Posted on 06/12/2007 3:33:23 PM PDT by microgood
Brian D. Kelly didn't think he was doing anything illegal when he used his videocamera to record a Carlisle police officer during a traffic stop. Making movies is one of his hobbies, he said, and the stop was just another interesting event to film.
Now he's worried about going to prison or being burdened with a criminal record.
Kelly, 18, of Carlisle, was arrested on a felony wiretapping charge, with a penalty of up to 7 years in state prison.
His camera and film were seized by police during the May 24 stop, he said, and he spent 26 hours in Cumberland County Prison until his mother posted her house as security for his $2,500 bail.
Kelly is charged under a state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent.
The criminal case relates to the sound, not the pictures, that his camera picked up.
"I didn't think I could get in trouble for that," Kelly said. "I screwed up, yeah. I know now that I can't do that. I just don't see how something like this should affect my entire life."
Whether that will happen could be determined during Kelly's preliminary hearing before District Judge Jessica Brewbaker in July.
No one seems intent on punishing him harshly.
"Obviously, ignorance of the law is no defense," District Attorney David Freed said. "But often these cases come down to questions of intent."
According to police, Kelly was riding in a pickup truck that had been stopped for alleged traffic violations.
Police said the officer saw Kelly had a camera in his lap, aimed at him and was concealing it with his hands. They said Kelly was arrested after he obeyed an order to turn the camera off and hand it over.
The wiretap charge was filed after consultation with a deputy district attorney, police said.
Kelly said his friend was cited for speeding and because his truck's bumper was too low. He said he held the camera in plain view and turned it on when the officer yelled at his pal.
After about 20 minutes, the officer cited the driver on the traffic charges and told the men they were being recorded by a camera in his cruiser, Kelly said.
"He said, 'Young man, turn off your ... camera,'¤" Kelly said. "I turned it off and handed it to him. ... Six or seven more cops pulled up, and they arrested me."
Police also took film from his pockets that wasn't related to the traffic stop, he said.
Freed said his office has handled other wiretapping cases, some involving ex-lovers or divorcing couples who are trying to record former partners doing something improper for leverage in court battles, he said.
Such charges have been dismissed or defendants have been allowed to plead to lesser counts or enter a program to avoid criminal records, he said.
The outcome hinges on whether the person had a malicious intent, Freed said.
Carlisle Police Chief Stephen Margeson said allowing Kelly to plead to a lesser charge might be proper.
"I don't think that would cause anyone any heartburn," he said. "I don't believe there was any underlying criminal intent here."
But Margeson said he doesn't regard the filing of the felony charge as unwarranted and said the officer followed procedures.
John Mancke, a Harrisburg defense attorney familiar with the wiretapping law, said the facts, as related by police, indicate Kelly might have violated the law.
"If he had the sound on, he has a problem," Mancke said.
Last year, Mancke defended a North Middleton Twp. man in a street racing case that involved a wiretapping charge. Police claimed the man ordered associates to tape police breaking up an illegal race after officers told him to turn off their cameras.
That wiretapping count was dismissed when the man pleaded guilty to charges of illegal racing, defiant trespass and obstruction of justice. He was sentenced to probation.
An exception to the wiretapping law allows police to film people during traffic stops, Mancke said.
Margeson said his department's cruisers are equipped with cameras, and officers are told to inform people during incidents that they are being recorded.
First Assistant District Attorney Jaime Keating said case law is in flux as to whether police can expect not to be recorded while performing their duties.
"The law isn't solid," Keating said. "But people who do things like this do so at their own peril."
Kelly said he has called the American Civil Liberties Union for help in the case.
His father, Chris, said he's backing his son.
"We're hoping for a just resolution," he said.
Not only should the charge be dismissed but the cop that brought it should be fired!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
The cop could have just told the kid it was against the law and warned him.
Typical, really.
Reminds me of Hillary’s use of scanners to intercept cell calls for pollitical purposes. Imagine her with the power of the US government behind her.
This is a 1st Amendment issue if there ever was one.
Were the officers jackbooted? He was videotaping his friend possibly being harassed. He had his friends permission for sound. This has BS written all over it.
I guess every surveillance camera in the state is in violation of this law. Shut them all down immediately. I did not consent on being filmed while shopping in your store.
This has POLICE STATE written all over it.
Government is certainly a force of evil, but a necessary evil. These guys are coneheads, though. Firing of those involved is in order. How stupid can they be?
Explain to me how LEOs have to obey laws meant for civilians. They are outside and above mere civilian laws, and, altho there are semi-military, do not have to obey the UCMJ. Just take your Tasering and shut up.
It can’t be a wiretap if there were no wire communications to intercept.
The problem is that the profession draws as many school yard bully types as heros. There is a too common belief amongst the big gun, little d*ck police population that laws apply differently depending on which side of the badge you are standing on. This will be the case until bad cops are no longer indemnified and protected by police departments and public employee unions.
This kid is being prosecuted for only one thing, failing to worship at the alter of the cops ego.
If a cop is not doing any thing wrong he should have nothing to fear.
Just waiting for the ‘law is the law’ bootlickers from the Genarlow threads to come explain how this kid needs to serve all 7 years too.
This could be far reaching as far as it’s impact.
So: Its ok for the police to tape your conversation,but you cant tape theirs.
This is Bovine excrement.
How can you turn off the sound on a modern video camera? Is that possible?
Lets tell it like it is. The cop saw this kid videotaping him and got PO’ed and locked the kid up. Worse, he didnt have the balls to do it alone he had to call in the troops.
Like a video vcamera made this kid a dangerous felon. 6 or 7 police cars showing up. Try getting that kind of service when a burglar is in your home. 26 hours in jail for using a video camera. His mother had to put up her house for $2600 dollar bail. What ever happened top release on personal recognizance or release to a parent without bail?
This is just another example of police getting carried away with their authority and a DA backing them up in their BS.
They are, if not specifically by law, it amounts to the same thing in general practice.
Question is: who decides and passes judgment on who is (or is not) a member of the press/media?
Press passes are handed out wholesale to the area's dominant news media by local law enforcement who want to have good PR, but it's done without requiring any actual qualifications.
The editor or news director sends up a list and they all get mug-shot ID/press passes. They don't even ask to see your driver's license. If Charles Manson were not in prison, he could get one easily.
He turned it off when he was told to do so. We’ve got too many laws on the books. And the libs are always complaining that we have too many people in jail. They are too busy arresting people for using video recorders to go after the murderers and rapists.
This case is bizarre. My understanding that here in Texas it is legal to record sound so long as at least one party is aware of it.
Hope the kid gets a break in this case, and his chances might improve if he informs his accusers that he’s in this country illegally.
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.