Radio Comms.
- Thread starter Seadoo
- Start date
- Status
Probably not, but if you file a FOIA then I'm certain those can be used.
I suppose you are asking this "on behalf of a friend" ,right? :roll:
Were these signals prohibitted, and captured from an unaffiliated system radio?
Let me settle in to my armchair and play lawyer, I think the defense would be able to use them as evidence.
Were these signals prohibitted, and captured from an unaffiliated system radio?
Let me settle in to my armchair and play lawyer, I think the defense would be able to use them as evidence.
rfradioconsult
Member
This would be a gray area; a really big gray area; probably the only person that would benefit would be the Defense lawyer.
Jim41
Member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 188
Seadoo,
You won't find any lawyers on RR.com that dispense free legal advice. You will get lots of opinions. My standard suggestion to those looking for legal advice is to contact a lawyer who practices in the state and locality where an alleged crime or injustice occurred; someone who is familiar with the applicable local laws.
Now for my uninformed opinion: Most places make audio recordings of public service communications. For a court trial these recordings should be able to be obtained via a subpoena.
Jim41
newsphotog
Member
If something did happen and if it were advantageous to use audio tapes from dispatch, it would be best to use official audio recordings obtained from the agency via FOIA. I don't think the court would allow someone's homemade audio tapes.
hmmmm
So if someone were to say VIDEO TAPE something that wouldn't be allowed if their were "official" video of an incident??? I think a judge would determine whether audio or video recordings were valid and believeable whether they are "official" or not.
So if someone were to say VIDEO TAPE something that wouldn't be allowed if their were "official" video of an incident??? I think a judge would determine whether audio or video recordings were valid and believeable whether they are "official" or not.
newsphotog
Member
We're not talking about video tapes here, but I'll bite. It all depends on how it's edited. In a recent murder case here in Des Moines, the judge dismissed an entire case because video of a hit-and-run from a surveillance camera that was allowed and treated as official evidence was found to be improperly edited. It needs to be in its entirety without alterations. Now, three years after the case was dismissed, the trial is re-starting.
In the case of dispatch tapes, dispatch can hear things that scanner users cannot. For instance, in a high-radio traffic situation, if dispatch is talking and an officer is transmitting at the same time, the official dispatch tapes will also record everything heard on the input frequency -- the scanner user would not.
The question is: why would anyone want to use a homebrew dispatch tape in a trial when they can obtain an official dispatch tape direct from the government agency? Which do you think would be more credible? I don't think any of us are judges, but I think it's a matter of common sense here.
In the case of dispatch tapes, dispatch can hear things that scanner users cannot. For instance, in a high-radio traffic situation, if dispatch is talking and an officer is transmitting at the same time, the official dispatch tapes will also record everything heard on the input frequency -- the scanner user would not.
The question is: why would anyone want to use a homebrew dispatch tape in a trial when they can obtain an official dispatch tape direct from the government agency? Which do you think would be more credible? I don't think any of us are judges, but I think it's a matter of common sense here.
NWI_Scanner_Guy
SCANNING THE AIRWAVES SINCE 1987
Unless of course you believe the government is out to get you, and you wouldn't trust anything coming from them LOL.
Just my experience in law enforcement, but every time I've been involved in a trial where what was said on the radio was important, the DA or defense attorney obtained either the actual dispatch tape or transcript directly from the agency. Every agency I've dealt with has a mechanical tape or digital recording system for both radio and phone traffic. Without getting into details, both systems have anti-tamper precautions built in. Courts tend to be pretty anal about making sure evidence hasn't been tampered with. Until recently, all our crime scene photos had to be submitted along with the negatives, so an expert could see if the photos were modified. I understand there are tamper proof digital camera systems now, but our guys were still using film cameras when I retired in 2005.
SAR pretty much nailed it. Scanner intercepts may not be complete, but they could provide a defense attorney with the info he needs to subpoena the actual tapes from the agency. The subpoenad tapes come from the agency with a sworn statement from the keeper of the record that they are complete and unedited records.
n5ims
Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 3,993
While recordings from a scanner may not be given too much credibility in the courts of law, they can be used as evidence that the transmissions took place and if the FOIA requests (or legal requests for them as part of the "discovery" process) fail to turn them up, they may be used to provide some "reasonable doubt" during the trial. It may be hard to prove their validity and accuracy, but with enough work, it may be possible to get the judge to allow them to be used as evidence. Just be ready for the other side's legal team to not only fight to keep it out of court, but try to show that it wasn't what it appeared to be (not from their agency, from another time, related to another offense, was part of a 'training incident', etc.).
The recording can also be quite useful in the "court of public opinion" if broadcast by the media as part of their coverage of the event or trial. The validity is probably easier to show to the media, especially if the audio makes 'good copy'.
The recording can also be quite useful in the "court of public opinion" if broadcast by the media as part of their coverage of the event or trial. The validity is probably easier to show to the media, especially if the audio makes 'good copy'.
An observation
Interesting thread. Let me throw this in for thought:
To paraphrase a portion of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, it is not illegal to listen to communications over a radio reciever, but it is illegal to tell someone else what you heard.
Interesting thread. Let me throw this in for thought:
To paraphrase a portion of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, it is not illegal to listen to communications over a radio reciever, but it is illegal to tell someone else what you heard.
RKG
Member
Not true. Qualified communications (generally speaking: analog AM, Part 90 channel, not encrypted) are in the public domain, per section 2511 of the Safe Streets Act.
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
The judge only decides whether the evidence is relevant and material to the case.
The jury decides whether the evidence is believable.
The jury decides whether the evidence is believable.
- Status
