CCW THREAT QUESTION

[pacrat]

IMHO (and remember that my opinion is pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things), signage would defeat the expectation of confidentiality, so long as the signage was readily visible.

The plethora of superfluous language is pretty common in California law. At the operative level, it don't really change anything. At the technical level there often are some differences in the meaning of words and that's the reason for their inclusion. But it doesn't matter much here because the law specifically excludes a plaintiff from having to go down that road. All the plaintiff has to do is show that an illegal recording was made.

Perhaps I didn't properly convey my meaning with the below quote.

Also, Since "suffered/injured/damaged" are all synonyms. That makes pc 632.7 637.2 just another vague self contradicting waste of ink.

Sections [a] and [c] of 632.7 637.2 are direct contradictions of one another.

(a) Any person who has been injured by a violation of this chapter may bring an action against the person who committed the violation for the greater of the following amounts:

Conveys the definite circumstance that an INJURY must have occurred for 632.7 to be "chargeable". Because "injured" and "committed" clearly denote past tense. And if there is NO injury committed, then there can by definition. Be no violation.

(c) It is not a necessary prerequisite to an action pursuant to this section that the plaintiff has suffered, or be threatened with, actual damages.

[Highlander21]

Call the local Sheriff CCW department, hand over the tape. My guess is that if he does have a CCW now, he wont for long.

This.

CCW's should not be threatening anyone with it during an argument.

[Highlander21]

Btw, you should get a CCW now. And don't threaten him with it.

[TrailerparkTrash]

Btw, you should get a CCW now. And don't threaten him with it.

[Mayor McRifle]

I live on almost 8 acres. I have a problem with a neighbor. We had words the other day and he in a unique confrontive and in my face manner informed/threatened that he was not on medication because if your on it you can’t have a ccw permit...I pretended I didn’t know what he was talking about and he said look it up! Fortunately I was recording the whole conversation because he is a volitile and vindictive man as is his wife. The question is is someone that has a ccw allowed to use that privilege as a threat!? Thank you

Is that really your question? I assume that your neighbor’s issuing agency is your local sheriff’s department. Call them up and ask.

[TrailerparkTrash]

I can (almost) see your point, but can't agree that there would never could be an expectation of confidentiality simple because the combatants were outside.

[Whiskey_Tango]

Sorry for the sidetrack, but I gotta ask. Where do the "Two Party Consent" legalities land with regards to the video doorbells (Ring, etc.)?

[FresnoRob]

Sorry for the sidetrack, but I gotta ask. Where do the "Two Party Consent" legalities land with regards to the video doorbells (Ring, etc.)?

Same question here. If Rick is correct everyone walking past my home could sue me because of my cameras.

[RickD427]

Can you provide some case citations please. I'm sure you'll find quite a few holding no expectation where the area is public. I'm looking for you to provide one holding that there can be no expectation in any public area. There's a lot of difference there.

I've followed the law in this area fairly closely and don't see it having been established to that extreme.

Let's keep in mind that the landmark case on expectation of privacy, Katz v U.S. occurred in a public phone booth.

[pacrat]

Rick,

TpT, Whiskey_Tango, and FresnoRob, all have valid points.

Ring Doorbells... dash cams... security cams on private property. CopBlock weenies...paparazzi...News Choppers, etc. And for that matter, LEOs with body and dash cams, would all be considered taking part in criminal activity, since it is so listed in the Ca PC according to your interpretation.

Katz v US, was considered an "unwarranted search" because Feds were eavesdropping using hidden listening devices to surveil a criminal suspect.

Really curious about your thoughts regarding the contradictions in the construction of pc 632.7 637.2?

[RickD427]

Rick,

TpT, Whiskey_Tango, and FresnoRob, all have valid points.

Ring Doorbells... dash cams... security cams on private property. CopBlock weenies...paparazzi...News Choppers, etc. And for that matter, LEOs with body and dash cams, would all be considered taking part in criminal activity, since it is so listed in the Ca PC according to your interpretation.

Katz v US, was considered an "unwarranted search" because Feds were eavesdropping using hidden listening devices to surveil a criminal suspect. Katz is also significant in that the court held the Constitution protects people rather than places. That's difficult to reconcile with the position that any public place cannot be the location of a confidential communication.

Really curious about your thoughts regarding the contradictions in the construction of pc 632.7?

With regard to the other posters, please note that I have not claimed that that there is an expectation of privacy in the public places described by those folks. I have claimed that there is no categorical exclusion of privacy in those places. There's a big difference there. There is a very strong presumption that there is no expectation of privacy (or confidentiality as used in PC 632). But that's not absolute and that's my point. I believe that one is free to record their front door, driveway, yards, etc without offending PC 632. But if one were to record a face to face conversation in any of those areas, then I think the door is opened for a PC 632 violation.

I don't have the case citation available, but I did read, more than 25 years ago, a published PC 632 case involving a State Correctional Peace Officer who was a union steward. He secretly recorded a conversation with a prison warden regarding a labor issue that occurred in a public location. He was sued for the $5,000 default award by the warden who later learned of the recording. The defendant claimed that the recording was legal as being made by a peace officer under then-existing exceptions to the statute. The Appellate Court upheld the damages because even though it was made by a peace officer, was not made in the scope of the peace officer's duties.

Katz is very much on point. What made the "unwarranted search" was the fact that Katz had an expectation of privacy in the public phone booth.

