The Washington Privacy Act prohibiting unwarned recordings does not apply to law enforcement bodycams and dash cams. “Conversations with uniformed, on-duty law enforcement officers are typically not private conversations.” State v. Clayton, 2019 Wash. App. LEXIS 2930 (Nov. 19, 2019):
¶22 Conversations with uniformed, on-duty law enforcement officers are typically not private conversations. Flora, 68 Wn. App. 802, 845 P.2d 1355; Lewis, 157 Wn.2d 446, 139 P.3d 1078. People understand that information they provide to officers conducting an investigation is going to turn up in written police reports and may be reported in court along with the observations made by the officers. Mr. Clayton never expressed a subjective belief that the conversations were private and no officer could claim such an interest. Flora, 68 Wn. App. 802, 845 P.2d 1355. The conversations took place in his apartment, a place where he had some subjective expectation of privacy, but they also occurred in the presence of five others. The subject matter of the visit—a report of a gun being fired and subsequent search for the weapon—was not a private one. The relationship between the parties, investigators and the person being investigated, was not a personal one and does not suggest that the conversation was a private one. In sum, the Clark factors indicate that no private conversations took place within the meaning of the Privacy Act. The trial court correctly recognized that only when the police arrested Mr. Clayton did the provisions of RCW 9.73.090(1)(b) come into play. There was no reasonable expectation that the investigation involved a private matter. Modica, 164 Wn.2d at 88. The trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.