Goodrich- Private conversations allegedly recorded in a public arena recently sparked a myriad of debate following a village meeting.
It’s common for government meetings to be recorded on video or audio to be broadcast at a later time. On a national level for the past 35 years, C-SPAN has made government more open to the American public, broadcasting political proceedings in millions of households.
Similarly, local government proceedings are also recorded and often broadcast via the internet or public cable stations.
On June 8 the village council government recordings came under scrutiny following a two hour plus meeting.
‘Upon the adjournment of this meeting tonight, those with video and audio recording devices’without permission? no longer will you be able to, you don’t, you will not have the consent to record anyone on the village property. It’s a violation of their constitutional rights… this is a public building without their permission. You would not want it in your workplace, you wouldn’t want it in your home. I’ve had complaints.?
The statement issued by Mark Baldwin, council president, stems from an incident where a village employee was allegedly questioned following a meeting while a tape recorder was running.
A week later, on June 15, Baldwin clarified his earlier statement, saying, ‘We don’t need another lawsuit. It was never my intention to have people stop recording meetings. A lot of times the conversations happen outside the building after the meeting is over. Those personal conversations could have easily been recorded without permission. It was upon adjournment of the meeting that everyone should be careful they are not being recorded without their knowledge.?
More than two hours of video from the village meeting was uploaded on a Facebook page titled, Get Up for Goodrich. The comment touched off a firestorm of challenges from media and those at the meeting claiming free speech rights were challenged.
‘I was simply trying to the protect the residents,? he added. ‘The story was sensationalized by the media. I never received a phone call for clarification or any follow-up until the next week.?
Baldwin’s concern for private conversation in a public forum is an issue that courts have grappled with for many years.
Patrick Wright, director of the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation, a public interest law firm that advances
individual freedoms and the rule of law in Michigan, called the village speech situation a reasonable expectation of privacy issue.
‘So just how private is a village council room?? asked Wright. ‘I would expect that following a village meeting if someone is walking out to their car to go home it is more private than within the council room or building. But it’s very murky and there is no definitive answer to just where a conversation is private and where it’s not.?
Wright referred to a Michigan Supreme Court case where the reasonable expectation of privacy as an element of privacy law that determines in which places and in which activities a person has a legal right to privacy.
The case refers to the general locale of the meeting’in which the plaintiff was backstage of the Joe Louis Arena during a concert and the court asked could the individual have reasonably expected that their conversation be free from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance? The court ruled that although a reasonable expectation of privacy is generally a question of fact, no such question reasonably exists in this case.
No further details of the incident that prompted the statement by Baldwin were shared. However, on occasion the village meetings are recorded by the broadcast media and on Monday night a cameraman from WNEM TV5 was in attendance.
‘We were not impacted by the village council president’s statement,? said Phillip Hendrix, WNEM TV5 assistant news director.
‘We spoke with the village leader and in fact we did a story with him. We were able to do all we wanted to do. We have no issues with the village.?