The next dance will be there on June 4th. I wish I could be there in person.

Still not sure why they danced there years ago, and why they passed an anti-dancing law for that place.

Does that mean that no-dancing laws will be passed in Oregon too? I mean, Oregon has a need to "preserve decorum" also. Maybe the first place could be the Men's Bathroom in City Hall.

Next come the Church Police. "Hey! He ain't prayin' right! Taze 'im!"

It’s illegal in Oregon to videotape the police, but this isn’t the case in every state. The Oregon law needs to be challenged in court.

It’s illegal in Oregon to videotape the police, but this isn’t the case in every state. The Oregon law needs to be challenged in court.
Citation please

"It’s illegal in Oregon to videotape the police, ..."
===

I think Bee is referring to audio recording of two or more people (not just police) w/o at least one of them consenting. Of course, video may or may not have audio enabled. But if you engage (in conversation) an LE officer while video-ing, it is no longer two others without their permission, it is you as well, recording your conversation with them. That my understanding of the related law. I would like a citation as well.

The best recourse, is to always have a video recorder going when dealing with police, that way your family and friends will have something to show at your funeral.

Harry is correct that if you are a participant in the police activity being videotaped (you are being questioned, or arrested, or are otherwise engaged with the officer(s)) your own "consent" clears any legal hurdle. In cases in which you are strictly an observer recording the event, as the Beaverton city attorney outlined in this memo, courts have found that Oregonians are in violation of the wiretapping law only when the parties they are taping have an expectation of privacy, which in most ciizen-police encounters would not exist.

Sorry, I am not a lawyer and it appears this matter is complicated and evolving. And yes, it is the audio on a recording that that the courts have given clear(est) signals on; since videocameras also pick up audio, in the interest of brevity I wrote “it’s illegal to videotape police.”

I can’t remember where I originally read about Oregon’s laws, but on a quick internet search, numerous articles list Oregon as one of the states that prohibits (audio) recording without everyone’s consent. Here are two from 2011:

http://www.myjournalcourier.com/articles/officer-32199-videotaping-police.html

http://www.dailytech.com/Chicago+Police+Tape+Us+Get+Sentenced+to+15+Years+in+Prison/article20735.htm

And, to show you how complicated the matter still is, I quote verbatim from an article on January 30, 2011 in the “Yolo Judicial Watch”--

http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4053:videotaping-police-valuable-oversight-of-potential-misconduct-or-unlawful-wiretapping&Itemid=100

“Illinois is one of only a few states, including Massachusetts and Oregon, where it is illegal to record audio of conversations that take place in public settings without the permission of everyone involved.



In Oregon, it is not illegal to record conversations that take place in public settings because they would not have an expectation of privacy. This issue was clarified in a memo from the Beaverton City Attorney last month that was distributed to police departments, which didn’t stop a certain police chief to vow continuing arresting people videotaping officers in public.”
(end)

As I read it, the article directly contradicts itself, stating first that it is illegal and then that it is NOT illegal in Oregon to record!

I appreciate Harry and Pete’s clarification, and hope the matter is indeed settled in Oregon that there should be no expectation of privacy in police-citizen encounters.