Posted on 08/12/2010 8:33:01 PM PDT by marktwain
The debate over whether citizens should be permitted to record on-duty police officers intensified this summer. High profile incidents in Maryland, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, and elsewhere spurred coverage of the issue from national media outlets ranging from the Associated Press to Time to NPR. Outside the law enforcement community, a consensus seems to be emerging that it’s bad policy to arrest people who photograph or record police officers on the job. The Washington Post, USA Today, the Washington Examiner, The Washington Times, and Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds, writing in Popular Mechanics, all weighed in on the side that citizen photography and videography can be an important check to keep police officers accountable and transparent.
But so far, there’s been little activity in state legislatures to prevent these arrests. That’s likely because any policy that makes recording cops an explicitly legal endeavor is likely to encounter strong opposition from law enforcement organizations. So what’s the justification for bringing and supporting charges against people who record or photograph cops? I recently spoke to three law enforcement officials about it. Two are prosecutors currently pursuing felony charges against citizens who made audio recordings of on-duty cops. The third is the executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, America’s largest police union.
Joseph Cassilly is the Harford County, Maryland state’s attorney. He’s currently pursuing felony charges against Anthony Graber, who was arrested last April for recording a police officer during a traffic stop. Maryland is one of 12 states that require all parties to a conversation to give consent before the conversation can legally be recorded. But like nine of those 12 states, Maryland also requires that for the recording to be illegal, the offended party must have had an expectation that the conversation would be private.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
With an exception or two, I agree.
What you do on public land, or on public property, or while performing the duties of a public trust, should NEVER have the expectation of privacy.
I'd write something incendiary about Joseph Cassilly, but he'd probably subpeona Jim and try to prosecute me for exercising free speech.
It's GOOD to have a blank checkbook funded by the taxpeasants...
Actually the act of accepting a job private or with the government leads to a loss of rights while on duty and to some extent off duty. You can no longer say whatever you want. You can not just stay home when ever you want.
It is sad that people continue to confuse restrictions on government with rights under all circumstances.
“ALL” people working “FOR” the public/taxpayer should be monitored 24/7 from the federal government to the the local level.What do they have to hide if they are working for the public good!It just seems government doesn’t want to be accountable to the SHEEP.FUNNY?
If all parties have to consent to being recorded in Maryland does that mean a cop can be arrested for turning on his dash cam?
I think you should be able to record anyone you want to record when it’s in a public place. Had recording cops been illegal in the early 90’s Rodney King would probably be dead and the cops would be heroes.
Should, yes. Will? Never happen.
A camera takes the whole “It’s your word against mine and I know the judge.” argument and blows it away.
I’m surprised the fop union hasn’t pushed for a law making recording any leos, under any circumstances, without express written permission a federal offense.
But Joe ".Gov Thugboy" Cassilly is prosecuting ANYWAY.
I can see where Joe is coming from - .gov thugboys SHOULD be able to rough up their peasant victims in private...
Maybe we can name 10.
Didn't the video come out after Rodney King was already subdued?
Did you see the first 13 seconds of video that the American media cut out, showing the very large ex-con King lunging for the cops throat before any blow was delivered, did you know that the LA cops that showed up probably saved Kings life from the Highway Patrol woman that was probably going to gun him down after she drew her gun out?
“Did you see the first 13 seconds of video...”
All you are saying is that the cops were right before they were wrong.
They F’d up, period.
This is a dangerous attitude and should be tolerated in someone working for us. Time for him to find another line of work. Maybe the king or dictator for life would be acceptable to him.
That was what I thought until I saw the video at the trial.
should be = should NOT be
When Law Enforcement Officers are acting “Under Color of Law” they most certainly do check their civil rights at the door as their actions and responses are superseded by the authority they are using, which is the state’s authority entrusted to them by the citizenry.
Off duty and away from the station house, they should have the same rights as any other citizen, but when they use that badge in public, in the public interest, their actions should most definitely be within the public domain.
I find LEO grumbling about being taped when they are doing things very troubling.
Now, obviously this should not apply to undercover officers or in situations when police are speaking with informers, etc., but for cops to piously claim their “civil rights” are being violated if someone records them during a traffic stop is beyond bizarre.
Cops are human—they lie, period.
Ask a lawyer how you should handle yourself around a cop.
If the lawyer is worth-a-sh*t he/she will tell you keep your mouth shut, even if you are trying to help.
“Anything you say can and will be used against you...”
Don’t trust cops, period.
Most of them are good, but it’s the bad ones who will ruin your life, or the life of someone you love.
Not to mention how they like to torture American citizens with their tazers.
These days, you risk a lot just by being in the vicinity of a cop.
Change superseded to governed. Sorry for the sloppy editing.
