the part where it would be recording while I am not in the car would not be an issue for me (unless I forget the unplug it). And I typically don’t have passengers in my car other than family (if they sue me for eavesdropping/wiretapping I’ve got bigger problems), so I really wouldn’t run into an issue other than if I get pulled over or something like that, in which case I would make sure to notify the officer that I have a dash cam recording. Mainly just curious, especially for a two-party state like Florida.

ThePro > My X-type is too a real Jaguar
09/24/2015 at 10:20

Dashcam pro? That ad was so funny and tippy at the same time

Think! aka anotherburner111122223333 > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 10:22

They still don’t have a good version on what i want. Dual cam with remote recording (box in glovebox, 2 tiny cameras mount forward and aft). Wireless pref, but wired ok too. I want dash cams but not look like i have ones. And i don’t /need/ to watch it the second it happens. I’m driving!

Last i looked therr was 1 or 2, but they were shit. I think the recent raspberry pi project may work, but a lot of work, money, and figuring out.

Think! aka anotherburner111122223333 > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 10:24

Would a small sticker “you are being recorded” on the doors suffice? Like convenience stores?

VanMan > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 10:24

Steve, what is the implication of “unlawful” entry in your car? For example you drop your car off for a service, inform with the service manager/technician that it’s recording, and they consent. All good. But another employee taking the car for a joyride, or even the car stolen from the lot? The person was not informed, but he’s also not legally supposed to be in the car either?

Kinda like people breaking into a house, get hurt, and sue the owner for damages!

NorthEastWASPstateEmployee > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 10:27

I’ll say for the most part there are no privacy laws in affect here.

1 for it recording other people as you drive. They have no expectation of privacy driving on public roads.

2 when recording mechanics from a dealer, 1 if the dealer has video cameras installed then they have no expectation of privacy, most dealers have them sign off stating they know they are being recorded. Doesn’t matter if the intent was to have the video soley controlled by the dealer, once you place cameras in your business anyone can record you as well.

3 small garages with no camera may be able to to argue against you. This comes down to your state, odds are they would still loose because the courts have declared your car your private property just like a noise, you don’t have a expectation of privacy in someone else’s house

For case were the video is against you. Don’t record yourself being stupid. Or just destroy the SD card and put in a blank one. Never admit to doing that of go to jail lol

SteveLehto > gatorbait28
09/24/2015 at 10:28

They could always say they didn’t see the sign (who expects one?) Better to just tell them in such a way that the video records it.

When I record phone calls, I start out with “I am recording this phone call. Is that okay with you?” (I interview a lot of people around the country and record the calls to make sure I get my facts straight.)

KPKING > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 10:29

So would a sign somewhere on the dash that stated. “By entering this vehicle you agree to be recorded either by sound or video” Be enough of a CYA?

SteveLehto > Think! aka anotherburner111122223333
09/24/2015 at 10:29

They’d just say they never saw it and didn’t expect such a sticker to be there in the first place. But it’s better than doing nothing (but not as good as telling the person and having the cam pic up you telling them.

SteveLehto > VanMan
09/24/2015 at 10:31

The trespassers who sue for damages usually get their suits thrown out. If you tell the dealer rep that the car is so equipped, I’d say you are good. If someone unauthorized gets in your car, that’s their problem (which is why they shouldn’t do stuff like that).

My X-type is too a real Jaguar > ThePro
09/24/2015 at 10:34

Yes here is the ad maybe Steve will tell us what a bad idea the actions depicted in the ad are.

http://www.ispot.tv/ad/7iBw/dashca…

SteveLehto > NorthEastWASPstateEmployee
09/24/2015 at 10:34

Ummmm, no.

It has little to do with expectation of privacy and a LOT to do with eavesdropping statutes.

And if you destroy the card, you could end up in a lot of trouble.

But you are free to ignore advice. It’s what makes America great!

