Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver

California's premier full-service law firm with an emphasis on the representation of peace officers in disciplinary, criminal, labor, workers' compensation, personal injury and other civil matters.

  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer

The Tale of the Tape: To Record or Not to Record

July 19, 2017 by Hien Nguyen

From: Legal Defense Report
By: Robert M. Wexler

Recently, there has been an alarming increase in the number of disciplinary and criminal cases involving police officers who illegally tape record in-person and telephone conversations.

This trend is partly attributable to the fact that more and more officers are carrying mini-recorders a part of their standard equipment and are being urged by departments to record citizen contacts. Consequently, it is more critical than ever that you become aware of when and, when NOT to record a conversation.

The law

Penal Code Section 632 prohibits anyone from “intentionally, and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication,” eavesdropping on or recording that communication. A “confidential communication” includes any “communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto.”

Not only is conviction under Section 632 a “wobbler” and punishable by a fine of $2,5000, but any person injured by an illegal recording may bring a civil action under Section 637.2 for the greater of three times the amount of actual damages or $5,000, per violation.

In a recent Court of Appeal case, Coulter v. Bank of America, (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 923, a bank employee was assessed damages of $132,000 for violating Section 632. The employee had filed a sexual harassment claim against the bank and, as evidence, produced 17 tapes containing 160 secretly recorded private conversations with his co-workers.

The court found that many of these conversations were recorded in violation of Section 632 and imposed the heavy fine.

Officers must, therefore, be cognizant of several facts to avoid liability under Section 632. First, ALL parties to a conversation must consent to it being recorded.

This applies both to in-person and telephone conversations. It is inconsequential which party initiates a telephone call; all parties must know that a call is being recorded.

Second, a conversation can potentially be found to be a “confidential communication” by the subjective and reasonable beliefs of ANY participant to the conversation. Thus, as long as one person to a conversation reasonably believes that it is confidential, it cannot be recorded without that participant’s authorization.

MOST OF THE RECENT disciplinary and criminal cases have involved officers who surreptitiously recorded their supervisors. Generally, an officer DOES NOT have the right to record a conversation with a supervisor, especially when that conversation takes place in the context of an office or other location that indicates some expectation of privacy.

This is because both the supervisor and officer each have a subjective and reasonable belief that no one is listening to or recording their discussion.

It is simple to avoid any liability under Section 632 by openly placing any recording device in plain view of all participants to a conversation, and clearly stating at the outset that the discussion is being recorded. This process will eliminate any reasonable belief that the discussion is a confidential communication.

Video recordings

Likewise, there have been several recent cases involving officers who secretly videotaped their amorous liaisons with their partners. In at least one of these cases, the officer was charged with a felony after his ex-girlfriend became aware that tapes of their lovemaking were being shown throughout the department.

Videotapes, as with audio tapes, fall under the provisions of Section 632. Accordingly, all participants must be aware that their actions are being videotaped and must consent to the videotaping. Mere consent to the sexual act is insufficient to satisfy the parameters of the Privacy Act statutes.

Recording citizen contacts

Officers are permitted, however, to covertly record their on-duty citizen contacts that relate to criminal investigations. There is a specific exception in Section 633, which allows prosecutors and law enforcement officials to eavesdrop and record conversations in the course of criminal investigations.

Section 633 was derived from former Section 653(h), which permitted officers to record conversations “in the performance of their duties in detecting crime and in the apprehension of criminals.” It is pursuant to this language that departments record telephone lines used for police business and officers are allowed to record citizen contacts in the field.

Be advised, however, that Section 633 is limited to criminal investigations and does not extend to secret recordings to gather evidence on co-workers or superiors. In Rattray v. City of National City, 51 Fed. 3rd. 793, a former police officer sued his employer for invasion of privacy under Penal Code Section 632 for secretly recording his statements in the course of an internal affairs sexual harassment investigation.

The NINTH CIRCUIT COURT of Appeals held that “Section 633 protects only electronic recording and eavesdropping in the course of criminal investigations, and not police recordings of their own employees as a matter of internal discipline.” Therefore, Rattrays was permitted to proceed to trial against the department in order to recover damages.

If your department h as a policy that requires officers to record field contacts, or if you decide to adopt the practice yourself, make certain that you remember when to turn the tape off.

As good a tool as recordings may be to preserve evidence and to exonerate an officer when accused of misconduct, make certain that you do not violate law or your department’s policy by using tape recorders inappropriately. Be safe!

Filed Under: Bulletins Prior to RLS Tagged With: robert-m-wexler

Consultation Form

Offices across California to serve you.
Contact us now to schedule a consultation.
Contact form not loading? Click here!
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC publishes this website as a service to our clients and other friends for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice or opinions, and the transmission of information through this website is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between sender and receiver. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

© 2023 Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC. All Rights Reserved. | Disclaimer

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
Do not sell my personal information.
Cookie settingsACCEPTREJECT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT
  • Contact Us

  • News Alerts

Official logo for Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver Logo
  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    ▼
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      ▼
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    ▼
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    ▼
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
Hotline phone numbers. Northern California: 925-609-1699. Southern California: 310-393-1486.