Florida Dem arrested while investigating broken election laws

[booley]

I am not going to comment on the legality of this. I really don't know. But I was wondering if anybody had heard of this?

A state political candidate, fresh out of jail Tuesday after a controversial arrest by the Alachua police department, said he has solid evidence that the recent Alachua election was run improperly and that numerous election laws were broken.

Charles Grapski, a candidate for the State House of Representatives, also said that he plans to aggressively pursue legal action against the city for arresting him at Alachua City Hall Monday just after he finished inspecting public records.
................
Grapski was taken away from Alachua City Hall in handcuffs Monday morning after being charged with illegally taping a conversation he had the previous Friday with City Manager Clovis Watson Jr. The charge is a 3rd-degree felony.

Grapski, who is running for state office against Alachua City Commissioner Bonnie Burgess and who had filed a lawsuit against the city early last week, said the city's decision to arrest him should cause concern among anybody wanting to challenge the city.

"They came after me with a vengeance," Grapski said. "That's why people in Alachua keep silent."

Grapski was released Monday night on his own recognizance.

Here' the original new item.. http://highspringsherald.com/articles/2006/05/04/news/news01.txt

And the blog where I heard of this that has a comment from Grapsky himself...http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2006/5/6/14628/33428

[hpot]

1. Interesting

He must have some interesting stories to share.

[nosillies]

2. Previous discussion very interesting...

link

[BrklynLiberal]

3. Intimidation. Intimidation. Intimidation. Intimidation.

Anyone who wants to get to the truth will be persecuted!

[Benhurst]

4. We need to keep this story out there. Recommended NT

[Viva_La_Revolution]

5. Florida requires all-party consent when recording a converstion

He really should have checked the law. :(

It's important to understand the difference between what has become known as one party consent and two party or all party consent. One party consent simply means that one party to the conversation must have knowledge and give consent to the recording. Two party or all party consent means that every party to the conversation must have knowledge and give consent to the recording.

There are twelve states that require all party consent. They are:

California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Montana
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Washington

http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.recordlaw.html

[William769]

6. You beat me to it.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

7. statute - looks like it will just be a misdemeaner charge...

Fla. Stat. ch. 934.03: All parties must consent to the recording or the disclosure of the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication in Florida. Recording or disclosing without the consent of all parties is a felony, unless the interception is a first offense committed without any illegal purpose, and not for commercial gain, or the communication is the radio portion of a cellular conversation. Such first offenses and the interception of cellular communications are misdemeanors. State v. News-Press Pub. Co., 338 So. 2d 1313 (1976), State v. Tsavaris, 394 So. 2d 418 (1981).

Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of "oral communication," Fla. Stat. ch. 934.02.

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

However, the second paragraph "reasonable expectation of privacy" I wonder if that applies? A conversation with a public official, unless that official says it's off the record, should be a matter of public welfare.

[AndyTiedye]

8. I Think It Could Be Argued That There Was Consent

If someone puts a tape recorder on the table between us and turns it on before starting an interview,
I think a reasonable argument could be made that it was consentual.

[1monster]

9. There was even a discussion about the fact that there was a tape

recorder on at the time of the conversation.

If the other party didn't want to be recorded, he could have said so and refused to continue the conversation until it was turned off.

I, too, have to say that consent was implied.

[hpot]

11. reasonable expectation of privacy

It is a constitutional right that exists more at home than in the public.

For example: Police can legally record what suspects say while held in custody. Some patrol cars contain hidden microphones which have been used against detained suspects. It has been challenged and upheld in the courts. State v. Smith, 641 So.2d 849, 851-852 (Fla.1994)

Does this public official have a reasonable expectation of privacy? I doubt it.

Federal courts interpreting the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution have held that a citizen has a significantly lower legitimate expectation of privacy in a place of business open to the public then he has in the privacy of his home. See U.S. v. Reyes, 595 F.2d 275 (5th Cir.1979); see also, U.S. v. Glasgow, 658 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir.1981).

[hpot]

12. addition

The law was clearly established that § 934.03 ""protects only those "oral communications' uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation of privacy under circumstances reasonably justifying such an expectation.'' FInciarrano, 447 So. 2d 1275 (emphasis by court). Also, the law was well established that the constitutional protection of a citizen's right of privacy in one's home , ""does not extend to office or place of business.'' Morningstar v. State, 428 So. 2d 220, 220 (Fla. 1982).

There are more circumstances involved such as surrounding environment and participants which can affect reasonable expectation of privacy.

[Pierre.Suave]

10. We should not

let this story get away.

[Pierre.Suave]

13. Kicked,

this story needs to be known.