Originally posted by Lowell Goudge Actually a court order or consent of one of the parties in most states. But that law only covers private discussions not ones that can be reasonably expected to be heard in public
Which is exactly why the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the public has a right to record the police in public!
Originally posted by Lowell Goudge Actually a district court if you read on, but the point is that in the ruling there is no comment about changing state laws or instructions to legislators so nothing will change
This ruling came from the Court of Appeals for the 1st CIRCUIT! Now it goes back to a District Court and the judges there have to consider the ruling of the Circuit Court before making their final ruling. It is very rare for a District Court to buck a Circuit Court ruling that has been returned to them. To do otherwise simply invited another overturned District Court ruling.
And they do not have to say anything specific about changing state laws. The ruling itself that videotaping/photographing police in public is permissible under our Constitution makes any laws restricting those activities invalid and legally unenforceable. I've no idea how it works in Canada, but that's how it works in THIS country.
Mike