tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5450091104967694349.post6143224397223261032..comments2022-04-09T22:45:52.489-04:00Comments on adventures in the free state: Seriously, Weare Taxpayers. Is This Appropriate Use of Your Money?Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07620423402363958441noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5450091104967694349.post-34812581292403384152011-07-31T15:59:24.553-04:002011-07-31T15:59:24.553-04:00One only has to reverse the situation to see how r...One only has to reverse the situation to see how ridiculous is the position of the police here. No one asked Pame Smart whether or not SHE consented to being recorded in a public place, and her attorneys never challenged the recordings on the basis of any violation of privacy or fourth amendment rights. They challenged it on the basis that she had already obtained counsel, and it was a violation of her right to an attorney. The police would have no problem recording a drug dealer on a public street and using that recording in a trial. There is no issue of privacy at ALL. Seriously, the attorney for the town is arguing that the police have more privacy rights on a public street than do citizens, and that is what is offensive to me. They don't. Period. Since they have no legitimate expectation of privacy, the policeman's conversation was not "oral communication" as defined in the statute. You are very correct that consent or lack thereof is not an issue.Paulahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02033580260338995727noreply@blogger.com