Negative459 > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 10:35

If you take the car to the dealer and inform the person at the service counter that there is an automatic dash cam in the vehicle, and they acknowledge that fact, does that carry over to any service techs etc. who then work on the vehicle? In other words, does acknowledgement by the front line custodian of your vehicle at the dealership trickle down to the rest of the staff whom you may not have access to in order to get direct consent? Could you get a paper signed up front agreeing that such signature obligates the service agent to inform employees with subsequent access to the vehicle of the cam so if there is non-consent down the line the fault is theirs and not yours?

SteveLehto > KPKING
09/24/2015 at 10:35

Possibly. But you could also just tell the writeup person to note it on the Repair Order.

fintail > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 10:42

Perhaps better emotional training for the brave warrior class is in order now that this tech is becoming more common.

fintail > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 10:46

I’ve been running a hard wired cam for most of a year now. No crashes, thankfully, but a few close calls, and a lot of scenic shots, which is another reason why I got one.

They also might defuse road rage situations - people might be less prone to act out when a camera is pointed at them, or when they realize the presence of the camera is a go-to-jail-free card, and will make them a Youtube star at the same time.

Regarding destroying a card, it might be hard to prove, right? Especially as I suspect most camera users carry a backup, and the cameras are prone to error - every now and then mine pukes up the card and wants a reformat. But never underestimate the powers of untouchable arrogant prosecutors, I guess.

Urambo Tauro > ThePro
09/24/2015 at 10:51

The dashcam’s speedometer capability is provided by GPS, and is a lot more accurate than most car’s speedometer gauges, which rely on wheel speed sensors or transmission output shaft sensors. While a car’s speedometer can be off by as much as 10% (from the factory), GPS-based systems have a reputation for accuracy within 1mph.

On the road, most officers tolerate a small amount of speeding, to account for this discrepancy. But GPS evidence is far more trustworthy...

Edsel > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 10:58

Dash-cams are wonderful tools for the historian too. Capturing street scenes and saving them for posterity will be crucial for future historians interpreting the past. I filmed our neighborhood from a moving vehicle in the early 1980’s and the environmental changes are staggering.

gatorbait28 > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 11:08

That would be the one thing I would be afraid of. Would ensuring the sign is clearly posted, with evidence of its existence and location documented before any potential problems help to negate that or can people just claim that they were ignorant of their surroundings as a way to say they did not see the sign? In two-party states, can the second party say that they do not wish to be recorded or do you just have to notify them that a recording is taking place? In all of the phone calls where there is a recording stating that you are being recorded, there is never an option to not be recorded, unless maybe if you ask for the conversation to not be recorded. Never asked, so I don’t know if that will work.

dumbgreek > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 11:22

Here in Maryland, video is good, sound no good. So if you’re driving through Baltimore, avoiding riots and burning buildings, make sure the sound is off.

OneHeadLight > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 11:26

Well they will now.

skipstheboss > Urambo Tauro
09/24/2015 at 11:34

Yes but they are also less likely to get shot in the head. I mean not even that is foolproof but it ups your chances.

skipstheboss > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 11:35

Some people feel it’s the only protection they have.

BJ > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 11:36

Excellent information, thanks.

SteveLehto > OneHeadLight
09/24/2015 at 11:48

Trust me; that excuse is instinctive in humans.

Skamanda > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 11:50

Steve,

Did Michigan’s status as an all-party consent state change? The last time I had reason to ponder that (mid 2000s), my research online suggested we weren’t a single-party consent state...

SteveLehto > Skamanda
09/24/2015 at 11:53

Here is a good explanation. A plain reading of the statute appears to make it all-parties but the Court of Appeals says it is single party. The State Supreme Court has not ruled so that is PROBABLY the law of the land. (Land = Michigan)

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/mi…

Skamanda > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 11:56

I saw that, but I can’t say I’d want to have my case decided on one court’s interpretation of one word in the statute. It seems too easy for someone to say, “If the statute didn’t mean that, it should’ve been changed after that ruling”...

SteveLehto > Skamanda
09/24/2015 at 11:59

Well, that case has been followed by many many courts since then. It IS accepted as good case but there is always that little caveat - it COULD get overturned by the state Supreme Court. Interestingly (at least to me) is that the statute has popped up in cases before the state Supreme Court and the court has sidestepped the issue. That is often a sign they agree, but again . . .

