Undermining Excessive Privacy for Police: Citizen Tape Recording to Check Police Officers' Power

IF 5.2 1区 社会学 Q1 LAW Yale Law Journal Pub Date : 2008-05-01 DOI:10.2307/20454687
Dina Mishra
{"title":"Undermining Excessive Privacy for Police: Citizen Tape Recording to Check Police Officers' Power","authors":"Dina Mishra","doi":"10.2307/20454687","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the recent case of Jean v. Massachusetts State Police, the First Circuit suggested that a man who secretly audiotaped and videotaped police officers conducting a warrantless search of his home might have violated the Massachusetts tape recording law, because Massachusetts (along with several other states) criminalizes recording a communication without the knowledge or consent of all parties to the communication. This Comment argues that citizen tape recording, such as the recording that was made in Jean, provides a necessary check against police abuses of power and furthers privacy values underlying the Constitution and other laws. But the Comment acknowledges that police officers’ interests in privacy and safety must be balanced as well. Therefore, it argues that states should permit citizens to record police officers in the line of duty without those officers’ consent, as long as the citizens' recordings are made in a physically unintrusive manner and do not capture police communications that the officers could reasonably expect not to be recorded.","PeriodicalId":48293,"journal":{"name":"Yale Law Journal","volume":"15 1","pages":"1549"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2008-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yale Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/20454687","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

In the recent case of Jean v. Massachusetts State Police, the First Circuit suggested that a man who secretly audiotaped and videotaped police officers conducting a warrantless search of his home might have violated the Massachusetts tape recording law, because Massachusetts (along with several other states) criminalizes recording a communication without the knowledge or consent of all parties to the communication. This Comment argues that citizen tape recording, such as the recording that was made in Jean, provides a necessary check against police abuses of power and furthers privacy values underlying the Constitution and other laws. But the Comment acknowledges that police officers’ interests in privacy and safety must be balanced as well. Therefore, it argues that states should permit citizens to record police officers in the line of duty without those officers’ consent, as long as the citizens' recordings are made in a physically unintrusive manner and do not capture police communications that the officers could reasonably expect not to be recorded.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
破坏警察过度隐私:公民录音制约警察权力
在最近的Jean v. Massachusetts State Police一案中,第一巡回法院认为,一名男子秘密地对警察在没有搜查令的情况下对他的家进行录音和录像,可能违反了马萨诸塞州的录音记录法,因为马萨诸塞州(以及其他几个州)将在不知情或未经通信各方同意的情况下录制通信视为犯罪。本评论认为,公民的录音,例如在Jean录制的录音,提供了对警察滥用权力的必要检查,并进一步加强了宪法和其他法律所依据的隐私价值。但评论承认,警察在隐私和安全方面的利益也必须得到平衡。因此,它认为,各州应该允许公民在没有警察同意的情况下记录警察的执勤情况,只要公民的记录是以一种不侵犯身体的方式进行的,并且不包括警察可以合理地期望不被记录的警察通信。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
6.20%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Yale Law Journal Online is the online companion to The Yale Law Journal. It replaces The Pocket Part, which was the first such companion to be published by a leading law review. YLJ Online will continue The Pocket Part"s mission of augmenting the scholarship printed in The Yale Law Journal by providing original Essays, legal commentaries, responses to articles printed in the Journal, podcast and iTunes University recordings of various pieces, and other works by both established and emerging academics and practitioners.
期刊最新文献
Abolitionist Prison Litigation How to Save the Supreme Court Prosecuting Corporate Crime When Firms Are Too Big to Jail: Investigation, Deterrence, and Judicial Review The Statutory Separation of Powers A Cooperative Federalism Approach to Shareholder Arbitration
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1