I don't see a contradiction in PC 632.7. I wondering if you actually meant PC 637.2 (the civil remedy). Please note that PC 637.2 does not use the words injured/suffered/damaged together, or use them synonymously. The words do appear apart from each other in the statute, and their context is different. I'll ask the JD's on the forum to chime in with more exact, or better, explanation. My thoughts here are as a LEO presenting a case for filing. In PC 632.7(a) the statute only used the word "injury" and the context is that they suffered a legal injury - a privacy right has been violated. In PC 637.2(c) there is a statement that no damages must be proven. The context here is some of monetary value has been lost.

[Chewy65]

Actual damages are those which you need to prove have been suffered, as opposed to nominal damages awarded without actual proof of having suffered the same. Compensatory damages are awarded to compensate one for those actual damages. Say a statute awards the injured party $5,000 without proof of loss. Punitive and exemplary damages are another kind of damages awarded not for the purpose of making the injured party whole, but to punish a wrongdoer and deter conduct that the polity especially wishes to curb.

Hence, it may be difficult to establish actual damages incurred as a legal and proximate result of having one's confidential communication recorded without permission, but the State allows damages of $5000 without proof of actual damages in order to deter the wrongful conduct as well as to compensate the injured party who may find it difficult to establish actual damages.

[pacrat]

Rick, I parsed response for clarity/brevity.

Katz is very much on point. What made the "unwarranted search" was the fact that Katz had an expectation of privacy in the public phone booth.

Agreed, had Katz been outside the privacy afforded by the booth. He would not have had an expectancy of privacy. No more than OP's neighbor would have during a conversation in view of cameras on his property. Which is why I believe "Katz" is a poor cite for a 632 violation of OP.

I don't see a contradiction in PC 632.7. I wondering if you actually meant PC 637.2 (the civil remedy).

OOPsy, yes you are correct. It was pc-637.2 your previous post referenced. Which I copied and pasted. I brainfarted the conflation between 632.7 with 637.2.

I'll ask the JD's on the forum to chime in with more exact, or better, explanation.

Sorry, I don't understand the JD acronym. But I believe Chewy65 has concisely answered what was to be my next questions. In relation to this.

I wondering if you actually meant PC 637.2 (the civil remedy).

As to why "civil remedies" are included in the Penal Code. I was under the impression that civil remedies were in the civil code.

Thanks Chewy.

But my C&P and questions were relevant to the quote of 637.2 that I posted. [went back and corrected the numerical brainfarts]. And I can now point out that you did the same in your last post.

In PC 632.7(a) the statute only used the word "injury" and the context is that they suffered a legal injury -

There is no mention of "injury/injured" in 632.7 [a]. That is from 637.2 [a]. Apparently my brainfarts are contagious.

As with most legalese discussions, oft times, answers lead to more questions.

I believe that one is free to record their front door, driveway, yards, etc without offending PC 632. But if one were to record a face to face conversation in any of those areas, then I think the door is opened for a PC 632 violation.

That makes it sound like it is OK to record a porch pirate stealing packages from your porch. But if you step out and confront the perp in verbal confrontation. You have violated their 632 privacy rights if the video is recording the confrontation.

[RickD427]

Rick, I parsed response for clarity/brevity.



Agreed, had Katz been outside the privacy afforded by the booth. He would not have had an expectancy of privacy. No more than OP's neighbor would have during a conversation in view of cameras on his property. Which is why I believe "Katz" is a poor cite for a 632 violation of OP.



OOPsy, yes you are correct. It was pc-637.2 your previous post referenced. Which I copied and pasted. I brainfarted the conflation between 632.7 with 637.2.



Sorry, I don't understand the JD acronym. But I believe Chewy65 has concisely answered what was to be my next questions. In relation to this.



As to why "civil remedies" are included in the Penal Code. I was under the impression that civil remedies were in the civil code.

Thanks Chewy.

But my C&P and questions were relevant to the quote of 637.2 that I posted. [went back and corrected the numerical brainfarts]. And I can now point out that you did the same in your last post.



There is no mention of "injury/injured" in 632.7 [a]. That is from 637.2 [a]. Apparently my brainfarts are contagious.

As with most legalese discussions, oft times, answers lead to more questions.



That makes it sound like it is OK to record a porch pirate stealing packages from your porch. But if you step out and confront the perp in verbal confrontation. You have violated their 632 privacy rights if the video is recording the confrontation.

Pacrat,

Katz didn't hold that the recording would have been permitted outside of the phone booth. But I agree with your analysis and I personally believe that if Katz had been recorded speaking in public outside of the phone booth, the decision would have gone the other way. But the key point is that you can't draw a line in the sand and claim that conversations on one side of line can be recorded, and conversations on the other side cannot be recorded. You have to look at the situation and the appearance of privacy to the parties involved.

The term "JD" is a reference to folks holding a "Juris Doctorate" degree. In other words - Lawyers. Chewy is one, I'm not. I always defer to the JDs on technical points of the law. My legal background is limited to the preparation of criminal case for trial, and in managing civil cases involving deputies under my supervision, and later in authoring department policies that were responsive to civil decisions. That background isn't always consistent with understanding the finer distinctions of civil law.

You're not alone with the "Brain Fade" stuff. I did the same thing in another thread today regarding rimfire rifles and flash hiders.

[TrailerparkTrash]

Can you provide some case citations please. I'm sure you'll find quite a few holding no expectation where the area is public. I'm looking for you to provide one holding that there can be no expectation in any public area. There's a lot of difference there.

I've followed the law in this area fairly closely and don't see it having been established to that extreme.

Let's keep in mind that the landmark case on expectation of privacy, Katz v U.S. occurred in a public phone booth.