IDK what the cops are so afraid of, they can do almost anything to a citizen in broad daylight and the appropriate agencies will call it a ‘clean shoot’ and a jury of 12 of your peers will agree, most every time.
Maryland Attorney General Upholds Right to Video Traffic Stops
Maryland attorney general rules that state police were wrong to charge motorist with felony for recording his traffic stop.
Making a recording of a police traffic stop is not a crime in the opinion of Maryland's attorney general. In a ruling issued last month from the state's top law enforcement office, Chief Counsel Robert N. McDonald found the legal grounds weak for felony wiretapping charges of the type brought against a motorcyclist who posted a video of himself being arrested on YouTube. Maryland State Police had taken advantage of ambiguity in the law to prosecute Anthony Graber, 25 for the April 13 recording.
"No appellate decision in Maryland specifically addresses the application of that law to recording of police activity," McDonald wrote in his opinion.
Graber had been stopped for speeding on Interstate 95. While driving an unmarked car in plain clothes, Maryland State Trooper Joseph David Uhler cut off Graber as he brought his motorcycle to a stop. Uhler then jumped out of his car, gun drawn, commanding, "Get off the motorcycle" before identifying himself. Graber had a camera on his helmet that recorded the entire incident, which he later posted on YouTube (view video). The sight of Uhler wielding his weapon in public over a traffic infraction drew a storm of criticism.
Uhler responded by ordering his colleagues to raid Graber's residence and confiscate all of his computer equipment as evidence of wiretapping. By filing charges that could send Graber to prison for sixteen years, the state police wanted to send a clear message to anyone who might consider documenting police misconduct in the future.
Under the interpretation of the state police and prosecutors, a police officer has an expectation of privacy while working on public streets. Ordinary citizens on those same streets, however, have no such expectation and are subjected to constant monitoring by the state's red light cameras, speed cameras and recently expanded automated license plate recognition systems.
The attorney general's office examined the question of whether the conversation in a traffic stop constituted an "oral conversation" that is "intercepted" under the wiretap act if a citizen records the arrest. After considering a related attorney general ruling from 2000, McDonald ruled that there is no difference between a police officer and a citizen as far as the statute is concerned.
"The reasoning of that excerpt, which suggested that a police officer would not face prosecution or liability under the act for recording an arrest or traffic stop in a public place, would apply equally well to a private person involved in the same incident," McDonald wrote.
Several other states, with the exception of Massachusetts, have developed case law that clearly allows the recording of police traffic stops. The attorney general's ruling did not directly consider the details of the Graber case, but it concluded that the most likely outcome should it come to trial would be acquittal.
"A court could hold that a police stop of an individual necessarily is not a 'private conversation' and therefore does not involve an oral communication covered by the state wiretap act," McDonald ruled. "This conclusion would be consistent with the suggestion made in the 2000 opinion and with the holdings of the courts in most other states construing state eavesdropping statutes. Given the language of the Maryland statutes, this seems the most likely outcome in the case of a detention or arrest."
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3227.asp
“IDK what the cops are so afraid of...”
They want to control us, but they want no one watching them. They must control the spread of this type of video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiFO3bwWiIE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCBZOdBqMgo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKzSHtYqQvo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmByfTKKUV4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8Dp8jg9BJI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6I8iUWInds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNX6MDktrRo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejeSfQLS3LQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piuy07W41Ws
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fizo-sOSE6o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnI_xM5ujo4
If they are afraid of the public seeing what they are doing to the American people perhaps they shouldn’t be doing those things.
A camera takes the whole “It’s your word against mine and I know the judge.” argument and blows it away.
Amen, bro.
Here is a little thought experiment. A citizen is given a speeding citation by a LEO. The citizen, believing she is not guilty takes it to court. The officer gets on the stand and to testify. The prosecutor, for some pointless reason questions the officer in his ability to read the radar, that the radar was tested and calibrated and that the radar was used properly. Why? The radar could have registered 70 and the driver could have been doing 70 but what keeps the officer from saying 80 on the stand?
The citizen comes up and claims that she was not speeding. So we have her word against the LEOs. Who do you think the court is going to believe? The LEO knows that his testimony, even though it is purchased testimony (for everyone in the courtroom is being paid except the defendant), will always be assumed to be true by the Judge.
Lets say that the defendant then makes the observation that She says she didn't, and He says that she did. Either she or he is perjuring - especially since the prosecutor went through the routine of asking the LEO if the radar was properly calibrated and used. can the court prove perjury ?
That is the reason why citizens need cameras, because LEOs are considered, without reservation, to be first-class citizens, and the defendant is always considered to be a second-class citizen whose testimony is always inferior to the LEOs. There is nothing magical about receiving a government paycheque that makes a person righteous, 100% honest and truthful, yet the courts act in that manner. Because of citizen cameras, we have learned with objective evidence that LEOs are often unreliable, often dishonest, and will, without hesitation perjure themselves and/or violate a citizen's civil rights.
