Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Woman, 24, faces wiretapping charge after recording her own arrest over 'drunken dispute'
dailymail ^ | 13 May 2014 | Snejana Farberov

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. She’s 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 ...


TOPICS: Humor; Local News
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 05/13/2014 8:38:41 AM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Guilty? Not guilty? photos at source


2 posted on 05/13/2014 8:39:12 AM PDT by dennisw (The first principle is to find out who you are then you can achieve anything -- Buddhist monk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

I think she did the right thing.


3 posted on 05/13/2014 8:39:51 AM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

"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."

~Thucydides




Please support Free Republic
click the pic


4 posted on 05/13/2014 8:39:55 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

She must be 24 years old, according to the article.


5 posted on 05/13/2014 8:40:33 AM PDT by Zuben Elgenubi (NOPe to GOPe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

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.


6 posted on 05/13/2014 8:44:50 AM PDT by logic101.net (How many more children must die on the altar of gun control?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

I guess they (Taxachusetts) aren’t aware of the NSA.


7 posted on 05/13/2014 8:52:53 AM PDT by BerryDingle (I know how to deal with communists, I still wear their scars on my back from Hollywood-Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

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?


8 posted on 05/13/2014 8:53:31 AM PDT by FamiliarFace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

No chance she’s guilty. Especially with a half bottle of vodka in her!


9 posted on 05/13/2014 8:58:47 AM PDT by neodad (USS Vincennes (CG-49) Freedom's Fortress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

jury nullification. Refuse to convict on the wiretap charge.


10 posted on 05/13/2014 9:10:22 AM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neodad

Don’t be fooled. She’s using “the angles.”


11 posted on 05/13/2014 9:12:40 AM PDT by bolobaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; Alaska Wolf; TexasFreeper2009; DCBryan1; Slings and Arrows; Doomonyou; oh8eleven; ...
JBT Ping list


12 posted on 05/13/2014 9:17:32 AM PDT by null and void (When was the last time you heard anyone say: "It's a free country"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: logic101.net

“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.


13 posted on 05/13/2014 9:19:01 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

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.


14 posted on 05/13/2014 9:22:09 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: logic101.net

umm, in those cases the police have gotten a warrant approved by a judge


15 posted on 05/13/2014 9:34:26 AM PDT by ghost of stonewall jackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

I agree.

Well, not the drunk and disorderly part. But I support her right to record conversations in which she is a participant.


16 posted on 05/13/2014 9:37:41 AM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido

Especially with cops and other agents of the government.


17 posted on 05/13/2014 9:45:42 AM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Amen


18 posted on 05/13/2014 9:49:26 AM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

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.


19 posted on 05/13/2014 9:56:12 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Rat Party Policy:Lie,Deny,Refuse To Comply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Doesn't matter.She could be as ugly as sin and she's *still* not guilty on the wiretap charge in this kind of situation.The law,as enforced in this case,is simply an attempt to coverup official misconduct.
20 posted on 05/13/2014 9:58:51 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Rat Party Policy:Lie,Deny,Refuse To Comply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

I don’t know why they still think that will work, any competent lab can recover the deleted file and show when it was deleted. Then, you get to add destruction of evidence to the Civil Rights violation lawsuit.


21 posted on 05/13/2014 10:27:51 AM PDT by ClayinVA ("Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: logic101.net

This is Massachusetts, they will steal your kid should your doctor not agree with another doctor...


22 posted on 05/13/2014 11:11:05 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

I understand the search warrant concept, but the law seems to have a pretty clear ban on such activity.


23 posted on 05/13/2014 4:35:28 PM PDT by logic101.net (How many more children must die on the altar of gun control?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Technically, isn’t wiretapping when you make a connection to a phone line and secretly record the conversation?

This isn’t wiretapping. It’s simply recording without all the parties knowledge and permission.


24 posted on 07/08/2014 3:26:03 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson