Skip to comments.Woman, 24, faces wiretapping charge after recording her own arrest over 'drunken dispute'
Posted on 05/13/2014 8:38:41 AM PDT by dennisw
Woman, 24, faces WIRETAPPING charge after recording her own arrest over 'drunken dispute'
Springfield, Massachusetts, police officers say Karen Dziewit threatened to get them fired during her arrest on disorderly conduct charge The 24-year-old woman claimed to be a 'law student' and screamed at police that she will see them in court Dziewit turned on voice recorder feature on her smartphone and hid it in her purse along with empty half-pint of vodka
A 24-year-old Massachusetts woman was charged with unlawful wiretapping after secretly recording her arrest for disorderly conduct.
The Springfield Police Department accused Karen Dziewit of drinking outside a building at about 2am Sunday. Shes also accused of yelling and disturbing residents and refusing to quiet down.
When the 24-year-old Dziewit was about to be taken into custody, police say she turned on a recording feature on her smartphone, hid it in her purse and captured her arrest.
Ms Dziewit was charged with unlawful wiretapping, disorderly conduct and an open container violation.
On Monday, the Chicopee resident was arraigned and released on her own recognizance. She is due back in court July 8 for a pre-trial hearing.
Under a Massachusetts state law, it is illegal to record someone's voice without the person's knowledge or permission.
Chapter 272, Section 99 of the General Laws states that it is against the law 'to secretly hear......
It is illegal to record conversations in Massachusetts without knowledge or consent of all parties
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Guilty? Not guilty? photos at source
I think she did the right thing.
"The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision
of what is before them, glory and danger alike,
and yet notwithstanding, go out to meet it."
She must be 24 years old, according to the article.
Under a Massachusetts state law, it is illegal to record someone’s voice without the person’s knowledge or permission.
If that law applied to the police they would have a hard time doing any wire taps in MA. But as in most cases I am sure the govt exempted itself from the law.
I guess they (Taxachusetts) aren’t aware of the NSA.
If you are in a public place, then why is two-party consent needed? Any schmo on the street could have been recording her arrest. Isn’t the idea that she was being disorderly evidence that this had gotten loud?
No chance she’s guilty. Especially with a half bottle of vodka in her!
jury nullification. Refuse to convict on the wiretap charge.
Don’t be fooled. She’s using “the angles.”
“But as in most cases I am sure the govt exempted itself from the law.”
I’m sure they have to get warrants for wiretaps, just like anywhere else.
Judges routinely throw these laws out if they come to court. The standard practice is for the police to use the law to arrest the person and get their phone, then they can delete the evidence. Then, the DAs decline to prosecute, so the case never gets in front of a judge who can throw out the law.
umm, in those cases the police have gotten a warrant approved by a judge
Well, not the drunk and disorderly part. But I support her right to record conversations in which she is a participant.
Especially with cops and other agents of the government.
My sister,who lives there,mentioned this to me,She said that if she’s on the jury she’s voting “not guilty”.And so would I.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.