Backup voice recorder

[MostlyHarmless]

How often have we seen stories of police demanding to turn off voice recorders or video cameras and threatening with arrest under that BS wiretapping? Right, too often.

On a recent flight I browsed through the SkyMall and there was a covert voice recorder, disguised as a USB thumb drive. I found the company online and they offered it naturally for less than the SkyMall. So I thought to give it a try.

It actually is a fully functional USB thumb drive that has this little extra that you flip an almost invisible switch on the side and it starts recording into a .WAV file on the stick. A little red light flashes a few times when you start recording, but stays off after that, so it is entirely stealthy. As expected, the sound quality is far from stellar, but probably good enough for evidence purposes. The internal Lithium rechargeable battery is claimed to last for up to 4 hours and charges when the stick is plugged in. I haven't tested that recording time yet and will update once I find out what happens when it runs down. I hope it doesn't corrupt the recording.

This thing will from now on travel with me at my key chain. I won't stop carrying my regular high quality voice recorder, but in case I'm asked to "turn that off", I have no problem complying with "that" request.

Here is a link for it: http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/us...-recorder.html


Jan

ETA: It does record for about 3:30 and does not corrupt the recording when in runs out of battery. Pretty decent for something like this.

[gnbrotz]

How often have we seen stories of police demanding to turn off voice recorders or video cameras and threatening with arrest under that BS wiretapping? Right, too often.

On a recent flight I browsed through the SkyMall and there was a covert voice recorder, disguised as a USB thumb drive. I found the company online and they offered it naturally for less than the SkyMall. So I thought to give it a try.

It actually is a fully functional USB thumb drive that has this little extra that you flip an almost invisible switch on the side and it starts recording into a .WAV file on the stick. A little red light flashes a few times when you start recording, but stays off after that, so it is entirely stealthy. As expected, the sound quality is far from stellar, but probably good enough for evidence purposes. The internal Lithium rechargeable battery is claimed to last for up to 4 hours and charges when the stick is plugged in. I haven't tested that recording time yet and will update once I find out what happens when it runs down. I hope it doesn't corrupt the recording.

This thing will from now on travel with me at my key chain. I won't stop carrying my regular high quality voice recorder, but in case I'm asked to "turn that off", I have no problem complying with "that" request.

Here is a link for it: http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/us...-recorder.html


Jan

Why don't you just use the better recorder covertly?

[LittleRedToyota]

if the officer does not know he is being recorded, he may be able to say he had a reasonable expectation of non-interception...and a court may find you guilty of violating the wiretap law.

just something to consider.

[t1m0thy]

if the officer does not know he is being recorded, he may be able to say he had a reasonable expectation of non-interception...and a court may find you guilty of violating the wiretap law.

just something to consider.

I thought in PA that officers in performance of their duties had no expectation of privacy...

[LittleRedToyota]

I thought in PA that officers in performance of their duties had no expectation of privacy...

it is not an expectation of privacy that matters...it is an expectation of non-interception.

i have never seen any case law that actually establishes that you can generally *covertly* audio record police officers in PA. (not that that means such case law does not exist, though.)

if an officer (or anyone else) *knows* they are being recorded, then they cannot claim a reasonable expectation of non-interception...since they know the interception is happening. however, if it is done covertly, then they do not know the interception is happening and may have a reasonable expectation of non-interception.

[MostlyHarmless]

if the officer does not know he is being recorded, he may be able to say he had a reasonable expectation of non-interception...and a court may find you guilty of violating the wiretap law.

just something to consider.

True.

Then again, if an officer illegally orders to stop recording, THEN starts violating my rights and STILL a court finds ME guilty and clears the officer of any wrong doing ... I had no chance to begin with. Tough luck.


Jan

[MostlyHarmless]

Why don't you just use the better recorder covertly?

I ride a maxi scooter most of the time. Turning on the better recorder in my pocket requires to reach into that pocket at least, which may raise suspicion about what my hand did in that pocket and reaching into a pocket can be dangerous, depending on the situation and the cop. The USB thing at my keys I can turn on while shutting off the ignition. Reaching for the keys to turn off the engine is an expected move in this situation.


Jan

[andrewjs18]

it is not an expectation of privacy that matters...it is an expectation of non-interception.

i have never seen any case law that actually establishes that you can generally *covertly* audio record police officers in PA. (not that that means such case law does not exist, though.)

if an officer (or anyone else) *knows* they are being recorded, then they cannot claim a reasonable expectation of non-interception...since they know the interception is happening. however, if it is done covertly, then they do not know the interception is happening and may have a reasonable expectation of non-interception.

interesting.

so would I be better off holding my phone (very good built-in voice recorder) in my hand for a few seconds then putting it in my pocket to avoid any suspicion that I may be 'covertly' recording the officer?

that's an honest question.

[IronSight]

it is not an expectation of privacy that matters...it is an expectation of non-interception.

I thought both mattered, and that you couldn't have an expectation of non-interception without first having the expectation of privacy?

Now I'm going to have to go dig through my case law archives again, because this is gonna bug me until I find something.

[gnbrotz]

interesting.

so would I be better off holding my phone (very good built-in voice recorder) in my hand for a few seconds then putting it in my pocket to avoid any suspicion that I may be 'covertly' recording the officer?

that's an honest question.

IMO,and especially if you captured something that was damning to an officer, you could be charged even if the phone was held in your hand the entire time and completely visible to the officer. The prosecutor would argue that the officer observed a phone, and had no idea that you were using it to record, thus they had an expectation of non-interception. Not saying it's right, just likely, based on how I've seen these games played.