The jerk who beat up the Uber driver… - Page 6

Noel7 · ‎03-09-2010

@Disneylandfan wrote:
Very sad that he was actually trying to protect himself because of his passenger's erratic behavior.

When we were looking at getting a video camera for the front door we were told by the security company that it could only record our yard and if it recorded anything about our neighbors we could be sued.

And according to the law it looks like the driver can be sued.

If you are operating in California, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording any conversation that common sense tells you might be "private" or "confidential." In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, violating the California wiretapping law can expose you to a civil lawsuit for damages by an injured party. See Cal. Penal Code § 637.2.

Now why the guy who committed an assualt is free right now seems wrong.
It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

**************************************

I can't imagine his lawyers selling the idea that his assault on the driver was private or confidential.

Say Nay · ‎03-12-2010

@Noel7 wrote:
***********************************

I can't imagine his lawyers selling the idea that his assault on the driver was private or confidential.

Exactly.

And we often see people with cell phones out recording spontaneous fights and altercations. One would think there would be dozens upon dozens of court cases against those violating CA wiretapping laws.

_____ ,,,^ ._. ^,,,_____

Disneylandfan · ‎03-10-2010

There is no expectation of privacy out in public so you can be filmed. Since this happened in a car it will be interesting to see if they say this was a private area and there was an expectation of privacy.

Without the video can the guy prove who beat him up? This will be interesting to see what the courts do with this.

Noel7 · ‎03-09-2010

BIG NEWS:

CNN reported the other night that the CA law making it illegal to tape a conversation without consent has AN EXCEPTION.

The law DOES NOT apply when taping a crime.

Noel7 · ‎03-09-2010

"Lets assume that Golden did have enough of an expectation of privacy to trigger Section 632. He misses the law's exception in Section 633.5, which allows a party to record evidence reasonably believed to relate to the commission of a crime, including a violent felony. Golden was ultimately not charged with a felony, just misdemeanor assault charges. Nevertheless, I find it unlikely that a court will split that hair."

CNN REPORT