Recording a conversation with BiB ??
Discussion
Was hoping to hear what the BiB on here think of this.
Speaking to a lawyer friend of mine he said that whenever pulled over by the BiB you should firstly state upfront that you will be recording the conversation and ask the officers to state their badge numbers. Most mobiles nowadays have a dictaphone function and he said to use this.
According to him the BiB rely on video evidence, etc and you have the right to therefore record the roadside conversation in case it is required for evidence. If the BiB refuse, then you should not say anything in which case you may be cautioned and then the conversation will have to be recorded anyway.
I'm no lawyer but according to him this is perfectly legal and the BiB can't refuse as long as you state upfront that you are recording the conversation. Apparently he has done it and the BiB didn't really know what to do. In any case apparently it meant the BiB in question was very careful with his words and there were no clever comments, etc
How would the BiB on this forum react if I very politely told them that I was going to record a conversation and asked them clearly to explain the reason for being stopped, etc etc??
Not meant as any kind of insult to any BiB - I know you guys get a very hard time on here but I for one think 90% of you do a sterling job with no thanks.
Cheers
Erik
Speaking to a lawyer friend of mine he said that whenever pulled over by the BiB you should firstly state upfront that you will be recording the conversation and ask the officers to state their badge numbers. Most mobiles nowadays have a dictaphone function and he said to use this.
According to him the BiB rely on video evidence, etc and you have the right to therefore record the roadside conversation in case it is required for evidence. If the BiB refuse, then you should not say anything in which case you may be cautioned and then the conversation will have to be recorded anyway.
I'm no lawyer but according to him this is perfectly legal and the BiB can't refuse as long as you state upfront that you are recording the conversation. Apparently he has done it and the BiB didn't really know what to do. In any case apparently it meant the BiB in question was very careful with his words and there were no clever comments, etc
How would the BiB on this forum react if I very politely told them that I was going to record a conversation and asked them clearly to explain the reason for being stopped, etc etc??
Not meant as any kind of insult to any BiB - I know you guys get a very hard time on here but I for one think 90% of you do a sterling job with no thanks.
Cheers
Erik
beyond rational said:
It could really work against you, you want it by the book, you'll get!
Completely agree. If you want absolute rule following, try the same with the Gatso next time it flashes you. Why on earth you would want to put a BiB on edge for no real gain is a complete mystery...
beyond rational said:
It could really work against you, you want it by the book, you'll get!
It will however work very well in the event you are pulled for some spurious reason. However, I imagine most officers will spend the next ten minutes with a fine tooth comb looking over your car......
If you are going to follow this advice I would record it but not tell the officer.......
Not a problem for me at all. One of our main targets in my area, a particularly nasty drug dealer, always records stops on his mobile. If I see someone fiddling with their phone then holding it prominantly during a stop, I deduce they might be recording the conversation, but it holds no fear for me as I follow procedures anyway. This tactic merely raises my suspicions of the subject.
Incidentally, I've made arrests in the past in public where force was necessary and people have used the video functions on their mobiles to record it. On one occasion my inspector, who was standing nearby, threatened to seize the phones as they contained evidence. Needless to say the recordings were hastily deleted. I'd probably do the same in future.
Incidentally, I've made arrests in the past in public where force was necessary and people have used the video functions on their mobiles to record it. On one occasion my inspector, who was standing nearby, threatened to seize the phones as they contained evidence. Needless to say the recordings were hastily deleted. I'd probably do the same in future.
julianhj said:
Not a problem for me at all. One of our main targets in my area, a particularly nasty drug dealer, always records stops on his mobile. If I see someone fiddling with their phone then holding it prominantly during a stop, I deduce they might be recording the conversation, but it holds no fear for me as I follow procedures anyway. This tactic merely raises my suspicions of the subject.
Incidentally, I've made arrests in the past in public where force was necessary and people have used the video functions on their mobiles to record it. On one occasion my inspector, who was standing nearby, threatened to seize the phones as they contained evidence. Needless to say the recordings were hastily deleted. I'd probably do the same in future.
And how easily could that be interpreted (by those who wish to see the bad side of everything the police do) as wishing to seize and destroy evidence. The suspicion that the CCTV cameras recorded evidence to contradict the police version of events at Stockwell Tube station will linger for a long time. LUL claim CCTV and recording devices working normally, the Met claim the tapes were blank. Incidentally, I've made arrests in the past in public where force was necessary and people have used the video functions on their mobiles to record it. On one occasion my inspector, who was standing nearby, threatened to seize the phones as they contained evidence. Needless to say the recordings were hastily deleted. I'd probably do the same in future.
