Recording Police

[smoky]

Hello, if I am stopped by the police, am I allowed to record the conversation on my phones voice recorder?

Thanks

[tracker]

Hello, if I am stopped by the police, am I allowed to record the conversation on my phones voice recorder?

Thanks

recording anything in a public place is not and never is against the law .

it is far better , not to let them know , but then , as the saying goes

they shouldnt really care if they have nothing to hide .

:cool:

[rosix]

hadn't they passed something in the UK where if you photographed an policeman you could be prosecuted? or was it only 'suggested' at some point?

[smoky]

hadn't they passed something in the UK where if you photographed an policeman you could be prosecuted? or was it only 'suggested' at some point?

I too thought I heard something like this mentioned but not sure if it was a law that has already come out or is yet to come out.

[tracker]

hadn't they passed something in the UK where if you photographed an policeman you could be prosecuted? or was it only 'suggested' at some point?

one might not be "filming the policeman" but merely taking evidance of every day events in ones own life ,like a diary , It is not the individuals fault if the police man enters their life . its called ------------mere coincidence .

:cool:

[yozhik]

I've considered this very same question and have decided on my action, if ever confronted by a Policy Enforcer, who tries to fraudulently claim that I can not record him/her.

The basis of my planned action comes from the Policy Enforcers themselves.
They make a point of reminding us of our Rights; the right to remain silent.
This is usually followed by a statement that anything we say can and will be used as evidence against us.

Now, given that every one is equal before the law, it is safe to assume that Policy Enforcers have the same Rights.

So, it would follow, that they too have the Right to remain silent and also should be given the same courtesy; i.e. warned that anything they say can and will be used in evidence against them.

Conversation would be something along the lines of ...

Policy Enforcer: stop recording!

Man/Woman: am I obliged to stop recording?

Policy Enforcer: I have asked you to stop recording.

Man/Woman: I reserve the Right to record this conversation and I withhold my unalienable Rights, which I reserve fully, without prejudice. I also would like to advise you of your Right to remain silent and further caution you that anything you say, can and will be taken down and used in evidence against you. Do you understand?

Policy Enforcer: I said, stop recording ... NOW!

Man/Woman: I have no intention of entering into contract with you and again remind you that you have the Right to remain silent. If you continue to speak, then I will take that as your acceptance and agreement that anything you say can and will be used in evidence against you. I reserve my Rights to record this conversation; should you not wish to be recorded, then I suggest the easiest way to satisfy your wish, is to exercise your Right to remain silent. Failure to exercise that Right will be a decision you take, having received Notice of the conditions and full disclosure of the facts. Do you understand?

Policy Enforcer: You do not have my permission to record me! Stop recording now!

Man/Woman: I do not require your permission to record my conversation. I act in peace and mean no harm or injury, as illustrated by my honesty and my reminding you of your Right to remain silent, which to this point, you have waived. I have no intention of contracting with you. You have received full disclosure that this conversation IS being recorded and have been given consideration and remedy by simply exercising your Right to remain silent. Do you understand?

:D

[mark will i am]

Have you heard of the "Spy Watch". It's just a regular mens watch with an mp3 voice recorder in it. Very sneaky should they man handle you and take your video off of you.

PS i love your plan yoz - let us know how you get on with it.

[alternative_answer]

Watch these 2 short vids and then you'll have your answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE8rfefPQ24
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8XwehIHSnQ

Full Tanscript:
Advice on Dealing with the Police by
"Hey Mr Policeman you are violating my rights!"

Golden Rule : Keep your mouth shut. Anything you say is used AGAINST you.

Do you have to talk and answer questions whether by police or authority ?
NO

If the policeman asks you for information about yourself. You do not have to answer. But you can tell him that if you want info about an incident, then fair enough but I dont have to give MY DETAILS to them.

Policeman : "What have you got to hide ?"
Respond : "Well, if I told you what I was hiding, then it would no longer be hidden would it!", "So I'm not telling you what I'm hiding. As it happens, I'm hiding my privacy". "Privacy is only of value to those who value their privacy and so it's none of yours or anyone business".

Even at the scene of an accident, you dont have to tell them your details. But they will probably put you in a cell. But you are in your rights not to give details. They will try to intimidate you into giving them your details or answering questions or they will "arrest you and charge with obstruction of an officer in the performance of it's duty".
Be prepared to go into a cell to keep your privacy.