Since there is no mechanism to disqualify a LEO's testimony other than cameras, either we reject the idea of a fair trial, or toss out this silly notion that a gun toting thug who is given every benefit of the doubt, is given powers that if duplicated by the citizen would be a class A felony, is given special protections (I can't have someone arrested for "assault and battery" because they coughed on me like a LEO can get for himself), is automatically assumed to never lie or perjure, is above being recorded by the people who are subject to their violence and accusations.
They F’d up, period
I am NOT a jackboot-licker, but in this case, those thirteen seconds do give us a much different story. The LEOs, if anything, showed restraint. King could have stopped the beatings simply by complying with the arrest. Did he really think that this was like a bull-riding rodeo event and after absorbing their best efforts for eight seconds they would let him go?
There are pain compliance techniques that these officers could have used that would have looked a whole lot better on the cameras than a bunch of white guys with clubs beating a black guy. These techniques would also have saved the LEOs from an aerobic work-out too. I fault the city for not providing enough training.
Fortunately, in the city of Austin, there is a private Krav Maga studio, Fit & Fearless, that has classes specifically for LEOs, so that this Rodney King crap becomes a thing of the past. This is a very good thing that the private sector has taken up to remedy.
There are other things that occifers are expected not to do, at least while on the blue clock. For example, campaigning for a candidate.
Remember Rodney King??
oop’s - guess I scanned that discussion a little too fast!
Holy crap! Talk about jack-booted thugs.
I don’t know what it’s like in the rest of the world, but I can tell you that here in Orange County, Florida, there’s not a LEO anywhere who’s ever heard of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Another thing: whenever there’s an Internal Affairs investigation of a cop vs. citizen issue, amazingly, the cop is never at fault.
Get those camera phones out, people!
Money quote
Police officers don’t want to be videotaped simply because it raises a ‘contempt of cop’ psychological reaction in their psyche.
Videotaping an officer equals a challenge to their authority and decision making and injures their ego.
The natural reaction for someone who is not used to be challenged is the ‘contempt of cop’ reaction whereby the citizen is arrested for a manufactured charge that is later dismissed.
Yet, the arrest record and lawyer expenses damages the individual.
Until state houses nationwide allow citizens to put checks and balances on public employees by taping their actions, these abuses on a citizen’s constitutional rights will continue.
The courts will probably throw this out. The USSC has said over and over there's no expectation of privacy on public property.
For people not following the case, the felony charges for recording the arrest did not occur until long after the traffic stop even though they saw the video camera on his helmet.
What precipitated the new felony charges was the officer got his feeling hurt when the victim put the video on youtube and the public made comments about the stop.
It was a retaliatory action by the officer to say in affect, ‘I’ll show you boy who will have the last laugh’.
Granted the victim should not have been speeding and this would never happen, but this case exposed the abuse of power by the local DA and the police department.
The Maryland Attorney General just came out and stated there’s no grounds for prosecution because there isn’t any expectation of privacy on public property. That’s how cities have gotten away with recording everyone in public with cameras and how Google is able to do the same. These laws will end up going nowhere.
Wow! Watched this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCBZOdBqMgo which involved PG, MD police with a cut and dried harassment case w/ a WJLA reporter... all of those police cars and not one Federally required dash cam was working/running that day. What are the odds?
You hit on it -
contact your state legislator. Get legislation introduced and hopefully passed. Keep at it.
1) Laws should affirm the right of any citizen to record the actions of any LEO _who is representing himself as such_.
2) Any LEO representing himself as such should be individually identifiable, even if only by unique badge number.
3) Any LEO that violates the above will be subject to civil and criminal penalty and professional sanction.
I used to take classes over at Fit and Fearless. Some good instructors there.
I would think there’s grounds for malicious prosecution. I hope the cyclist is good n lawyered up!
Not a fan of the ACLU but they’ll probably end up taking the case for free. I doubt the charges even make it to trial.
I had the opportunity to watch a case not unlike this in court (several years ago). The defendant acted Pro se and presented less evidence than I was able to see here. The judge was amazing in his sorting out of the issues, the claims, and the case-law and found the cop guilty.
You don’t get to see that every day!
It’s a losing case for the DA not only for the obvious First Amendment issues but because the law itself as written doesn’t support what he’s doing. It’s a huge waste of taxpayer’s money.
Since the videos that go against their lies tends to be lost or "accidentally" erased.
We the People are all officers’ employers. They have no right to privacy while on duty.
Actually I was mocking the guy when I said that maybe we can find ten, I think that we find that many a week.
My bad. I misunderstood. Seriously, you can find 1000s just on you tube.
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.