Maybe they don't want to be filmed because they don't like how they look on camera.
Posted on 06/04/2010 5:42:25 AM PDT by marktwain
In a column last month I wrote about Anthony Graber, a Maryland man who was arrested for posting a video of a traffic stop to YouTube. Graber was pulled over on his motorcycle by Maryland State Trooper Joseph David Ulher. Uhler drew his gun during the stop. Graber was wearing a camera on his helmet. Graber thought Uhler's actions were excessive, so he posted the video to the Internet. Days later, police raided the home of Graber's parents. Graber was arrested, booked, and jailed. He was charged with violating Maryland's wiretapping statute. In an interview he gave to blogger Carlos Miller shortly after, Graber said, "The judge who released me looked at the paperwork and said she didn’t see where I violated the wiretapping law."
In my previous column, I interpreted that to mean the judge had dropped the charge. Apparently that isn't the case. Graber is due in court next week. He faces up to five years in prison. State's Attorney Joseph Cassilly has also charged Graber with "Possession of an Interception Device." That "device" would be Graber's otherwise-perfectly-legal video camera. -----------------------------cut-----------------------------
Now we have another video of an arrest during the Preakness Stakes in which a Baltimore police officer can be heard telling the camera-holder, "Do me a favor and turn that off. It's illegal to record anybody's voice or anything else in the state of Maryland."
That simply isn't true, and it's outrageous that Maryland law enforcement keeps perpetuating this myth. Perhaps that officer was merely misinformed. But Maryland police spokesmen and prosecutors are giving the impression that the state's wiretapping law is ambiguous about recording on-duty police officers. It really isn't. They've just chosen to interpret it that way, logic and common sense be damned.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
The Peoples Republik Of Maryland
Yet Arizona gets all the negative attention.
The cops don’t understand the the Bill of Rights because it doesn’t have a creme filling or icing.....................
Amen
There are about a million illegals in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Martyrland(DPRM), how about putting the same effort into getting them?
Maryland also went after Linda Tripp.
Taping a private phone call, without knowlege of the other parties SHOULD be a crime.
Taping in public, where there is no expectation of privacy, however ...
Life in a liberal state. Liberals are violent thugs.
Maybe they don't want to be filmed because they don't like how they look on camera.
I live in a one party consent state...you don't need the permission of the other person to tape a phone call, and it doesn't seem to be particularly abused.
Like I need any more reasons to leave this liberal cesspool called Merryland, home of political corruption!
I keep expecting MD to send out Fart inspectors to tax those in MD bold enough to allow passage of methane from their own bodies!
I got stopped the other day for a seat belt violation.I live in Maryland.
The first thing the officer said when he came to my door was that I was being videotaped . He didnt seek my permission.
Why is it ok for them to videotape me, but I am not supposed to videotape them.
It is just another brick in the Police State wall they are building. Kinda makes me wonder if they were wearing their wannabee SWAT gear when they raided this mans parents home.
“...send out Fart inspectors to tax those in MD bold enough to allow passage of methane from their own bodies!”
they sorta already do...a RHINOCrat governor named Bob Erlich passed the famous Maryland “Toilet tax”...
http://www.capecog.com/capecog/2010/01/klimmboogs-committee-on-hooey-and-tina-careys-toilet-tax.html
Sure, but not in that state (Maryland?).
The law is the law, wether it is an ass or not.
Taping a private phone call, without knowlege of the other parties SHOULD be a crime.
Just smile, and say "I don't mind if you don't mind."
There are eleven states where it is illegal to audio or video record a conversation without the permission of all parties involved. Maryland is one of them.
The Left thinks the People work for them, not vice-versa.
if it is illegal to record cops in the performance of their duties, are they using dash cams?
Law enforcement officers are public servants, ACCOUNTABLE to the public.
It should be a prosecutable offense for anyone representing himself as law enforcement to hide his identity or to disallow the recording of the interaction between himself and the public.
“There are eleven states where it is illegal to audio or video record a conversation without the permission of all parties involved. Maryland is one of them.”
I believe that you are correct about the eleven states, but the Maryland law only makes it illegal to audio or video record private conversations without the consent of all parties, not public acts of public officials. The article makes that point, I recall.
If one person knows it is being recorded and the other person doesn't the recorder can moderate their behavior and responses to make the person being recorded look bad. I agree with the poster you replied to.
***I call BS on that. If you can’t stand by what you say, you should be called on it. I firmly believe that if it would embarrass you to have it on the front page tomorrow morning, then you shouldn’t be doing it.***
How about when an insurance salesman phones and asks you personal questions in order to determine what your payments would be? Do you want your answers about health, etc. to be on the front page the next morning?
