Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > Calguns LEOs
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Calguns LEOs LEOs; chat, kibitz and relax. Non-LEOs; have a questions for a cop? Ask it here, in a CIVIL manner.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 07-02-2013, 5:42 PM
TurboChrisB's Avatar
TurboChrisB TurboChrisB is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Costa Mesa
Posts: 3,217
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-Solo View Post
You are wrong. 100%. You can not record a phone conversation without notifying all parties involved. Person to person in a public place, go for it.

Thank you for playing.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-04-2013, 12:54 PM
CalCop CalCop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacto Area
Posts: 573
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboChrisB View Post
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.
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
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-06-2013, 8:25 PM
TurboChrisB's Avatar
TurboChrisB TurboChrisB is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Costa Mesa
Posts: 3,217
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-08-2013, 9:54 PM
CalCop CalCop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacto Area
Posts: 573
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-08-2013, 10:09 PM
Hispanic_Hercules's Avatar
Hispanic_Hercules Hispanic_Hercules is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: My House
Posts: 1,195
iTrader: 153 / 99%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caddis View Post
It appears many comments on this thread are not from LEO's or those in the LE business.

You can read the langauge of a law all day long but the actual application and prosecution is another story. LEO's for example cannot be victims with many laws because we represent the state. It's not saying this in PC 632 but the reality is, its highly unlikely a DA is going to file if its during the course of your duty. PC 632 is a crime requiring a victim, not a crime against the state. Off duty is a different matter.

LEO's can enforce laws which are a crime against the state which we on-view. Most laws requires a private person to be a victim and most laws require a victim period. For example, a person cursing at a LEO is committing a disturbing the peace violation (PC 415) but we could not be a victim under these circumstances. A private person could be a victim if it was directed at him and could demand a private person arrest be made and the LEO would be just a witness if he on-viewed it. Another common one is annoying and harassing calls to a PD disptacher. This would be an enforceable violation if it was to a private person but because LE is a public servant, it's difficult to prosecute because LE is available and open to the public for telephone calls.

DA's generally do file charges with LEO's being a victim except for battery and serious assaults. Other than this, it comes with the job sort of like a dentist who has to smell bad breath all day.
Next time you get an annoying phone calls to your dispatch from the same party use CA PC 653x (a).. Worked for us, the party stopped calling after we booked him in to the jail for it.

653x. (a) Any person who telephones the 911 emergency line with the
intent to annoy or harass another person is guilty of a misdemeanor
punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000),
by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than six months, or by
both the fine and imprisonment. Nothing in this section shall apply
to telephone calls made in good faith.
__________________
5.1.11 "Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail." George W. Bush 43rd President (2001-2009)
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-08-2013, 11:58 PM
Caddis Caddis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 121
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-09-2013, 12:37 AM
CBR_rider CBR_rider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,733
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hispanic_Hercules View Post
Next time you get an annoying phone calls to your dispatch from the same party use CA PC 653x (a).. Worked for us, the party stopped calling after we booked him in to the jail for it.

653x. (a) Any person who telephones the 911 emergency line with the
intent to annoy or harass another person is guilty of a misdemeanor
punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000),
by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than six months, or by
both the fine and imprisonment. Nothing in this section shall apply
to telephone calls made in good faith.
I was going to arrest a guy for that section, he was upset because we didn't respond fast enough to take a report for his stolen muffler or something so he decided to call 9-1-1 with bogus "man with gun calls" on his neighbors in an effort make us respond faster. He decided not to answer the door when I told him that I was going to take his report before taking him to jail. He also didn't call back about his muffler....

*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..
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-12-2013, 7:48 AM
TurboChrisB's Avatar
TurboChrisB TurboChrisB is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Costa Mesa
Posts: 3,217
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalCop View Post
Those are FCC federal rules. As is normal, CA law is stricter. In CA, beeps are not enough.
Ah, you're right! I stand corrected. Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-12-2013, 9:58 AM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 11,484
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-12-2013, 11:24 AM
A-J's Avatar
A-J A-J is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,887
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 07-12-2013, 1:54 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,989
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
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.

.
Doheny,

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.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 07-14-2013, 9:05 PM
Hispanic_Hercules's Avatar
Hispanic_Hercules Hispanic_Hercules is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: My House
Posts: 1,195
iTrader: 153 / 99%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caddis View Post
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.
Yes, the DA did file as I hand walked the report over to the DA's office and explained this particular individual would not stop calling in to our dispatch on several occasions.
__________________
5.1.11 "Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail." George W. Bush 43rd President (2001-2009)
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 07-26-2013, 11:19 AM
Dantedamean's Avatar
Dantedamean Dantedamean is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,257
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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..
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 07-26-2013, 2:10 PM
tyrist tyrist is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,554
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantedamean View Post
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.
No, but the DA obviously knows through previous experience that no jury will ever convict him so there is no point in wasting time and money prosecuting.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 07-26-2013, 2:42 PM
Falconis Falconis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,691
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tyrist View Post
No, but the DA obviously knows through previous experience that no jury will ever convict him so there is no point in wasting time and money prosecuting.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 07-26-2013, 10:29 PM
the donald's Avatar
the donald the donald is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: san joaquin valley
Posts: 357
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

i read through this. and it is somewhat resolved.

why am i not told that the NSA or another other 3 letter agency is recording me?
__________________
i hate guns
they are too expensive
and i want more of them
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 07-26-2013, 10:41 PM
Springfield45's Avatar
Springfield45 Springfield45 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,993
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the donald View Post
i read through this. and it is somewhat resolved.

why am i not told that the NSA or another other 3 letter agency is recording me?
I have this question to. Wouldn't the Alphabet agencies be in violation of CA law?
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 07-26-2013, 11:37 PM
Dantedamean's Avatar
Dantedamean Dantedamean is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,257
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Springfield45 View Post
I have this question to. Wouldn't the Alphabet agencies be in violation of CA law?
If I had to bet, there is most likely an exemption for the government.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:26 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.