VassagoMyth > Le Monstre
09/24/2015 at 12:08

My cam was set to not record audio out of the box. I switched it on, but mostly it just records the radio or outbursts like “WTF are you doing???”

Bearded Bastard > Paullubbock
09/24/2015 at 12:20

Also because, no one intends to never listen to the radio, and some things happen in an instant, it's not like they can turn down the volume in anticipation of an accident or event. Not always anyways.

RevengencerAlf > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 12:25

I’d argue that if an officer’s behavior professional behavior (his actual decisions, the things he says, a ticketing decision) changes because he’s being watched, he shouldn’t even be in the job. If it “fuels the odds” of a problem (which I agree it probably does), he’s an unqualified oaf to begin with. It’s a problem with the warrior-cop mentality that we’ve been so good at enabling.

That said I’d rather have a slightly increased chance of an incident I’ll be able to protect myself with footage on, vs a slightly lower chance of said incident but no means for recourse if it happens anyway.

Le Monstre > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 12:26

Just sent it now. Sorry for the not so clear photo, I had to improvise to get it uplaoded on my work computer in the shop.

Le Monstre > Resolute Blue
09/24/2015 at 12:26

(Not so) New Jersey

Le Monstre > Struts MacPherson
09/24/2015 at 12:27

Just sent him a copy, hope he can make light of it, and if he publishes it without the photo, I’ll post it

RevengencerAlf > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 12:28

I’m honestly surprised every time I hear about timestamps on videos ever being considered at all. It’s user set, the chance of it being wrong are just too high. I guess for some reason because people see it in pixels on a screen instead of being told they somehow just believe it’s more likely to be accurate?

SteveLehto > RevengencerAlf
09/24/2015 at 12:34

And if it’s broad daylight, you have a passenger in your car (witness) and the officer approaches with a smile to let you know that your license plate is missing (someone stole it), you think the camera will help you in that situation?

SteveLehto > Le Monstre
09/24/2015 at 12:34

I got it and it’s hilarious. I’d love to write it up but am hoping for a better scan or fax of it.

Le Monstre > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 12:36

Will do when I get home.

GreenN_Gold > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 12:43

Attention dash cam owners: Please leave the audio on! When you upload your crash footage to YouTube I want to be able to criticize your taste in music.

RevengencerAlf > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 12:59

Yes, actually. If I tell him I have a dashcam, POLITELY, and make it clear that it’s always on when I drive, I feel like I’ll be fine. If he’s enough of a badge-warrior to get bent out of shape at that, he’s enough of one that he was probably going to try and burn me anyway. What most people don’t seem to realize is it’s only antagonistic if you make it so. My experience in live, just pragmatically speaking, has made it so I’d rather have my back covered than hope no one tries to screw me. I suppose if they ever started to get into it with me I’d point out that Massachusetts driving is like the fury road and I get cut off about 5 times a day driving to and from work.

I’ve had about 3 run-ins with police where a dashcam was involved (a small sample size for sure but still relevant). In all cases, once the cop was informed politely that there was a dashcam running, and that it was already running before they pulled my over, they were fine with it. (for what it’s worth one of these was for an alleged violation and the others were related to accidents I witnessed or was a part of. If I’m audibly polite on the tape and they suddenly turn hostile, it’s just another thing that makes me look good and them look bad when I go to a hearing.

As an unrelated aside I’d just like to note I can’t fathom myself doing something like driving without a license plate, but I didn’t want to nitpick. I’m sure a lot of people don’t but I actually check my car before I get in it.

I guess the TL;DR version would be to resist the urge to make it about them, even if it is really about them.

SteveLehto > RevengencerAlf
09/24/2015 at 13:04

I am talking about the people who pull out their smartphones and hold it in the cop’s face and start yelling things like, “I’m filming this! Why are you harassing me?! I’ve done nothing wrong! I’m filming this! Why are you harassing me?!” All the time not letting the police officer explain why the person was being spoken to in the first place.

Umrguy42: Add $5 for shipping and handling > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 13:05

Eh, what if you want to use it like a football team does? “Oh, *that’s* where I went wrong!” :P

StalePhish > VassagoMyth
09/24/2015 at 13:14

I generally don’t say anything but when my wife is in the car, I get a lot of her outbursts recorded. I like to keep audio in when I make my dashcam compilations for YouTube so I have to mute the sound for those!

StalePhish > Think! aka anotherburner111122223333
09/24/2015 at 13:15

Most of the time you don’t really notice a dashcam from the outside unless you’re specifically looking for it. You might notice the round spot where the suction cup hits the window, but the camera and mount itself sort of fade into the tint that most cars have running along the top of the windshield.

StalePhish > Edsel
09/24/2015 at 13:17

I had thought about that. I always throw away my non-exciting footage unless it’s a nice scenic drive through the mountains, but maybe I should save off some entire normal commutes just to show my future children/grandchildren what it was like way back when.

j48104 > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 13:20

Hi Steve,

I live in Michigan and am considering getting a dash cam that records audio. If I am pulled over by police, am I legally obligated to let them know they are being recorded? I am 99% sure the answers is yes based on the comments below however I was looking for a straightforward yes or no for MI driving.

Thanks!

SteveLehto > j48104
09/24/2015 at 13:23

Michigan is a single-consent state so if it is recording the conversation you are having with someone else, you are all set. Having said that, you might stil want to tell the officer it is there but that’s up to you.

WisconsinGus > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 13:24

On the opposite side, how does that work with police body cams? Is that legal in non-single consent states? Do they have to disclose that they have a body camera?

RevengencerAlf > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 13:28

Oh god yeah that stuff is just antagonistic nonsense. My bad I guess I was reading it in the broader context of the podcast and not the original comment.

If anything I’d say it makes a better argument for a dashcam. If you want to film stops, with a DC you don’t have to worry about that.

Of course, even if I didn’t have my dashcam, if I was walking, in a different car, etc, I’d probably still film it. I’d just opt with “I’m filming this for both of our protection.” I’d rather have a cop angry for politely filming than not have any protection or defense if they wind up being one of the bad ones.

VassagoMyth > Think! aka anotherburner111122223333
09/24/2015 at 13:29

I saw a recommendation for this one yesterday which would probably work for your front cam.

https://dashcamtalk.com/b40-a118/

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00KZ0GKVS/…

Looks to be pretty unobtrusive when installed.

SteveLehto > WisconsinGus
09/24/2015 at 13:32

I suspect they consider them Okay as a matter of public policy. Plus, the body cam is front and center and you should see it, as you are being beaten to a pulp by the officer who forgot he/she was wearing it.

e holder > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 13:34

Because he’s scrapping for a confrontation.....

e holder > skipstheboss
09/24/2015 at 13:36

Aren’t you guys going to add in “...as long as he’s white....?”

SteveLehto > RevengencerAlf
09/24/2015 at 13:37

And if that fails, start hitting him with the camera!

SteveLehto > e holder
09/24/2015 at 13:38

Who? The Cop or the Camerman?

SPNKiX > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 13:43

I generally assume that I would delete any audio if I needed to use the footage for something.

SNL-LOL > Struts MacPherson
09/24/2015 at 13:43

Damnit. Now I want to see too! Picking up my new car tomorrow and I wonder if the dealership will play any games.

SteveLehto > SPNKiX
09/24/2015 at 13:47

And that is going to be okay 99.999999999% of the time. But there are theoretical circumstances where that would not solve the problem. But at that point, we are splitting might fine hairs.

SPNKiX > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 13:51

what if the camera is attached to a drone which is hovering in your car?

Phantomlimb > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 13:52

Tom Brady had his phone destroyed his phone, because it probably would exonerate him. I have dashcam evidence of this.

SteveLehto > SPNKiX
09/24/2015 at 14:03

Hang on. I’m writing a law school exam question that involves assaulting a police officer by beating him over the head with a drone which was snatched from mid-air . . .

SteveLehto > Phantomlimb
09/24/2015 at 14:04

Ironically - what was in his phone that was not on the servers of his carrier? His emails and text messages could all be gotten without the phone. Did he take camera-phone pics of his guys deflating the footballs? This one had me wondering . . .

