Palm Beach Deputies Arrest Man On Wiretapping Charges For Recording Them

carl_paul_1179575k.jpg

Palm Beach Sheriff deputies arrested a man on wiretapping charges after he recorded them during a traffic stop early this morning.

Deputies claim Carl Paul, 21, was being “belligerent.”

But all he was doing was asking for their names and for the reason he had been pulled over, which is not even stated in the article.

They, of course, viewed that as contempt of cop.

Then when they noticed he had an iPhone sitting on his lap, looking as if it was recording.

According to the Palm Beach Post:

Paul allegedly repeatedly asked the deputies for their names while his iPhone sat on his leg. The deputies eventually noticed that Paul was recording the conversation. When he was asked, Paul said he was "documenting what was happening," the affidavit stated.

The deputy noted in the affidavit that Paul was informed that he did not have the deputies' permission to record and was therefore violating a state law. Paul, however, refused to stop recording and was placed in custody.

Afterward, the deputies noticed that Paul had been recording for just over 16 minutes.

Florida is one of a small number of states that require that all parties consent to the recording of a conversation.

While it’s true that Florida is a two-party consent state, it also true all parties need to have an expectation of privacy in order for the act to be unlawful.

According to the Citizen Media Law Project:

Florida law makes an exception for in-person communications when the parties do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the conversation, such as when they are engaged in conversation in a public place where they might reasonably be overheard. If you are operating in Florida, you may record these kinds of in-person conversations without breaking the law. However, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording any telephone conversation and any in-person that common sense tells you is private.

The deputies in this case had no expectation of privacy. Last year, a Maryland judge dismissed the case against Anthony Graber under similar circumstances, stating that police officers have no expectation of privacy.

Maryland's wiretapping law is similar to Florida's law, requiring two-party consent, but only if there is an expection of privacy.

And it's not like Paul was being very secretive about the recording in the first place. He was so obvious that the deputy asked him about it, which he admitted.

But he apparently remains in jail, needing to come up with a $4,500 bond.

In 2009, Palm Beach County prosecutors dropped the case against Tasha Ford who was also arrested for recording cops in public.

So I guess one of us should inform the reporter that she was incorrect when she insinuated that Paul had been breaking the law.

But be nice, guys.


Please send stories and tips to carlosmiller@magiccitymedia.com

 

Comments

Clear civil rights violation and I wish the best for him; too bad it will be $$$ that could have gone for something better than to remind police what The Constitution is. We need standardized testing of cops' knowledge of the piece of hemp they are sworn to protect, nationwide, every year.

This guy also had the very serious disadvantage of DWB, and I'm sure that's weighing heavily against him.

EDIT: This case also has reflections on that old saying, "If ya ain't do'n nut'n wrong then ya ain't got nut'n to fear from the law".

Carlos Miller - Photography is Not a Crime
Pixiq Expert

As one of my followers on Google Plus said, "belligerent" could be just another word for "uppity."

I don't record conversations but I have been known to misdial a number in my IPhone contact list and then hit the home button instead of "end call" and subsequently leave a 10 minute unintentional voicemail containing conversations, random noise etc,

Carlos Miller - Photography is Not a Crime
Pixiq Expert

Ray, please send us your address, so we can determine whether to file charges against you.

Deleted

He forgot to utter the words "Yessuh, Massuh"
and offer to lick, or at least polish, the Imperial Wizards' boots.

Shame on all of you, especially you, Carlos, for insinuating this is a racial incident when there is NOT a shred of evidence to indicate this. Officers lock up people of all colors for this but because this man is black now the cops' motives are racist? I think you are the racists for seeing this as a racial incident when it is not.

Carlos Miller - Photography is Not a Crime
Pixiq Expert

Where did I say this was racial?

'As one of my followers on Google Plus said, "belligerent" could be just another word for "uppity."'

Then only time I have ever heard the word "uppity" was in reference to slaves...

But perhaps the meaning of the word has changed, and in miami, it is actually a reference to old retired guys on Viagra?

Carlos Miller - Photography is Not a Crime
Pixiq Expert

So I mention a comment from another reader on another site and those are suddenly my words?

ahhh, the ettiquette of online posting.

You didn't link to the comments, you repeated them. And you repeating them lends them weight and credence. How are we to tell that you are not in complete agreement?

I'm confused about something.

It's relatively clear that recording police in public is perfectly legal in most parts of the country, including Florida.

If prosecutors continue to drop the charges and never take it to court in Florida, how can the precedent ever get set in that locality?

Won't the officers just continue to wrongly arrest people who are "uppity", and get away with it under qualified immunity because it's not a clearly established right. It's like the executive branch is effectively making it's own legislation through the discretion of the DA.

nigmaig wrote: "Won't the officers just continue to wrongly arrest people who are "uppity", and get away with it under qualified immunity because it's not a clearly established right."

Yep, welcome to the American way of justice!!

I've never understood why they can call it "wire tapping" when there is no wire and no tapping.

1983 claim for damages and then throw in some punitive damage. I do not handle civil cases but it sounds like a 1983 claim to me. I tell my clients record conversations during traffic stops. The police video my clients without asking and record them in the back of the car after the officer steps out. PBSO might want to reconsider if recording a conversation during a traffic stop is a crime. I do not deal with the agency in my practice area but I imagine they record all kinds of things when it benefits them.

Post new comment

Pixiq on Facebook

Join the 10177 Pixiq fans on Facebook

Share

  • Share

Subscribe

Get weekly updates from Pixiq. Short, sweet, and always interesting.