Dont fall for their nice talk when they appear sympathetic SAY NOTHING.
DENY NOTHING. YOU HAVE NOT PAST, NO NAME, NO ADDRESS

================================================== ==

When a Policeman stops you to ask you questions :-

Get your mobile phone out and record it all and make sure the cop knows that you are recording. Say "Hello Officer, I recognise your contact. What is the nature of the intended detention ?"
If he says that you can NOT record the conversation, you say "In that case am I free to go ?" If he "yes" then you are free to go and you say "thank you for your time, goodbye", but if he says "no, youre not free to go", then you say again "What is the naure of the intended detention ?" (Always ask the questions cos you are then in the master position).
If he refuses to tell you what he is stopping you for then you ask him, "Did you witness me breach the peace ?". He will reply "yes" or "no".
If he says "no" then you say "I am now reserving my right not to speak to a police officer who has not witnessed me breach the peace. Thank you and good day". Walk away.
If he asks you for some identification. Ask him "Am I obliged to carry some identification ?". If he asks for your name then ask him if you are obliged to give him your name. The answer to both of those questions is "no". If he says "yes", then he is acting fraudulently, he's not acting as a lawful police officer. Ask him again "Am I free to go ? AM I FREE TO GO ? AM I FREE TO GO ?" If they continue to detain you then ask "Am I under arrest ? Am I free to go ? Am I under arrest ? Am I free to go ? Am I under arrest ?".

If they CONTINUE to detain you and they give you a sense that you are going to be arrested then IMMEDIATELY say "Officer I'm a peaceful man, if you are going to arrest me, there will be no need for force or violence. However, you are obliged to note that I am operating under protest and duress at all times. I reserve all of my rights at all times and waive none of my rights at any time for any cause or reason".

Then, if they take you down to the station the golden rule is to keep you mouth shut, say nothing, shut up! You do NOT give them permission to take your finger prints, you do not give them consent to ask any further questions, you do not give them consent to put their hands on you in any way shape or form "You do not have consent to touch me officer". They key here is that they can only police BY CONSENT. When they are working with "statutory regulations" THEY NEED YOUR CONSENT. NOTHING CAN BE DONE WITH STATUTORY REGULATIONS WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT - NOTHING! (Obviously if you are guilty of a crime then you should take the punishment like a man).

If they put you in a cell relax, ignore any intimdation and tactics to get you to speak. You are not required to give your fingerprints or to give your DNA (or a blood or a urine sample), NOT WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT. You waive your rights by opening your mouth of giving them what they want. The only way of getting out of the cell (but it could take a day) then you must SHUT UP cos then they have to release you.

================================================== ======

The police dont like YOU to ask THEM questions. It's completely alien to them. "Until youve established probable cause my friend, there is a Roman Maximum in law that says quote- Equality before the law is paramount and mandatory -unquote That means before you have established that I have done anything wrong then you and I are on equal footing my friend no matter what uniform youre wearing so you will treat me with respect and you will speak across to me and not down to me or I will not assist you in anyway shape or form".

The new statutory legistlation of stop and search powers are being abused by the police. You just have to say "No I do not consent. I am not consenting to any searches today. Thank you very much. Am I free to go ? Am I under arrest ? Am I free to go ? Am I under arrest ?".

www.tpuc.org
www.thinkfree.ca
www.fmotl.com

[merlincove]

Watch these 2 short vids and then you'll have your answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE8rfefPQ24
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8XwehIHSnQ


www.tpuc.org
www.thinkfree.ca
www.fmotl.com

Great vids, he always brings a smile to my face.

But he does need to speak into a microphone, else i need to get better speakers lol

i decided to take his advice and record, and i intend to record any eventuality of converse between myself and any official for my own records. Provided that the recording device is clarly visable (as the anti t says, hold your phone up so the officer can see it, activate the voice recording) and you tell them that you are recording it for your own records then there can't be any confussion.

i can't see why it would be considered illegal to record your own conversation for your own information and protection.

Yoz's post is good, i hope that you don't have to use it, but i giess sonner or later it may become inevitable to take these steps.

Malvern's video elsewhere, and the guy in london at the us embasy are prime examples.

i guess at the end of the day we need to take the appropriate actions and measures to protect our freedoms as those who are given the trust of protecting our freedom can sometimes lose track of their task and oath and so therefore the priority for all of us is to see that our freedom is not under deminshment from such quarters and that it is our duty to uphold our freedom. And when we take responsibility for that we can find that we don't need to afford anyone else that trust.

Respect

[oghene]

Firstly I think anyone has a right to record a conversation that they are party to. But I can't find an act that says so. So my view is that because it is not prohibited it is not illegal.
But then again when you speak to companies these days, they warn you that the call is recorded. Therefore if you inform a police officer and they decline, then they can simply go and solicit a contract elsewhere.

