|
Calguns LEOs LEOs; chat, kibitz and relax. Non-LEOs; have a questions for a cop? Ask it here, in a CIVIL manner. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
||||
|
||||
Keep in mind...said notification can be as vague as just having the beep in the backround every 15 seconds. They DON'T have to ask if they can record in that case...you have to state you don't give permission for it to continue.
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
I disagree. A judge is unlikely to consider "beeps" as sufficient notification and/or consent.
__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen." -- Sir Robert Peel |
#43
|
||||
|
||||
It SHOULD be insufficient but sadly it is NOT.
From the FCC http://www.fcc.gov/guides/recording-...-conversations FCC’s Rules Regarding Telephone Company Recording of Interstate or International Wireline Telephone Conversations The FCC protects the privacy of telephone conversations by requiring notification before a recording device is used to record interstate (between different states) or international wireline calls. Interstate or international wireline conversations may not be recorded unless the use of the recording device is: preceded by verbal or written consent of all parties to the telephone conversation; or preceded by verbal notification that is recorded at the beginning, and as part of the call, by the recording party; or accompanied by an automatic tone warning device, sometimes called a “beep tone,” that automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at regular intervals during the course of the telephone conversation when the recording device is in use. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Those are FCC federal rules. As is normal, CA law is stricter. In CA, beeps are not enough.
__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen." -- Sir Robert Peel |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
HH
I like it. I think it's a relatively new section and was really needed to deal with the regular annoying kooks. The elements are a little vague but sometimes that's good. Did the DA file? The rest of the text......... (b) An intent to annoy or harass is established by proof of repeated calls over a period of time, however short, that are unreasonable under the circumstances. (c) Upon conviction of a violation of this section, a person also shall be liable for all reasonable costs incurred by any unnecessary emergency response. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
*edit* my agency has also filed 653(y) and 653x charges against several chronic 9-1-1 abusers. The DA did prosecute and get a conviction on them. Last edited by CBR_rider; 07-09-2013 at 12:42 AM.. |
#47
|
||||
|
||||
Ah, you're right! I stand corrected. Thanks!
|
#48
|
||||
|
||||
I have no interest in recording LEO's, but does anyone have a cite saying that the "beep" tone is not sufficient notice? The California Public Utilities Commission's General Order 107-B specifically says the beep or verbal notification.
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/Graphics/567.PDF I think most of us have called a public agency at one time and heard a beep tone and not been told we were being recorded, even though we likely assumed we were. . Last edited by Doheny; 07-12-2013 at 11:40 AM.. Reason: typos |
#49
|
||||
|
||||
I never thought I'd ever sy this to anyone.
OP - If you're mom can't get the situation resolved, have her call Gloria Alred or someone of that type.
__________________
It was not a threat. It was an exaggerated response to an uncompromising stance. I was taught never to make a threat unless you are prepared to carry it out and I am not a fan of carrying anything. Even watching other people carrying things makes me uncomfortable. Mainly because of the possibility they may ask me to help. |
#50
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
This was a good find, but not really relevant to the topic of this thread. The PUC document only conveys a directive to utilities that are regulated by the commission. Unless the person who is recording the detective is a PUC regulated utility (like a telephone company), the directive doesn't apply. |
#51
|
||||
|
||||
Just a little update on the circumstances, my mom received this Email yesterday:
"(protected person), I left you a message on your voicemail yesterday. I met with the filing DA at West Covina yesterday regarding your case against (restrained person). The case was rejected for the following reason: “…(restrained person) obtained advice from a member of the California Bar, (redacted), who erroneously advised him that since he was pro per he could peacefully contact her by phone to discuss the legal case. Longoria was wrong, however, the suspect’s good faith reliance on the advised establishes a defense to the charge since an intentional violation cannot be proven.” I called (restrained person) yesterday and advised him that per the DA’s office, (redacted) advice to him was wrong, and at no time should he ever contact you as long as the restraining order is in effect. I also asked (restrained person) regarding the purchases he made at Turner’s. He assured me he did not purchase any firearms, and he told me he would not contact you again. Please contact us if (restrained person) makes any further contact with you. If he calls you again, regardless of the circumstances (unless the restraining order is amended), we will most likely get a filing. If you have issues with the decision you may contact the Deputy District Attorney in Charge, (redacted). Thank you, (redacted)" so it seems there is now a good faith exemption to a domestic violence restraining order aslo thanks to everyone who gave me the good advice, seems I didn't need a recorder after all. Last edited by Dantedamean; 07-26-2013 at 11:23 AM.. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
That about sums it up. I've presented numerous cases to the DA where I thought it was a good case and worth the time in front of a jury only to be shot down by the DA's experience with a jury. As mad as I was every time something like that happened, I learned that they had more experience with stuff like this and were usually right.
|
#55
|
||||
|
||||
I have this question to. Wouldn't the Alphabet agencies be in violation of CA law?
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|