well they're trying to say he had no right to be recording to begin with, that law however relates to audio, you don't need audio to work out the guy in the back is well at fault and nothing that could have been said would have justified what he did anyway, weasel lawyers trying to do what weasel lawyers do, would be nice if it comes before a judge with some common sense, won't hold my breath though
The article I read also referenced video as the determining factor, but conveniently did not explicitly state no audio was recorded. As noted in other posts, the law varies by state. PA requires two party consent and even if not made public, unlawful audio recording can subject you to civil action.
I'm curious if the entire recording with audio is a single entity or if video can be delineated from audio. If delineated, Golden may need to demonstrate his "damages" result from audio recording.
Golden's attorney requested the recording be barred from the criminal case. Seems to me, the recording should be in or out for both civil and criminal. I can understand you can't use illegally obtained evidence to establish criminal activity, but I don't understand how damages can be established by unlawful exposure of criminal activity. If the recording is unlawful, that would exempt the driver's insurance company from covering the incident. Since an Uber driver is unlikely to own assets worthy of Golden's attorney fees, his suit appears a fruitless pursuit.
The driver would be in a better position if a sticker notifying passengers of recording was in the video.
Either way, this will be good for dashcams. Since law enforcement increasingly use them, in the US they're not going away and the more people know, the more wary they will be of conduct and the more they will be installed.
I also think Uber and the like won't last. Since cab's pay fees to municipalities and are subject to regulation for safety and conduct, I suspect lawmakers will close the digital gap.