BEAVERTON -- If you pull out your cell phone or digital camera and record the voice of a Beaverton police officer, odds are you won't be arrested.

But, just know, you also could be handcuffed and taken to jail. It's up to the officer and his or her interpretation of

.

That's the advice from

Chief Geoff Spalding, who this week clarified his department's stance on the recording of law enforcement after a $19,000 settlement with an Aloha man that ended a federal lawsuit against the city of Beaverton and one of its police officers.

The settlement comes almost two years after Beaverton police arrested

and seized his cell phone because he recorded officers arresting his friend at a bowling alley. A

prompted city attorneys to advise the

that officers generally do not have the right to seize cameras or arrest people for recording them in public, except in rare circumstances.

Spalding said Oregon's eavesdropping statutes, ORS 165.540 and ORS 165.543, are complex and intended to ensure privacy. Spalding said he believes his officers can arrest people who record officers' private conversations without permission. But the likelihood of arrest, Spalding said, "is pretty low."

"That is a technical violation of the law. That doesn't mean there's going to be an arrest," Spalding said.

In fact, the Vang incident is the only time Beaverton officials can recall arresting someone under Oregon's eavesdropping laws, Spalding said. In that instance, city prosecutors decided not to pursue charges against Vang -- not because they thought the law had been misapplied, they said at the time, but because the audio quality of the recording was poor and may not have constituted a legal violation.

On Aug. 27, 2008, Vang used his cell phone to capture the arrest of one of his friends at the

in Beaverton. Vang made no attempt to hide his recording and even narrated what he was capturing, said Vang's attorney, Kevin Lucey.

"He kept on saying, 'Don't worry. I've got it on tape,'" Lucey said.

After about 10 minutes, Officer Jason Buelt seized Vang's phone and arrested Vang. The city did not return Vang's phone until Oct. 22, when the file had been erased. Lucey said officials made copies of the recording but Buelt deleted the original from the phone before it was returned.

Spalding said a professional standards investigation sustained an allegation that Buelt should not have deleted the file. Spalding said Buelt, now a detective, was disciplined for the violation but Spalding declined to provide details.

Spalding said he believes the $19,000 settlement, approved June 2, is reasonable. Vang originally sought about $190,000. The settlement and an additional $41,500 in outside legal expenses will be paid through the city's insurance carrier, city spokeswoman Amy Miner said.

After Vang's arrest, Beaverton attorneys wrote

addressing the laws.

In one instance, they determined the law might be broken if there is an expectation of privacy, but that in most police-resident encounters there is no expectation of privacy.

In another, they decided, holding out a cell phone is enough notice that an officer's conversation is being recorded and in most instances would not violate the law. Police officers should "assume at all times that you are being recorded," the memo said.

Spalding said officers haven't received any additional training or guidance since being briefed by attorneys. "One incident in the department's historical memory didn't arise to the level that this is something we need to address," he said.

In Portland, lawyers quickly addressed the issue of recording police officers after Mike Tabor threatened to sue the city in 2008. Like Vang, authorities seized his camera and he was cited for violating the state's eavesdropping law. The Multnomah County district attorney's office declined to prosecute Tabor.

The law would be violated, a Portland city attorney later told Tabor, "only when there is surreptitious or unwanted recording under circumstances justifying an expectation that there be no recording." Officials vowed to address any problems with the interpretation of the law.

In Beaverton, the legal process has taken a toll on Vang, who lives in Aloha with his wife and children. Vang's attorney said the 29-year-old does not want to discuss his settlement and hopes to put the incident behind him.

Vang's legal bills exceeded his settlement with the city, Lucey said, but Vang will receive some money because Lucey is reducing some fees.

Not very many people understand Oregon's eavesdropping laws, Lucey said. Vang didn't know he might be arrested for recording police, Lucey said. Others probably wouldn't know it, either.

"Get the Legislature to fix the problem," Lucey said. "Get the police to stop enforcing (the law) against just them. Those two things would go a long ways."

--