Sharon Valley (DNR) range incident

[Hammurabi]

    I was at the Sharon Valley range with some family, and had a disagreement with the range officer. I'm told he is a range officer, although he is not an armed conservation officer like the two gentlemen who arrived later. Toward the end of the discussion, he threatened to shut down the range and said that he could get someone in to "fix [me] up" real quick. Some time later, the first conservation officer arrived and had a chat with the range officers. Purely by coincidence, I was on my way out of the range at that time, followed by a man equipped with a recording device and permission to record any conversations to which I am a party for the day. I was stopped by the conservation officer, and had a small conversation before we resumed walking. A few yards from my car, he said something to the note of "you can stop walking." I politely declined. Upon hearing this, he shouted that I needed to stop walking right that moment. A county Sheriff deputy pulled in around the time the CO was gesturing (behind my back) just where I needed to stop and got out of his car in time to hear me explaining that "you can stop" is a permissive statement rather than a lawful order, and that I had acted on it as such. Once the deputy was present, the CO became less aggressive and more professional. We had a chat. After a while, another CO arrived. We also had a chat.

    Once the COs had had a chance to talk to each other, the range officer, and me, they approached me again and explained that a range officer's idea of safety trumps any rights or laws and mentioned that DNR ranges are essentially private property. On the way out, I glanced back to see that the range officer had adopted a much less dominant stance than he had maintained during the rest of the incident.

    The unsafe condition was my nephew firing a .45 Colt, loaded with one round at a time, under very close supervision. I had my hands around his the first time, and around/above the revolver the second time. Once the officer identified the controlled, now-unloaded pistol as unsafe, this was discontinued. Apparently they shut down about 20 minutes early, after I had left the range and been stopped in the parking lot.

I'm three for three at this range with that officer, so it might be time to step up the search for other venues in the Jackson area.

[TheQ]

When exactly was this. How old is your nephew?

[Hammurabi]

I'm not sure exactly what time, but this was Sunday afternoon. (2012-03-25)
My nephew is six.

[Shyster]

    I was at the Sharon Valley range with some family, and had a disagreement with the range officer. I'm told he is a range officer, although he is not an armed conservation officer like the two gentlemen who arrived later. Toward the end of the discussion, he threatened to shut down the range and said that he could get someone in to "fix [me] up" real quick. Some time later, the first conservation officer arrived and had a chat with the range officers. Purely by coincidence, I was on my way out of the range at that time, followed by a man equipped with a recording device and permission to record any conversations to which I am a party for the day. I was stopped by the conservation officer, and had a small conversation before we resumed walking. A few yards from my car, he said something to the note of "you can stop walking." I politely declined. Upon hearing this, he shouted that I needed to stop walking right that moment. A county Sheriff deputy pulled in around the time the CO was gesturing (behind my back) just where I needed to stop and got out of his car in time to hear me explaining that "you can stop" is a permissive statement rather than a lawful order, and that I had acted on it as such. Once the deputy was present, the CO became less aggressive and more professional. We had a chat. After a while, another CO arrived. We also had a chat.

    Once the COs had had a chance to talk to each other, the range officer, and me, they approached me again and explained that a range officer's idea of safety trumps any rights or laws and mentioned that DNR ranges are essentially private property. On the way out, I glanced back to see that the range officer had adopted a much less dominant stance than he had maintained during the rest of the incident.

    The unsafe condition was my nephew firing a .45 Colt, loaded with one round at a time, under very close supervision. I had my hands around his the first time, and around/above the revolver the second time. Once the officer identified the controlled, now-unloaded pistol as unsafe, this was discontinued. Apparently they shut down about 20 minutes early, after I had left the range and been stopped in the parking lot.

I'm three for three at this range with that officer, so it might be time to step up the search for other venues in the Jackson area.

For the record, you need to take a closer look at the eavesdropping statutes.

[TheQ]

Michigan is a single party consent state. Sounds like one party knew the conversation was being recorded and consented.

Could you reference a statute for our reading?

[Shyster]

Michigan is a single party consent state. Sounds like one party knew the conversation was being recorded and consented.

Could you reference a statute for our reading?

Phil, you are correct.  Michigan IS a single-party consent state.  The problem is that you cannot "give permission" to someone not part of the conversation to record the conversation.  To record a conversation you must be a party to the conversation.  The friend could be charged with and convicted of eavesdropping per the OP's description

[northofnowhere]

I thought all conversations with law enforcement officers was considered public and not requiring consent?

[TheQ]

I was hoping -- someone -- anyone would look up the law and give us a cite so we could all read.

[Shyster]

I was hoping -- someone -- anyone would look up the law and give us a cite so we could all read.

(sigh)

750.539a Definitions.

Sec. 539a.

As used in sections 539a to 539i:

(1) “Private place” means a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance but does not include a place to which the public or substantial group of the public has access.

(2) “Eavesdrop” or “eavesdropping” means to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse. Neither this definition or any other provision of this act shall modify or affect any law or regulation concerning interception, divulgence or recording of messages transmitted by communications common carriers.

(3) “Surveillance” means to secretly observe the activities of another person for the purpose of spying upon and invading the privacy of the person observed.

(4) “Person” means any individual, partnership, corporation or association.

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-539a

[TheQ]

Is a conversation held in a public place with a tone loud enough to be heard by someone nearby a private conversation?

See 539c. 539c only addresses private conversations

539d only applies to private places.

[Shyster]

Is a conversation held in a public place with a tone loud enough to be heard by someone nearby a private conversation?

See 539c. 539c only addresses private conversations

539d only applies to private places.

That could very well end up being a question for twelve of your peers. 

[TheQ]

Is that a question of law of a question of fact?

Sounds like this is turning into a good discussion for the mostly lay legal beagle section of MGO.

[Shyster]

Is that a question of law of a question of fact?

Sounds like this is turning into a good discussion for the mostly lay legal beagle section of MGO.

I am unaware of any Michigan case law on point.  YMMV.

[TheQ]

The state Supreme Court stated in a July 1999 ruling that a participant in a conversation “may not unilaterally nullify other participants’ expectations of privacy by secretly broadcasting the conversation” and that the overriding inquiry should be whether the parties “intended and reasonably expected that the conversation was private.” Therefore, it is likely that a recording party may not broadcast a recorded conversation without the consent of all parties. Dickerson v. Raphael, 601 N.W.2d 108 (Mich. 1999).
It is a felony to observe, photograph or eavesdrop on a person in a private place without the person’s consent. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539d. A private place is a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from intrusion or surveillance, but not a place where the public has access. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539a.

http://www.rcfp.org/can-we-tape/michigan

Of course, poorly written laws are always open to interpretation