Originally Posted by bbelichick

MGL 272-99

Offenses. 1. Interception, oral communications prohibited.

Except as otherwise specifically provided in this section any person who—

willfully commits an interception, attempts to commit an interception, or procures any other person to commit an interception or to attempt to commit an interception of any wire or oral communication shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars, or imprisoned in the state prison for not more than five years, or imprisoned in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one half years, or both so fined and given one such imprisonment.

Proof of the installation of any intercepting device by any person under circumstances evincing an intent to commit an interception, which is not authorized or permitted by this section, shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this subparagraph.

Originally Posted by Air Force Cop

I know that Mary Lou's coffee have the new little cameras that have audio/video. No signs that I have seen, but the girls have to sign a form because of them. Is that a violation? I wouldnt have known about them unless the girls told me.

Originally Posted by LA Copper

I'm amazed at the difference between east and west coast.. We can audio tape ANY traffic or ped stop at anytime, regardless if the other person knows about it or not or if they give consent or not. Plus, we don't have to tell them they're being recorded. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when dealing with the police (a public official).

Originally Posted by LA Copper

I'm amazed at the difference between east and west coast.. We can audio tape ANY traffic or ped stop at anytime, regardless if the other person knows about it or not or if they give consent or not. Plus, we don't have to tell them they're being recorded. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when dealing with the police (a public official).

Many of our officers carry pocket tape recorders, in fact, we even encourage it. They have been very helpful when adjudicating personnel complaints when the suspect alleges that the officer called him names, etc... They've also captured spontaneous incriminating statements on tape.

Originally Posted by SOT_II

police are exempt from the law, it's the fact that a civilian recorded the police that is at issue.
If it were the police doing the recording, this would be a non issue.

Originally Posted by LA Copper

Don't you have to tell them that they're being recorded? Like when someone calls 911 and the operator says something like: "911, this line is recorded." We don't have to tell them out this way..

Originally Posted by spd1997

This is an interesting case. My gut reaction is the guy can tape on his own property especially if he posts it.

This is very interesting. Are all of those abusive nanny's that are caught on tape w/sound victims?

Check out the video on www.conte2006.com .

This is a Mass case where MSP CPAC are captured on video with sound in what appears to be an illegal search.

I would think in a public place you can video/audio tape what ever you want. That there is no expectation of privacy.

Again, it seems to me that a private property owner could set up a camera to catch thieves etc...

Any real lawyers in here that could way in?

Originally Posted by O-302

Believe it or not, COPS has everyone sign a release, whether it's before they enter a place, for instance a call to a residence, or after an incident that they film spontaneously...apparently they have a large percentage of compliance.