409
Charges reduced for police officer who secretly taped colleagues’ racist remarks
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2026
409 points (99.3% liked)
News
38954 readers
2617 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You don't have to witness someone breaking an actual law to enact whistleblower protections, it can cover you when you reasonably believe there is "evidence of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation; gross mismanagement; a gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety."
So yes, this is precisely why whistleblower protections exist.
whistleblower protections don't allow you to break the law in order to gather evidence in any way that you may see fit. so it's still illegal to record your co-workers without their knowledge even if they are being racist.
so no, this isn't what whistleblower protections cover at all, which is why this person is still being charged. I hope that clears it up for you.
Police officers do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy while on the job.
Being charged does not mean you have committed a crime.
ok, so now you have abandoned your argument that this person should be afforded whistleblower protections for breaking the law and now you are arguing that they didn't break the law?
you are wrong either way. becoming a police officer doesn't automatically sacrifice ones 'reasonable expectation of privacy'.
like so many of the other redditors you're confusing how you feel the world should work with how it actually does. you can argue with me forever but you are objectively wrong about this.
Wut? When did I claim that? My original claim was that a person didn't have to witness someone breaking a law to claim whistleblower protections. It can be utilized for something as small as witnessing misconduct.
They do while they are on duty as a police officer...... They still have a expectation of privacy as when acting as a private citizen.
Think youight be projecting here......
Unfortunately US two party laws were made as a knee-jerk reaction to Nixon's wiretapping; the US doesn't deal in "expectations of privacy" like more sensible countries do.
Making an audio recording should be no different to getting out a pen and paper and making a written recording. Keeping a personal record should not be a crime. It's what you do with the recording that matters.
But that's how things should be, the law is often not right in this area. As others have said, the whistleblower broke the law here.
That's going to be decided by the judicial system. It's perfectly legal to record officers while they are on duty. The debate will be whether being on the clock and in a police station is the same as operating in their official capacity. Which I think is a pretty easy argument to make in court.
Absolutely. Like I've hinted at, the US is kind of unique in this black and white one party/two party consent structure. Other countries deal in "expectations of privacy", which is far more nuanced, and dare I say it, more sensible.
It's legal for a member of the public to record an officer on duty. There is a question of whether they are considered on duty (sounds like maybe? It was senior officers formally training other officers, not some private locker room conversation) and also whether an officer can record another. It's perhaps a different legal dynamic between a member of the public and an officer, vs two officers.
How it plays out depends on the law. Like you say, he has a strong argument against a criminal conviction - and he shouldn't really be convicted of any crime either. But it does sound like he broke the letter of the law in that jurisdiction.
But it sounds like they do allow you to record your coworkers if they're breaking a rule such as being grossly offensive about their colleagues...