EDIT -
Yeah, that's right. Don't respond or disagree, just vote it down. Dear (non-existent) God, echo chambers everywhere, with just different brands of stupid.
> Don't respond or disagree, just vote it down
It's faster to produce bullshit ideas than to respond to them civilly, as anyone who has an incompetent coworker can attest to. You aren't owed anything.
A clear example here being a drone you're flying in a park. With that interpretation only law enforcement's drones' recordings would ever have a chance of being used in court. This is about protecting your right to have equal footing with law enforcement for evidence.
I would also submit that the critical factor in this case was the state's use of a hidden camera. We've already agreed that there is no problem with the FBI posting an actual agent on the steps.
Finally, this type of law applies much more to audio than to video. I am allowed to record video to my heart's content. I am only allowed to record a conversation with consent of all parties in my state. But even if I did so, no sane court would prevent me from using such a recording in my own defense.
I want to have just as much a right to record law enforcement in public as they have to record me. I'm not grasping at straws, I'm arguing for openness rather than privacy in public, which I think is a much better and more achievable outcome.
It really does depend alot on who is making the recordings and for what purpose. Incriminating evidence obtained illegally is always bared because the state is in the business of snooping into people's business and needs strict boundaries set. Exculpatory evidence collected by the neighborhood busybody can be allowed even if the recordings were made illegally.
Of course, the Busybody's lawyer may try and get it struck as admitting it would make any civil and/or criminal trial harder to defend against, but that wouldn't necessarily stop them from doing so. Makes it more complex if the Busybody is also the defendant, but then you're trading admission of guilt for a lesser offense (illegal recording) to get you off from a higher offense, like anti-trust type stuff.
And that's also assuming that the people you are recording decide they want to press charges.
Also, is evidence gathered illegally by a non-government entity inadmissible? I thought that they would use it anyway, and also prosecute the recording party for breaking that law.
"What the government did here is not unlawful only because it occurred outside a courthouse..."
The headline says illegal, but that's not what the term actually means. I know it's semantics, but the argument you appear to be making is that law enforcement broke laws here. They did not. They may have a recording that they can't use in court, but the recording itself is not illegal.
Downvoting is disagreeing here.