The Legality of Recording Police Officers and Conversations in Police Stations: A Jurisdictional Analysis and Human Rights Perspective

Abstract

The article focuses particularly on police stations and the critical role of such recordings in protecting human rights. It analyzes the balance between public accountability and law enforcement’s operational, safety, and privacy needs through a comparative study of the United States and Nepal. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution generally protects the recording of police in public spaces as a form of free speech, subject to reasonable restrictions and the non-obstruction of duties. Audio recordings are governed by varying state consent laws, although officers typically lack a reasonable expectation of privacy while on public duty. Inside a police station, recording is usually acceptable in public-access areas, but it is more difficult to justify in restricted areas. Nepal’s National Penal Code, 2074, largely prohibits recording without consent, with vague exceptions for public statements or incidental captures in public places, creating uncertainty and scope for arbitrary enforcement. The constitutional Right to Information and a “public interest” exception in the National Civil Code, 2074, potentially support such recordings, but these provisions remain judicially undefined. The article concludes that both countries grapple with balancing citizen oversight and police requirements, with Nepal’s framework hindered by definitional ambiguities and conflicts between constitutional and statutory provisions.