These sentences apply to so many administrations, in so many jurisdictions right now... It's disturbing and sad.
What ever happened to America?
Good line!
read
Oops I meant for that to say “related post.”
Did his camera touch the wires of a telephone circuit?
Police officers have cameras on their cars to videotape people that they pull over so why can’t citizens have cameras to film as well? It seems like a certain group want complete CONTROL over what, when, how and who they film. Just an opinion.
I don’t know about Maryland’s laws, but in general it is legal to film anything in a public place. I’d say the road counts.
Last week, I saw a woman in what looked like about a 1975 BMW get pulled over for a two-lane swerve to the right. The cop was right on her and pulled her over.
As soon as she stopped and before the cop got out of his car, she jumped out and took a photograph of his car and got back in her car and waited for him.
Never saw that before.
Utter and complete BS. Maryland needs to be taken to task for this. They’ve hidden behind this ‘wiretapping’ law for far too long.
Ditto here...it's the way it should be.
Good Lord! Regarding that picture: I can just imagine that Fatso in a foot chase.
Oh GOD! A police officer that looks like the Michelin man should be put on desk duty until he/she slims down. If I saw a cop in uniform looking like that, I could never take him/her seriously. That’s just disgraceful!
Don't know about the "chase" part, but the getting caught part would be smashing! Ouch!
OK, so let’s see....
How about surveillance cams, security cams, dashboard cams, traffic cams, news cams, street cams, beach cams, etc. all of which are in use in Maryland... If you want to say that it isn’t recording the conversation, how about deaf? Isn’t sign language speech? Are they discriminating against them?
Public servants who refuse to be publicly on the record should be fired!
the camera does add ten pounds... er... make that 20
t
Good Lord! Regarding that picture: I can just imagine that Fatso in a foot chase.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Food chase, maybe.
Yeah I was thinking the same thing. Saying something to the effect of
“Oh I’m being video taped? Don’t you object to being video tapped?”
When the officer says no ... then you adopted a pensive view and say “Oh, I guess it’s ok then”.
During which your camera has been rolling the whole time giving you the legal standing to say that the officer agreed to be video taped.
The agent was wholly uncooperative and told me the best that could be done is a check would be mailed to me within 30 days. I protested that was an unreasonable solution and asked for his supervisor. His reply was that he was the supervisor, there was no higher person who could handle my complaint any differently. We parried again for several minutes and he placed me on hold.
Upon his return he informed me that he had checked again and there was nothing else he could do. I had just caught him in a lie, there was a supervisor to whom he reported. I asked him to turn my call over to the person with whom he had chatted. He refused. At that time I told him "I'm glad I recorded this call." He became angry, raised his voice and protested that "I do not give you permission to record this call."
I calmly replied that I did not need his permission as his company had already given me permission at the beginning of my original call. Their message at the call transfer was exactly, "This call may be recorded for customer satisfaction." ServiceRep told me that message was a warning that THEY might record the call, it was NOT permission for me to do so. I told him that I did not hear it that way and repeated that I had caught him lying to me.
He placed me on hold and within 3 minutes, a way was found for them to return the money electronically (imagine that) within 24 hours.
It's kind of a long way to demonstrate that when only one party (thinks) they are recording, they do indeed control the agenda. When both parties are aware, they are equals.
"I imagine it's back in your patrol car. I'm being videotaped, and you're here with me. That tape's a public record, right?"
Oh that is a good one.
You’re correct about Linda Tripp being proscecuted by the two party consent rule, but I don’t believe it applies here. The way I understand the “two party constent” rule (mea culpa - I’m not a lawyer), is that others have to be informed if their conversation or activity is being recorded in an environment where there would be a reasonable expectation of privacy.
In public (depending on the activity) there is no normal reasonable expectation of privacy. Using Maryland State Trooper logic, everyone with a camera is violating law when taking pictures - unless they recieve persmission from everyone who would appear in the photograph. Additionally they would be braking their own law with every red light camera, or the beltway cameras monitoring traffic conditions.
They basically interpret however best it suits them.
Yep, and if you tell the police you are recording them they could possible order you to stop, and arrest you for not following their direction. You need to have the warning itself on tape.
I was watching Stephen Kings ‘The Stand’ 2001 for the 100th time and there is a scene where the military stops a reporters van to confiscate magnetic tapes of bodies being burned, for drama they shoot at reporters (not shown visually.) But reporters now could probably transmit the videos wireless as it's being recorded.
This is a good story(above). A real civil rights issue.
Cops are not your friends.
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.