Jun 14, 2002 3 min read

Say you wanted to get the goods on somebody, and you planned to confront them. But if you were doing it alone, who would ever believe you? So you think, “I know, I’ll tape record it.” Well if you do that in Pennsylvania, you’d be the one heading for trouble. State law prohibits anyone from making audio recordings of private conversations unless all parties grant permission.

This means that a reporter can’t tape an interview without the interviewee’s permission. In some states the restriction isn’t as tough, and as long as one party to the conversation knows a tape is running then it is legal. This is why a former publisher that I worked for in Tennessee had a recorder attached to his phone that he clicked on when ever someone angry over something I wrote called to scream at him to do something to stop me from digging or they’d sue.

But Pennsylvania is different. I recall once that a nice group of choir ladies from Chicago were brought in by the state attorney general’s office to testify in Commonwealth Court.

Along with their dresses and pumps, they packed a phone tape they had made that they thought would be dandy evidence. The look of horror on the face of the assistant attorney general when one popped it out of her suitcase was priceless.

Otherwise good, strong criminal cases have been lost on issues of illegal wiretapping. The law prohibits police from tapping phones and bugging rooms unless a court, convinced by a compelling argument, agrees that such a step is necessary to investigate a crime.

Without a court order, and even then sometimes that is not enough to keep a case intact through prosecution, audio taping is forbidden.

Visual or videotaping is different. Basically, it’s the whatever is in plain sight is fair game rule.

You might recall that a few years ago state police began mounting video cameras in patrol cars to document encounters during traffic stops. The taping was hailed as being protective of both the troopers and the drivers.

As rare as it is, there are still rogue police officers who might get a little rougher than need be who would think twice about doing so if a camera was recording the process.

Also the tapes protect officers from false accusations from those who claimed they were roughed up or mishandled when it simply did not occur. The videos can settle what used to be he -said, she-said arguments by showing whose story is credible.

But what about foul, abusive language? What about one party saying that a situation that turned physical was preceded by fighting words if the tape is nothing more than a silent movie?

Legislation, signed into law this week by Gov. Schweiker, will now allow for talking picture shows. This gives police needed leeway that will protect both officers from false excessive force claims and suspects from actual mistreatment.

And it doesn’t violate anyone’s civil rights. The recording equipment will be in marked cruisers, with uniformed officers making the stops who must inform the drivers that a tape is running. There can’t be anyone old enough to operate a vehicle who doesn’t know already that anything you say to a cop can be used against you. What difference does it make if it’s on tape or in an officer’s recall?

Most people, who haven’t done something foolish such as scream obscenities at a trooper, would have fewer complaints with an accurate recording rather than a potential foe’s recall.

Luanne Traud is the Herald-Standard’s editorial page editor. E-mail: ltraud@heraldstandard.com.