Legal Question Please

Status
Not open for further replies.

cornbread33

Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
44
Location
Fayette,AL
This morning our sheriff dept. got in a high speed chase , I saved the file from Archives (mp3) and converted it to mpeg i think it was and uploaded it to you tube so I could post it on my facebook page that coincides with my website for my Live Feed.
Later tonight the actual deputy involved in the high speed chase called me and asked if I could make him a cd of the radio traffic and I did.

Now the Sheriff has sent me word to remove the audio transmissions off of facebook which I did.

But I am thinking as long as I do not try to profit from the radio traffic that I am not breaking any laws and the sheriff can not force me to remove posting it on my facebook or web site.

can anyone answer this legally and what are some opinions of this ? thanks
 

jaspence

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
2,330
Location
Michigan
Chase recording

In some jurisdictions, it is illegal to repeat the information from a police transmission to a second party. It is also possible that there was something about the chase recording related to a more serious event and you were asked to do this to protect the privacy of an individual or an ongoing investigation.
 
D

DaveNF2G

Guest
Technically, putting the recording out for public listening violated Federal law. Ironic, since if you stream the same communication live while the incident is in progress, there is no violation.
 

cornbread33

Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
44
Location
Fayette,AL
Just for the record I removed the postings from FB and made the audio clip private on utube and the Sheriff is now happy.
 

krokus

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
4,645
Location
Southeastern Michigan
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8530/5.0.0.973 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

You should submit a FOIA request, for audio copies of all radio traffic relating to the chase. You can post those, as they are public information.
 

gesucks

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
672
Location
Our Nation's capitol
Technically, putting the recording out for public listening violated Federal law. Ironic, since if you stream the same communication live while the incident is in progress, there is no violation.
Please detail for those of that do not know what federal law it violated and how. Thanks
 

ST-Bob

Member
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
528
Location
Worcester, MA, USA
I seem to recall that legal opinions rendered by the FCC and possibly the courts determined that unless it's encrypted, there's no expectation of privacy on public safety communications and you can do whatever you please with the recordings.
 

tampabaynews

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Messages
1,226
Location
Tampa, FL
Of course as already suggested, making a FOIA request and paying for it would make it perfectly okay to do what you want with it.

Although I do agree it gives the agency another radio encrypt (as ridiculous as it is), I have never heard anyone getting in trouble for uploading non-encrypted radio traffic. Someone at Radio Reference would have removed the archive feature if that were the case. Sometimes I wish they would because I hear the concern quite often on the street.

Personally, it sounds like he was trying to scare you and it worked.
 
Last edited:

lep

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
948
I seem to recall that legal opinions rendered by the FCC and possibly the courts determined that unless it's encrypted, there's no expectation of privacy on public safety communications and you can do whatever you please with the recordings.
You recall wrongly. 47 USC 605 (renumbered as 705 in Revisions to the Act) [all the A "means" is that is the annotated version with details of the changes] has made it illegal to reveal communications for many years and the section was strengthed in the 1986 revisions known as the ECPA. Listening is okay though.

Have there been any prosecutions? Yes there have been, notably in the Norfolk VA area some years ago. Has anyone ever gone to prison? Yes but it was under exceptional circumstances not relevant here. Even my small county has a Law library at the Courthouse and with the power of the web at hand, these things can easily re-researched, we no longer have to rely on 'what we 'recall' the law to be. [I've saved a LOT of $$$ as a result of not having to subscribe to USCA anymore and keep up with those peaky pocket parts!]
 

majoco

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
3,695
Location
New Zealand
I bet you'd kick up if you found the Police were tapping your phone - now you expect them to lie down and have their tummy tickled while you do exactly the same. Get real.
 

RKG

Member
Joined
May 23, 2005
Messages
1,094
Location
Boston, MA
You recall wrongly. 47 USC 605 (renumbered as 705 in Revisions to the Act) [all the A "means" is that is the annotated version with details of the changes] has made it illegal to reveal communications for many years and the section was strengthed in the 1986 revisions known as the ECPA. Listening is okay though.

Have there been any prosecutions? Yes there have been, notably in the Norfolk VA area some years ago. Has anyone ever gone to prison? Yes but it was under exceptional circumstances not relevant here. Even my small county has a Law library at the Courthouse and with the power of the web at hand, these things can easily re-researched, we no longer have to rely on 'what we 'recall' the law to be. [I've saved a LOT of $$$ as a result of not having to subscribe to USCA anymore and keep up with those peaky pocket parts!]
Do some more research: section 2511 of the Safe Streets Act partially repealed section 605 (now 705) of the Communications Act; in general, anything broadcast by a Part 90 licensee and not encrypted is considered to be in the public domain. See United States v. Rose, 669 F.2d 23 (1st Cir. 1982).
 

lep

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
948
Do some more research: section 2511 of the Safe Streets Act partially repealed section 605 (now 705) of the Communications Act; in general, anything broadcast by a Part 90 licensee and not encrypted is considered to be in the public domain. See United States v. Rose, 669 F.2d 23 (1st Cir. 1982).
Part 90 licensees don't "broadcast" anything within the meaning of the Communications Act if you want to be precise as their communications have a party for which they are intended. But this discussion is getting too far afield. The case you cite is prior to the passage of the ECPA for example.

Enjoy. I have done my pro bono work for April.
 

RKG

Member
Joined
May 23, 2005
Messages
1,094
Location
Boston, MA
Part 90 licensees don't "broadcast" anything within the meaning of the Communications Act if you want to be precise as their communications have a party for which they are intended. But this discussion is getting too far afield. The case you cite is prior to the passage of the ECPA for example.

Enjoy. I have done my pro bono work for April.
ECPA made no substantive changes to section 2511 of SSA and, in particular, did nothing to alter or limit the partial repealer of section 605 (later 705) of the Communications Act effected by section 2511 and interpreted by the Court of Appeals in Rose.
 

JoeyC

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
3,506
Location
San Diego, CA
Another thread that PROVES that legal questions should be left to those in the legal profession.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top