I actually went to the police station to enquire about the supposed act that bars a member of the public from recording police. The officer quoted this

Counter terrorism Act 2008 - Amended Feb 2009

Terrorist offences

76 Offences relating to information about members of armed forces etc (1) After section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (collection of information) insert—
“58A Eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces etc (1) A person commits an offence who—
(a) elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—
(i) a member of Her Majesty’s forces,
(ii) a member of any of the intelligence services, or
(iii) a constable,
which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b) publishes or communicates any such information


They key words in that act are 'elicit' and 'information', they are common nouns so I will assume the have a common meaning.

elicit: Verb
1. to bring about (a response or reaction): her remarks elicited a sharp retort
2. to draw out (information) from someone: a phone call elicited the fact that she had just awakened [Latin elicere]
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

Information: knowledge acquired in any manner; facts
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

As you can see it is all open to interpretation. So the police can accuse you of eliciting information about them, confiscate your camera and then destroy all incriminating evidence. They can beat up your mate, you can't record it, but if you make a verbal accusation they will deny it.
The key is to have a password on you phone (recording device), if they want to confiscate it, turn it off. They can only access it with your password.

[yozhik]

They key words in that act are 'elicit' and 'information', they are common nouns so I will assume the have a common meaning.


The only definition of any relevance is the one given in the Act itself.
The "Interpretation" has the definitions pertaining to that specific Act. ;)

[rosix]

Firstly I think anyone has a right to record a conversation that they are party to. But I can't find an act that says so. So my view is that because it is not prohibited it is not illegal.
But then again when you speak to companies these days, they warn you that the call is recorded. Therefore if you inform a police officer and they decline, then they can simply go and solicit a contract elsewhere.

I actually went to the police station to enquire about the supposed act that bars a member of the public from recording police. The officer quoted this

Counter terrorism Act 2008 - Amended Feb 2009

Terrorist offences

76 Offences relating to information about members of armed forces etc (1) After section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (collection of information) insert—
“58A Eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces etc (1) A person commits an offence who—
(a) elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—
(i) a member of Her Majesty’s forces,
(ii) a member of any of the intelligence services, or
(iii) a constable,
which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b) publishes or communicates any such information


They key words in that act are 'elicit' and 'information', they are common nouns so I will assume the have a common meaning.

elicit: Verb
1. to bring about (a response or reaction): her remarks elicited a sharp retort
2. to draw out (information) from someone: a phone call elicited the fact that she had just awakened [Latin elicere]
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

Information: knowledge acquired in any manner; facts
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

As you can see it is all open to interpretation. So the police can accuse you of eliciting information about them, confiscate your camera and then destroy all incriminating evidence. They can beat up your mate, you can't record it, but if you make a verbal accusation they will deny it.
The key is to have a password on you phone (recording device), if they want to confiscate it, turn it off. They can only access it with your password.

lol no. When the police get their hands on something like a phone or computer, they never access the phone or computer itself - they create copies of the information on the phone or computer and then use that. All the passwords in the world isn't going to stop that.

[number_6]

If the policeman asks you for information about yourself. You do not have to answer. But you can tell him that if you want info about an incident, then fair enough but I dont have to give MY DETAILS to them.


Not 100% accurate.
It is an offence to refuse to give your name and address if you are the driver of a vehicle. (Section 164 and 165 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.)When driving they may also demand your DOB.
It is also an offence if you are suspected of anti social behaviour. (Section 50 Police Reform Act 2002 Subsection (1) Subsection (2) )

[rosix]

Not 100% accurate.
It is an offence to refuse to give your name and address if you are the driver of a vehicle. (Section 164 and 165 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.)When driving they may also demand your DOB.
It is also an offence if you are suspected of anti social behaviour. (Section 50 Police Reform Act 2002 Subsection (1) Subsection (2) )

So you need to directly ask them "do you suspect me of anti-social behaviour per Section 50 of the Police Reform Act of 2002 etc. etc. etc."? If they answer no and you're not driving a 'vehicle' then you're not required to provide any information in the UK?

[cf24]

So you need to directly ask them "do you suspect me of anti-social behaviour per Section 50 of the Police Reform Act of 2002 etc. etc. etc."? If they answer no and you're not driving a 'vehicle' then you're not required to provide any information in the UK?

You are not required to give any information, at any time, unless you wish... The 'Act' is for 'persons'...

[alzee]

lol no. When the police get their hands on something like a phone or computer, they never access the phone or computer itself - they create copies of the information on the phone or computer and then use that. All the passwords in the world isn't going to stop that.

But it will certainly stop them deleting the recording straight away. They'd actually have to confiscate the recording device (can they do that?)

[tom bombadil]

Been thinking over ther new powers that the police gave themselves concerning filming of them and have come up with answers that are good for us.

A few things first.

Phone calls. If you call someone and its said that they are recording the call, it is only due to 'contracts' over the phone deing descused and that for the contract to be legal, all amendments need to be agreed on and how much better than a recorded phone conversation. So by warning first they have the right to amend the contract if it needed it due to the conversation. If a conversation was then used in court then it would have been asked if the caller knew of the recording. If the caller did not know of the recording then the evidance of the recording cant be used. SO I HAVE LEARNED.

