- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Vitter spygate vs random public videos & recordings : both criminal acts?
Posted on 11/11/15 at 12:02 pm
Posted on 11/11/15 at 12:02 pm
Would like fine legal minds to weigh in.
It is allegedly illegal for the person to film & record Sheriff Newell Normand and his friends in a public place, a restaurant without t their consent.
How is this different from someone recording at an event, in the mall, social activity, ball game, etc.?
What about those who record and film during a police stop?
Commercial surveillance video with recording capability?
All of these activities are filmed in a public place.
What about private investigators on domestic cases or insurance fraud investigations
This post was edited on 11/11/15 at 12:03 pm
Posted on 11/11/15 at 12:03 pm to tigersbb
He's the Sheriff. He makes the rules.
Posted on 11/11/15 at 12:17 pm to arseinclarse
quote:
He's the Sheriff. He makes the rules
The federal courts might disagree.
Posted on 11/11/15 at 12:42 pm to tigersbb
I thought I read yesterday where they released details about recordings they found on the spy's phone too. Assuming the spy didn't give authorization for the cops to look through the phone, I imagine that's not legal either.
It seems a bunch of rules are being broken by those that were "spied" on, including arresting the kid and digging through his phone, but I'm betting the benefit to their side outweighs any subsequent penalty.
I could be talking out of my arse, since I have no idea what the laws actually are, so there's that.
Either way, I feel that everyone involved are self serving scumbags and should be run out of office. Just paid my quarterlies and I love the thought that it would take every penny of that and more and flush it down the toilet on this type of shite.
It seems a bunch of rules are being broken by those that were "spied" on, including arresting the kid and digging through his phone, but I'm betting the benefit to their side outweighs any subsequent penalty.
I could be talking out of my arse, since I have no idea what the laws actually are, so there's that.
Either way, I feel that everyone involved are self serving scumbags and should be run out of office. Just paid my quarterlies and I love the thought that it would take every penny of that and more and flush it down the toilet on this type of shite.
Posted on 11/11/15 at 12:56 pm to Anonymous95
quote:
It seems a bunch of rules are being broken by those that were "spied" on, including arresting the kid and digging through his phone, but I'm betting the benefit to their side outweighs any subsequent penalty. I could be talking out of my arse, since I have no idea what the laws actually are, so there's that.
Yeah, the sheriff and his allies just want to maximize the meme that Vitter was using underhand tactics.
Now they can elect not to pursue charges as no violation seems to have occurred. The recording was not shared or made public by anyone other than the sheriff.
Posted on 11/11/15 at 1:35 pm to tigersbb
I don't feel like doing the research on this, so take the following for what that says about it:
The specific statute can be found here.
Basically, it is against the law (felony) to record a private oral conversation unless you are part of that conversation. It is not illegal to film or photograph people who are in a public place. As I understand it, as long as the photographer is in a place that he is legally entitled to be, he may photography/film anything he can see with a few exceptions. The problem as it relates to the above statute, is the audio component.
A defense to recording the conversation of others, as I understand it, is to claim that the conversation was not private. So if you are talking out loud in a public place and someone happens to record that, it is not a violation of the law. On the other hand, a normal conversation in a booth or at a table in a restaurant may be private.
The specific statute can be found here.
Basically, it is against the law (felony) to record a private oral conversation unless you are part of that conversation. It is not illegal to film or photograph people who are in a public place. As I understand it, as long as the photographer is in a place that he is legally entitled to be, he may photography/film anything he can see with a few exceptions. The problem as it relates to the above statute, is the audio component.
A defense to recording the conversation of others, as I understand it, is to claim that the conversation was not private. So if you are talking out loud in a public place and someone happens to record that, it is not a violation of the law. On the other hand, a normal conversation in a booth or at a table in a restaurant may be private.
Posted on 11/11/15 at 1:35 pm to tigersbb
I'm a PI so maybe I can answer a few of these questions:
Recording video of someone in a public setting is perfectly legal. It's the audio that gets tricky. Per LA law, you cannot record someone's conversation that you are not party to...unless someone from that party gives permission.
What this kid from Texas got in trouble for was the audio and (most importantly) criminal trespass when he fled into a privately owned backyard.
Recording video of someone in a public setting is perfectly legal. It's the audio that gets tricky. Per LA law, you cannot record someone's conversation that you are not party to...unless someone from that party gives permission.
What this kid from Texas got in trouble for was the audio and (most importantly) criminal trespass when he fled into a privately owned backyard.
Posted on 11/11/15 at 1:36 pm to BiggerBear
Bear hit the nail on the head
Posted on 11/11/15 at 1:55 pm to tigersbb
David Vitter chose prostitutes over patriots. That's all you need to know
Posted on 11/11/15 at 2:17 pm to tigersbb
Nothing will come of this no matter how the Governor's race ends up.
Vitter and Normand fricking hate each other and that feud goes all the way back to the early 90s. Vitter was a pain in the arse for Normand's old boss Harry Lee who was actually corrupt as shite and they were constantly in and out of court. Normand has hated him since.
Vitter and Normand fricking hate each other and that feud goes all the way back to the early 90s. Vitter was a pain in the arse for Normand's old boss Harry Lee who was actually corrupt as shite and they were constantly in and out of court. Normand has hated him since.
This post was edited on 11/11/15 at 2:18 pm
Posted on 11/11/15 at 2:21 pm to tigersbb
Cops are special, especially elected sheriffs.
Pretty much anything you do that upsets them can be illegal.
Pretty much anything you do that upsets them can be illegal.
Posted on 11/11/15 at 4:18 pm to BiggerBear
quote:
A defense to recording the conversation of others, as I understand it, is to claim that the conversation was not private. So if you are talking out loud in a public place and someone happens to record that, it is not a violation of the law. On the other hand, a normal conversation in a booth or at a table in a restaurant may be private.
It would be a slippery slope to prosecute for a recording a conversation that was audible enough to be picked up across the room. It would all be subjective as to how public the discussion was,
I doubt they pursue prosecution they just wanted to raise the issue to create headlines.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News