LA police investigating if racist recording taped illegally

[Jose Garcia]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by JudyM (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Los Angeles detectives are investigating whether a recording last year that captured city councilmembers’ racist remarks was made illegally, the police chief said Tuesday.

The recording’s disclosure earlier this month unleashed a growing scandal in the nation’s second-largest city just weeks before Election Day. The councilmembers’ bigoted discussion — laden with crude insults — laid bare the unequal representation and divided political power along racial lines in Los Angeles.

The council president, Nury Martinez, resigned in disgrace, while two other councilmembers have resisted widespread calls — from the White House down — for their ousters.

The uproar began with the release nearly two weeks ago of a previously unknown recording of a 2021 private meeting involving Martinez and Councilmen Kevin de León and Gil Cedillo, as well as powerful labor leader Ron Hererra, head of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/los-angeles-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-criminal-investigations-7718e9b6b9690d3a72ddf9060e00d7a6

[oldsoftie]

1. CA is a "two party" consent state. Unless during a criminal act

But if its something out in the open, I don't see how you could get in trouble.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

5. I don't believe both parties have to consent in a public setting,

such as filming the police in public like the 1A auditors do frequently in CA, there is no expectation of privacy in public as has been affirmed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

https://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/August-2019/Rights-and-Limits-on-Filming-in-Public-Facilities.aspx#:~:text=The%20Ninth%20Circuit%20Federal%20Court%20of%20Appeals%20first,55%20F.3d%20436%20%281995%29.%20Later%2C%20in%20Lewis%20v.

[NJCher]

2. So the consequences are

Due to laws, the person making the recording could be prosecuted.

I can understand why the council president and the others who have not resigned would like to know who made this recording. It might reveal the motive for making it.

It will not, however, change the circumstances of this situation.

I wondered whether the recording was legal when this story first came out. It should be noted that the labor union was on top of this issue, however, was ultimately unsuccessful in making it a factor for consideration.

[multigraincracker]

3. You have to beak some eggs

to make an omelet.

Get about 800 people to line up and confess.

[melm00se]

4. If they were meeting in their official capacity

it should not be subject to the 2 party consent requirement.

If, OTOH, they are meeting as private individuals, the 2 party consent requirement should apply.

[JudyM]

6. Locking

after a review by the forum hosts: investigation about the legality of the recording is not important breaking news, though the ultimate findings of the investigation may be. The racist situation was reported in LBN, most recently here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142980648
Good to repost in the General Discussion forum if you’d like.