Also this, if you think it over, it is the same dealy when you record someone from your property. The perp. came to you, to it is buyer beware if you are recording them as they have not asked you for your help, so you did not have to tell them that they are being recorded.


Thus. If you have done nothing wrong and you do use recorded 'evidance' in court, then this 'evidance' will stand.


So...:)...When you film a copper from a distance and he gets the wrong idea (only human), then let him ask you to turn it off or not record him (unless he was up to no good and thus you should scarper the same way as if you saw a robbery in action and had to leg it from the gunman) then you do have the option of stopping the filming. If the cop then asked details of you and you refuse and they get upity then put the camera on again, remind him that you stopped filming when it was requested due to their rights and that as soon as the cop stopped being civil to you , you had the right to film a copper that is no longer acting in a civil manner and that as he got 'personal' to you and ignored your own rights then you are justified in doing so. Or you can run :) again. Even if you are captured, in court you were still justified.

You see a cop has to have good reason to suspect you of acting in a 'terrorisan' manner *. So by approaching you in every day life and you then getting out your recording devises does not give him the same power to ask you to stop. He came to you for other things and not down to your filming, did he not?

So if in a car and you are stopped, then get out your recorder and film or record them with glee. If they ask you to stop filming then say no! Unless you have been seen with a grenade on the dash, in witch case you have to have been acting as (or rather being) a freeman and are already ready with retorts aplenty. They are stopping you for a reason other than terrorisam, so fuck-em.




Terrorisan. you heard it here first folks :D. Nelly

[merlincove]

Not 100% accurate.
It is an offence to refuse to give your name and address if you are the driver of a vehicle. (Section 164 and 165 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.)When driving they may also demand your DOB.
It is also an offence if you are suspected of anti social behaviour. (Section 50 Police Reform Act 2002 Subsection (1) Subsection (2) )

Notice the word ACT in the RT act, applies as statute - is given the force of law by those who consent to it. Do not consent and you do not come under its juristiction.

Acts are for persons, they art both legal fiction, they both have four corners, they are both bits of paper, they are stationary, still and can only be valid if we as human beings give them our concent by acting upon them.

Officer you are quotting statute to me and as such a statute has the force of law of the consenting, i do not consent, i ahve done nothing wrong am i free to go? Did you see me commit a crime, did i injure or cause loss to someone? Am i free to go?

[rosix]

lovely clarification/elaboration all, thank you

seeing as it fits decently in this thread and is not worthy of it's own thread at all, here's something I experienced when I was 15 or so:

had landed at a UK airport with my 5 year-old little-brother, when it is our turn at "Passport Control" we are asked to present our respective passports and I am then asked what my relation is to my travelling partner (she has just looked at both our passports, seen the 10 or so year difference in age, and seen the same Surname in our passports). This is before I had any knowledge of any of the things I've come to learn the past 9months or so - I simply said something along the lines of "it is not necessary for you to know that". Powertripping in a way that only a 180 Kg woman harassing a 15 year-old and his 5 year-old little-brother could, she managed to keep the MASSIVE queue of people behind us waiting for something like 5 minutes when in the end I did NOT provide the information she had asked for. I'm sure over half of the people behind me thought I was an arrogant troublesome cunt of a 15 year-old young-man but I just knew what I was doing at the time was 'right'.

Mind you, I'd probably be arrested for this nowadays hahaha :)

[yozhik]

lovely clarification/elaboration all, thank you

seeing as it fits decently in this thread and is not worthy of it's own thread at all, here's something I experienced when I was 15 or so:

had landed at a UK airport with my 5 year-old little-brother, when it is our turn at "Passport Control" we are asked to present our respective passports and I am then asked what my relation is to my travelling partner (she has just looked at both our passports, seen the 10 or so year difference in age, and seen the same Surname in our passports). This is before I had any knowledge of any of the things I've come to learn the past 9months or so - I simply said something along the lines of "it is not necessary for you to know that". Powertripping in a way that only a 180 Kg woman harassing a 15 year-old and his 5 year-old little-brother could, she managed to keep the MASSIVE queue of people behind us waiting for something like 5 minutes when in the end I did NOT provide the information she had asked for. I'm sure over half of the people behind me thought I was an arrogant troublesome cunt of a 15 year-old young-man but I just knew what I was doing at the time was 'right'.

Mind you, I'd probably be arrested for this nowadays hahaha :)

Classic. :D

Mind you, at 15, you were still technically a minor.
Should have said; "he's my 5 year old drug mule I bought at a local flea market ... once I've got the bounty out of his booty, I'm going to auction him in the House of Lords as an underage sex slave. Do you want in on the action?"

I'm sure the look on her face would have been a Mastercard moment. :rolleyes: