In Indiana only one person needs to know that the conversation is being recorded. Thus you should always speak with this fact in mind.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
In Indiana only one person needs to know that the conversation is being recorded. Thus you should always speak with this fact in mind.
evansvillethompsongunner
Shooter
- Oct 29, 2009
- 2,434
- 36
No, I understood that fact, and made mention of it.
The notion that law enforcement should - or does - record all conversations....
it makes me want to hug my rifle.
Well, you got to look at it this way: cops get accused of all sorts of wrongdoing by the people they arrest. Sometimes its nice to let some sap take the stand and say how he "wasn't doing anything" and then play back an audiotape that proves otherwise. As long as what gets into evidence is the truth I have no problem with it.
Certainly not worth the risk! My point was that the cost to the department (and hence taxpayer) per-officer was very low especially considering the cost of the rest of each officer's equipment, not that cops should buy their own video equipment against department policy.
If IMPD are somehow unable to find less than $100k to purchase cameras for all of its officers in its more than $222 million dollar annual budget, then perhaps they will change their policy on personally owned equipment before Jan 1, 2011. Personally I'm not too worried about IMPD's wherewithal to provide its officers the tools they need.
Why? Do you change your story of what happened when you know you are being recorded? I am not sure why this would be "frightening?"
Why? Don't you want the interaction recorded for record keeping purposes? Recording keeps everyone honest for the most part. Given technology we have available today, you should assume you are constantly being recorded whenever you are dealing with police, someone selling you something, etc..
evansvillethompsongunner
Shooter
- Oct 29, 2009
- 2,434
- 36
No, but if I know I'm being recorded, I would be much less likely to even try to explain what happened, for fear of being crucified in court. Omission, skips, mis-interpretation of what was said... there's far too much that could go wrong. If it's just me politely explaining things to an officer, I have no problem with that. But, if through no fault of the officer's, the audio doesn't catch some key words like "didn't, wasn't..." or pretty much any exculpatory contraction, I'd be way more than hesitant to say even a single damned word. If it's my word versus someone else's, I could probably fight it and say, 'Hey, wait a minute, that's not what I said, not at all...' With a recording, no matter how bad the quality... a jury will eat that up. And you folks know it. And right or wrong, whether I committed the crime of which I was being accused - or not (and believe me, I probably did not) - I'm sure as hell not going to give anyone the rope to hang me. What I say can be used against me, but it can never be used to help me. Ever. Anything I say can and will be used against me, and when words are ammunition, I'm going to do my best to keep the clips of belt-fed machineguns of the State as empty as possible.
Devious? Underhanded? Nope. Not a chance. I simply love our Constitution, gentlemen, and am glad for the rights which it explicitly enumerates for me. If that piece of parchment makes your jobs more difficult, well, for that I do apologize (and sympathize, in my own way), but as law enforcement officers in this, the freest country in the world, you must realize you have pretty much the toughest job there is in the world already. But I won't apologize for my not making it easier. It's what I am supposed to do as a Citizen, one who both understands and enjoys the rights upon which this nation was made and made great.
Innocent until proven guilty. And if the accused never says anything, odds are pretty good that proving them guilty will be impossible. God bless this country.
Last edited:
These are good points. Do note that you are perfectly within your rights to record things said to and around you as well. I carry a small recorder when I'm on duty as well, and (when I remember to turn the bloody thing on), I record every word, every sound while I'm interviewing my patient, loading them, transporting them. I make verbal note of procedures I perform and at what time I did them, e.g. "O2, 3 liters, 1640"..."IV, 18 gauge, left wrist at 1642". This is invaluable when I'm writing my report and once that's written, I delete the recording. Nothing would stop me from clicking it on at a traffic stop, though, if I was pulled over... That way, I don't have to rely on my memory or whatever insurmountable evidence I'd need to overcome an officer's word against mine. Basically, it ensures that the truth of what was said is what is told later by and about both sides, and knowing it's definitely being recorded by one would keep you on your toes to say only what you must.
Blessings,
Bill
evansvillethompsongunner
Shooter
- Oct 29, 2009
- 2,434
- 36
These are good points. Do note that you are perfectly within your rights to record things said to and around you as well. I carry a small recorder when I'm on duty as well, and (when I remember to turn the bloody thing on), I record every word, every sound while I'm interviewing my patient, loading them, transporting them. I make verbal note of procedures I perform and at what time I did them, e.g. "O2, 3 liters, 1640"..."IV, 18 gauge, left wrist at 1642". This is invaluable when I'm writing my report and once that's written, I delete the recording. Nothing would stop me from clicking it on at a traffic stop, though, if I was pulled over... That way, I don't have to rely on my memory or whatever insurmountable evidence I'd need to overcome an officer's word against mine. Basically, it ensures that the truth of what was said is what is told later by and about both sides, and knowing it's definitely being recorded by one would keep you on your toes to say only what you must.
Blessings,
Bill
Bill, you just made me realize how sensible it is to have my own.
To whom should I send the invoice?
Hadn't thought of pre-empting being recorded by recording myself, but you make complete sense.
These are good points. Do note that you are perfectly within your rights to record things said to and around you as well. I carry a small recorder when I'm on duty as well, and (when I remember to turn the bloody thing on), I record every word, every sound while I'm interviewing my patient, loading them, transporting them. I make verbal note of procedures I perform and at what time I did them, e.g. "O2, 3 liters, 1640"..."IV, 18 gauge, left wrist at 1642". This is invaluable when I'm writing my report and once that's written, I delete the recording. Nothing would stop me from clicking it on at a traffic stop, though, if I was pulled over... That way, I don't have to rely on my memory or whatever insurmountable evidence I'd need to overcome an officer's word against mine. Basically, it ensures that the truth of what was said is what is told later by and about both sides, and knowing it's definitely being recorded by one would keep you on your toes to say only what you must.
Blessings,
Bill
I think you guys were separated at birth.
Bill, you just made me realize how sensible it is to have my own.
To whom should I send the invoice?
Hadn't thought of pre-empting being recorded by recording myself, but you make complete sense.
For the two cents? Meh. Keep it.
I bought my recorder at Meijer for like $35. I think MaoMart has them, too. Digital jobbie, so no tapes to mess with, and it will record up to 200 hrs, though the quality will suffer. Of note, I do have an external mike that I had at home plugged into mine. It makes the recording better and lets me keep the recorder itself out of sight.
Blessings,
Bill
evansvillethompsongunner
Shooter
- Oct 29, 2009
- 2,434
- 36
For the two cents? Meh. Keep it.
I bought my recorder at Meijer for like $35. I think MaoMart has them, too. Digital jobbie, so no tapes to mess with, and it will record up to 200 hrs, though the quality will suffer. Of note, I do have an external mike that I had at home plugged into mine. It makes the recording better and lets me keep the recorder itself out of sight.
Blessings,
Bill
Also a good idea.
I don't find digital solutions to be the best, but in a pinch, I'd settle for that.
Maybe I can find an old model which uses magtape, but perhaps make a nice Faraday cage for the recorder so it's not subject to EMPs.
Thanks for the tips, Bill.
Nothing to see here in this rule change....keep moving along folks.....it won't do much except in the area of sexual offenses. There I see it having significant impact. This is for custodial interrogations. The good stuff is gotten when the subject is still "free to leave" and is having a "consensual encounter" with LEOs merely ascertaining events and collecting data with no identifiable target.
I am sure Public Servant, Frank N Stein, and Denny ###, would be able to point out the numerous instances wherein an investigation broke open not because they were using the Reid technique on some dirtball in a back room under lights and video but its usually broken loose by a moron than gets their mouth in gear without their mind following and when the officer is just standing there silent. Criminals seldom resist an opportunity to fill a gap in conversation with their own voice.
Most good investigators have PC prior to hitting the interview room. The recoding is just for mopping up and tying up loose ends.
Officer thoughts?
I am sure Public Servant, Frank N Stein, and Denny ###, would be able to point out the numerous instances wherein an investigation broke open not because they were using the Reid technique on some dirtball in a back room under lights and video but its usually broken loose by a moron than gets their mouth in gear without their mind following and when the officer is just standing there silent. Criminals seldom resist an opportunity to fill a gap in conversation with their own voice.
Most good investigators have PC prior to hitting the interview room. The recoding is just for mopping up and tying up loose ends.
Officer thoughts?
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
Yes, unfortunately this is often true.
Remember, Martha Stewart went to the Bureau of Prisons because she talked when she did not have to.
Get an Olympus recorder that separates and plus directly into a USB jack. Mine is digital and I don't have any issues with it. It records perfectly while inside a pocket from a customary distance when speaking with someone. Obviously loud trucks and such going by don't help. I have thought about getting an external mic, might do that soon.
I hate to burst your bubble, but I would aim that 90% of the people I had as suspects were guilty. When you god bless them getting off, don't come here upset and complain about the cops "doing nothing" when the same person ends up stealing from you, or somehow causing a loss to you. It could be anything from someone striking your vehicle in a parking lot causing damage, to stealing something from your home or vehicle. If there isn't no evidence visible when I stop the person, and they don't let me look in their bag or answer my questions, you are right...they will get off and your stuff will be gone for good.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
Ah, good, then 617 will only capture the guilty and, despite IPAC's whining, the prosecution and police have absolutely nothing to worry about.
If only we had this same rule for OWI stops.
Ah, good, then 617 will only capture the guilty and, despite IPAC's whining, the prosecution and police have absolutely nothing to worry about.
If only we had this same rule for OWI stops.
Fact! The video/audio only seems to work on the .15 and above arrests. When someone is borderline B.A.C. there seems to be consistent "technical difficulties"
evansvillethompsongunner
Shooter
- Oct 29, 2009
- 2,434
- 36
Good ideas. Will look into an Olympus.
No, you're right - I'm sure most of the accused actually did what they were accused of doing... but guilt-in-fact and guilt-under-law can be two very different scenarios.
As for the rest of your statement, I didn't bless them getting off, I asked that this nation be blessed. But anyone who isn't stupid enough to incriminate him- or her-self is innocent under law, if not in fact, unless the State can prove otherwise. De facto. Look at O.J. We ALL know he did it. He is, as far as I'm concerned, guilty-in-fact. But a jury did not convict the man of murder. He is not guilty-under-law.
Also, I've never said that cops 'do nothing,' so I'm not sure why you put it into quotation. (I do not think there's anything which police do which motivated citizens could not do for themselves, but I've never made the claim that the police 'do nothing'. Ever.) And as for your slippery slope argument, if my things were stolen, yes, I would hope the police could retrieve them with the powers available to them under law. But if it meant that people had to give up some of their rights so that your job would be made easier (i.e.; you could retrieve my stuff), I'd just rather my stuff be stolen. If I have to sacrifice a few pieces of property or instead, lessen my own liberties, and that of my neighbors, I'll choose the former. Every time.
There are no situations in which I would ever desire increased police power. Not to avert terrorism (even if that could be possible in a free society); not to have increased ability to return stolen goods; not to keep our border secure; nothing. If the situation was serious enough that I could not afford to lose my property, or risk the lives of my loved ones, I would not even bother to waste tax dollars in calling the police to help; I would do my best to rectify that situation on my own, and anything less serious is replaceable. There is no situation in which I would grant you more power than does our Constitution, sir. But, like I said, I do sympathize if that makes your job somewhat difficult. I myself did the work of three people today due to lazy co-workers.
Anyhow, thanks about the tip on the Olympus.
If only we had this same rule for OWI stops.
The way OWI is going, eventually they will need to be recorded given that a few factors bump it to a felony. Oh well, the way the government keeps tightening the leash on the cops, they don't understand that they are accidentally tying the hands of the cops every so often. I have always predicted the more controls you throw onto the cops, the less they will do, which includes making arrests.
No need for sympathy. More controls over my job will mean less work, period. It _might_ mean more paperwork, longer investigations, but I do think that it will mean fewer arrests. If there are too many hurdles to jump through, eventually all folks will find out it is just easier to walk around the hurdles. This doesn't mean not following the rules, it means instead of investigating a likely theft with a suspect, just tell the victim "Sounds like a civil matter to me. Here is his/her info, go file a suit in civil court. Let that judge figure this out." Also, more controls=less discretion on my part. This will mean less complaints on the decisions I make. Folks won't be able to complain on my decision that I was required to come to under law/court order. That is plenty fine by me. The boss can just refer everyone to their elected officials, which means my work history/record stays complaint free.
Site Supporter
Members online
- Destro
- Michigan Slim
- alc1985
- tomcat13
- mike4sigs
- Grump01
- melensdad
- Leadeye
- acd1010
- turnerdye1
- Dirtebiker
- Mgderf
- TJ Kackowski
- BigMoose
- draftyranger
- dustinfz6r
- Steel and wood
- snorko
- BlackGun
- Longhair
- slims2002
- x34822
- Hoosierdood
- JHB
- Onebad06vtx
- Living
- dieselrealtor
- Bybo
- browndog2
- jamil
- Topher Durden
- SSE
- Hillbilly
- 76caprice
- acss502
- logguy
- Six Forty-Two
- BeDome
- bobzilla
- Tryin'
- Count Blackula
- JBLee
- wtburnette
- A. Ramon
- Dale Dan Tony
- cobber
- wesnellans
- DoggyDaddy
- El Conquistador
- Chip