Matt Noble > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 14:05

Believe it or not some people have had too many negative interactions with LEO’s and feel that they need to have that out there to ensure a respectful encounter.

Personally out of 6 total contacts with police 4 have been questionable on arresting my progress. Two while just walking down the street. The script comes out, where you going? where you coming from? Then it’s like one of those “Choose Your Own Adventure” books that no matter what you say the cops are going to be reading off a script. When I tell them it’s none of their business and ask what’s the reason for the momentary detention it’s automatically on to: You’re acting Nervous, Why are you nervous?

Then there is the whole damned if you make eye contact and damned if you avoid eye contact.

I have a dash cam and certainly feel it’s there for my protection in encounters with LEO’s. Because you know, when 9 cop cars pull up and it’s later found that the video was ‘disappeared’ for 8 of the cop cars (one office either forgot to or didn’t correctly delete their footage). That’s a problem and 8 out of nine is a few bad apples, it’s representative of a systemic problem that, IMO, don’t feel is localized.

I have to ask why force related instances and civil rights violations go down in forces significantly in departments if before hand it was only a ‘few bad apples’?

The interesting part for my personal interactions is I’m white.

Z31 Turbo > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 14:18

Haven’t the courts ruled that when an officer is making a stop it is considered that they are in public and recording is allowed with or without consent even in states that require permission?

Chaos-cascade > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 14:19

What about the legality of dash cams in an ambulance Steve? My employer installed some several years ago. It was easy to forget that every shift literally everything you said was being recorded. 24 hours in a row in a van it is difficult to not let one’s guard down conversationly let alone being filmed as basically a portrait close up. Screw ups were/are immortalized for EVOC training without employees consent. (the cams report inside and outside the cab) Due to this they also pick up dialogue and a partial view from the patient compartment. It seems like the only records that are saved area minute before and after a certain number of G’s depending on how sensitive the cam is set. Some go off with a slight driveway bump or hard stop/acceleration, others take more to set off.

admiller > Think! aka anotherburner111122223333
09/24/2015 at 14:24

This is what you are looking for:

SteveLehto > Z31 Turbo
09/24/2015 at 14:24

The distinction is whether you are openly filming/recording or doing it secretly. And much of this varies wildly from state to state. I like the idea of being able to film the police but the answer is not that simple. The courts are coming around on this but they are usually ruling on whether a bystander can FILM the encounter.

I am not as sure about you making a secret audio recording of the officer without his/her consent (in some states).

Just Joshing > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 14:25

Hypothetically speaking, how are they going to find out someone destroyed the camera? How often is someone smart enough to buy a dash cam but do something stupid, destroy their camera and then admit to destroying it? That’s just silly. Do they routinely search through purchase records to see if you had one?

SteveLehto > Chaos-cascade
09/24/2015 at 14:27

Those are camera recording employees? Live with it. But what if a patient says something? Unless they were informed, there might be issues (depending on the state).

SteveLehto > Just Joshing
09/24/2015 at 14:30

They may never find out. But if a witness says he saw you pull a chip from a dash cam - and you told everyone you had no dash cam, then it might be worth their time to dig into it.

You have no idea how often attorneys (and the police) find people who did things like this and never thought they’d get caught. Even though many might never get caught, the ones that do get FRIED.

trouble-bot > Le Monstre
09/24/2015 at 14:40

I disable audio recording because I don’t want to live the horror of listening to myself singing in the car at some point, or subject anyone else to it, nor do I want a record of the salacious things I say to my partner on road trips. The side benefit of that is a little protection from any statements I make during an incident. The camera will only record physical, visible facts with the mic off.

e holder > SteveLehto
09/24/2015 at 14:40

Let me guess - it says, “We’re not responsible for any aspect of your property while it’s in our shop?”

e holder > RevengencerAlf
09/24/2015 at 14:41

Unfortunately, people are WAY too ready to believe a pretty picture they’re shown. This applies to MANY things in life.....

trouble-bot > Think! aka anotherburner111122223333
09/24/2015 at 14:42

If you’re inclined, you could roll your own with something like a raspberry pi.