Skip to comments.Woman Charged With Wiretapping Because She Dared To Record The Cops
Posted on 05/12/2014 8:54:53 AM PDT by Impala64ssa
A Massachusetts woman with the good sense to record her cop encounter on her cell phone is now facing felony wiretapping charges because she did not inform the officers that they were being recordedsomething state law requires.
Karen Dziewit was drinking outside an apartment building in Springfield, Massachusetts on Saturday night. Residents complained that she was yelling at them and refused to calm down.
The responding officers decided to arrest 24-year-old Dziewit for causing a disturbance. Just before she was taken into custody, however, she activated the recording feature on her phone. Eventually, police searched her purse and discovered that the phone was recording.
Dziewit will now be charged with felony wiretapping, according to masslive.com.
Her mistake? She didnt inform the cops that her cell phone was recording them.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
1-Not wiretapping, which consists of intercepting wired (or wireless as in cellular phones) communications between two (or more ) recipients without their knowledge.
2-Public area. No expectation of privacy.
She chose to remain in Taxatwoshits, so whatever her masters do to her she and her ilk voted for.
Don't forget the liberal's highest article of faith: "It's not Fascism when we do it"
Looks like she just won the "sue the idiot cops who don't know the law" lottery.
Oh and here is another case: http://aclum.org/news_3.27.12 Payout: $170,000 (The first one I posted was about Illinois because something similar just happened there and I confused the stories.)
Need more evidence to judge guilt or innocence
Two great points. Hope her lawyer lays it on.
Does the fact that she had her phone “secreted” in her purse make this case different?
“The settlement follows a landmark ruling last August by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, declaring that the First Amendment protects the right to record police carrying out their duties in a public place, Glik v. Cunniffe 655 F.3d 78 (2011). The First Circuit’s ruling is binding only in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico, but its persuasive reasoning has been cited by courts and lawyers nationwide facing the recurrent issue of police arresting people for filming them.
The Massachusetts wiretap statute prohibits only secret recording of audio. The First Circuit in Glik’s case affirmed that an arrest under the statute for openly recording the police would violate not only the First Amendment right to gather information but also the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against false arrests.
“The law had been clear for years that openly recording a video is not a crime. It’s sad that it takes so much for police to learn the laws they were supposed to know in the first place. I hope Boston police officers will never again arrest someone for openly recording their public actions,” said Glik.”
(what you said in #2)
And that would matter, in a sane, Constitutional nation / state.
Springfield is a toilet.
I’ve been there a number of times and I’m not a fan of it, either.
If she was tipsy, she might have done it by accident.
In NYC, the difference between a liberal and a conservative is one mugging. Let’s hope this Massachusetts gal is now a conservative as well, having experienced what liberal governance hath wrought.