OT)
The cameras along the route from the Ritz Hotel, Paris to the Place d'Alma underpass were private and trained on their owners' buildings - as required under French privacy laws. The Compagnies de Circulation Urbaine de Paris which controls the traffic camera in the underpass closes at 11pm at night: the camera was not then available for control (zoom, pan, etc.) by any other department and does not have a recording device. Yet the conspiracy theorists continue to claim that the tapes were wiped, or that a mysterious blackout affected every camera on the night of 31 August 1997. The conspiracy theorists also claim that the Place d'Alma camera snapped a speeding motorist 15 minutes before the Mercedes crashed. Odd that! It's not a speed camera, it's a CCTV camera. There were no fixed or portable speed cameras along the route taken and the underpass approach is unsuitable for operation of a speed camera under French requirements.
Regardless of its veracity, video "evidence" will be subject to increasing scepticism as technolgy renders ever more untrue the adage that: "the camera cannot lie".
Streaky
As others have said, I would do this without the officers knowing, might look a bit dodgy though, fumbling with the phone before you get out of the car, 'Was you just using your phone whilst driving sir?'.
If the officer knows you are recording, they are more likely to be on the defensive, and likely to do things exactly by the book. If they dont, and they are not acting like police should, then at least you have proof, just like the police have with their video cams, works both ways, and should.
If you don't tell them you are recording the conversation, how does it then work with regard to evidence of wrongdoing, on the part of the BiB, gathered by the tape.
I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that if the Police record a conversation with a member of the public, then they must inform them of the fact they are being recorded, otherwise any evidence contained on the tape is inadmissable in court. Surely the same rules apply if it is the other way round.
I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that if the Police record a conversation with a member of the public, then they must inform them of the fact they are being recorded, otherwise any evidence contained on the tape is inadmissable in court. Surely the same rules apply if it is the other way round.
M5Dave said:
If you don't tell them you are recording the conversation, how does it then work with regard to evidence of wrongdoing, on the part of the BiB, gathered by the tape.
I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that if the Police record a conversation with a member of the public, then they must inform them of the fact they are being recorded, otherwise any evidence contained on the tape is inadmissable in court. Surely the same rules apply if it is the other way round.
I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that if the Police record a conversation with a member of the public, then they must inform them of the fact they are being recorded, otherwise any evidence contained on the tape is inadmissable in court. Surely the same rules apply if it is the other way round.
Technically, yes, the rules of disclosure work on both sides - however if you are defending yourself you are allowed a reasonable amount of leaway with regard to such formalities.
My recommendation would be to start your phone recording before the conversation starts, maybe on the way to the police car.
You *probably* wont ever need to use the recording.
As you have not informed the officer the conversation should proceed as normal - and may even allow the officer to use some discretion.
I would use it in the following way:
*If* I were taking a case to court as an injustice was taking place I would work my questioning around what was said with the knowledge I have proof to back this up, for example:
"In your statement is states that you followed my vehicle for a mile, but is it not correct that in your police vehicle at the scene you told me that you had followed my car for 100m and were closing on me and you had approximated my speed?"
- "No, I did not."
"Okay.... Is it not true that you told me that (next point)".
I would then take my phone out and play the conversation on speakerphone, and confirm with the officer that it is his voice and your conversation.
I would then expect things to get sticky - and would have thought in the interests of justice the mags would allow the evidence to be produced. This situation has arisen before that when someone was arrested the officer used constant racist language to the accused. At trial the officer denied this completely, and the defendant was allowed to use the conversation that was recorded on his phone.
In real terms for offences that readers of this thread may be accused of, I know that in the two cases I have defended myself that such a recording would have been useful. In one occasion where I really was stitched up by three officers this really would have helped me, as their story changed somewhat between the police car and their statements!
I would like to think though that such occasions are rare, however such a recording can only be used to your advantage.
But I thought most cop cars did have a video/audio doo-dah to record "interviews" with drivers.
As it happens - I would use dictaphone in any kind of conflict. I know this worked on something as routine as a car shunt for a parent of child in one of our kitten's classes. Shunt in rear end ... person who hit claimed she was at fault und accepted liabiilty at scene. Person completed IAM course .. inspired by us
und fortunately had sense to take photos of scene und record the conversation which was certainly not as the other party claimed. Due to disputes on part of the other party - nearly went to court. At 11th hour - other party's insurers held she was not liable due to location of impact und the evidence produced. I think possible decent back up und provided each party agrees that recorded conversations on both sides were fair und squarely carried out.. should not be a problem.
The fellow parent did not tell the other person she had recorded the conversation though.. but the insurance companies accepted its obvious validity as she presented it in entirety with no edited breaks.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff