I may be wrong here, but I am pretty sure I am correct. I think what we are discussing are in a lot of ways are two different issues. One is a 4th amendment issue relating to one’s expectations of privacy in a public place. The other is a question of Federal and State Wire Tap laws being used in a way that is completely at odds with legislative intent.

Here is what I am getting at. The idea that one has no expectation of privacy in a public place was largely decided as a 4th amendment issue by the SCOTUS in the 1967 In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). At the time, video was relatively rare and the concept of sound and image being recorded together onto the same medium was not really a possibility.

What this has led to, is, various jurisdictions trying to use the sound captured along with the image/video, as an means to launch a prosecution under available “Wire Tap Laws”. The idea being that because the 2nd party did not agree to the audio being recorded, the instance in question is a violation of federal and or state wire-tap statutes.

It is important to keep in mind, that anyone can try to have a person charged with something, the question is, can the accuser make enough of a connection with the accused person actions to get a jury to believe beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused is guilty.

I don’t think I have read about any actual convictions that were not cases where a likely terrified person agreed to plead guilty to a lesser charge, or that sort of situation. As I understand it, so far, every one of these cases have been thrown out before coming to trial, or, the accused has been acquitted by a jury.

Because we tend to think of things in terms of common sense and are smart enough to realize the intent of these laws was to prevent the violation of the 4th amendment by our government and or criminals, it is easy to reach the conclusion that making an image or video in public without a persons permission is what is being prosecuted. What is actually happening, is a law is being “taken out of context” and used to suppress public scrutiny of a subset of public servants. In the cases where wire tap laws do not support this approach, we see the accused charged with disorderly conduct and endangering a police officer, for example.

One of the problems with out “zero tolerance / get tough” approach to law enforcement used in politics to help build a candidates name and credentials, is we end up with so many laws and too many situations where some clever nit-wit looking to make a name for themselves decides they can twist this or that statute to prosecute something, or force an action which has nothing to do with the intent of said law.

For example, the DMCA was designed to help stop the unauthorized sharing of “copyrighted” material online. It is now used by companies like HP to completely shut-down third party competitors who made ink cartridges for HP’s printers. The mark-up on the ink cartridges is enormous, and is actually a much more lucrative product than the actual printer the cartridge is made for. Sadly, the third party company manufacturers were making a good product and taking business away. So instead of competing honestly in the market, HP did away with the competition using a vague, poorly written law created not to allow a large company to suppress competition but to protect copyright holders and encourage more creative growth. In the end, it all comes down to how the courts interpret something.

While the creative use wiretap laws to “protect an officer from being put in danger by being filmed and or recorded by the public” might sound great when spun correctly, it is simply a text-book example of the suppression of public oversight and scrutiny of law enforcement professionals behavior.

For the record, I have many friends who are cops, they are all amazing people who I respect and love. I would hate to see any of them hurt in the line of duty. I also know they are so good at their jobs they not need the civil rights of the people curtailed to ensure they are “safe” and able to do their job.