Court says recording officer was not illegalRuling clears motorist who secretly recorded a traffic stop on his phone
By Saul Hubbard, The Register-Guard
Nov. 03, 2011
1.Trump is Right: GOP Debate Audience is Packed Full of Republican Donors
2.Government Agents Hunt Woman Down After Seeing Facebook Picture Of Her Rehabilitating Baby Squirrels
3.Report: Hillary Clinton Was "Glowing" About Goldman Sachs During Paid Speech
4.Julian Assange Warns "A Vote For Hillary Is A Vote For Endless, Stupid War"
5.New 'Traffic Violations Agency' Brings Buffalo Extortion Racket to All Time High
6.Florida Cops Unload On Man Holding Gun Fearing Home Invasion After Knock On Door At 1AM, Had Wrong House
7.Illinois: Cops Lose Case After Hiding Video Evidence
8.'End of Europe': Trump Slams Merkel's Refugee Policy, Wants Good Relations With Russia
A Cottage Grove man who secretly recorded his interaction with a Eugene police officer on his cell phone during a 2008 traffic stop did not act illegally, the Oregon Court of Appeals has ruled, highlighting the ongoing controversy over how and when residents may record the actions of law enforcement officers.
The Cottage Grove man, 33-year-old Shane Neff, did not act illegally because the officer in question, Sam Ou, was himself recording the conversation on his cruiser’s dashboard camera and notified Neff that he was doing so.
Under Oregon law, recording a conversation is illegal “if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained.”
In most instances, therefore, citizens must tell law enforcement officers if they choose to record them speaking, though they don’t need an on-duty officer’s permission to do so in public areas.
But in Neff’s case, the majority of the Court of Appeals’ judges ruled that Ou’s notification of his own recording was “sufficient” because the law doesn’t clearly state who must inform whom.