skyrider 0 #1 June 5, 2010 In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer. Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists. The legal justification for arresting the "shooter" rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where "no expectation of privacy exists" (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized. Massachusetts attorney June Jensen represented Simon Glik who was arrested for such a recording. She explained, "[T]he statute has been misconstrued by Boston police. You could go to the Boston Common and snap pictures and record if you want." Legal scholar and professor Jonathan Turley agrees, "The police are basing this claim on a ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law - requiring all parties to consent to being taped. I have written in the area of surveillance law and can say that this is utter nonsense." The courts, however, disagree. A few weeks ago, an Illinois judge rejected a motion to dismiss an eavesdropping charge against Christopher Drew, who recorded his own arrest for selling one-dollar artwork on the streets of Chicago. Although the misdemeanor charges of not having a peddler's license and peddling in a prohibited area were dropped, Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison. In 2001, when Michael Hyde was arrested for criminally violating the state's electronic surveillance law - aka recording a police encounter - the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld his conviction 4-2. In dissent, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall stated, "Citizens have a particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue is that of the police. Their role cannot be performed if citizens must fear criminal reprisals…." (Note: In some states it is the audio alone that makes the recording illegal.) The selection of "shooters" targeted for prosecution do, indeed, suggest a pattern of either reprisal or an attempt to intimidate. Glik captured a police action on his cellphone to document what he considered to be excessive force. He was not only arrested, his phone was also seized. On his website Drew wrote, "Myself and three other artists who documented my actions tried for two months to get the police to arrest me for selling art downtown so we could test the Chicago peddlers license law. The police hesitated for two months because they knew it would mean a federal court case. With this felony charge they are trying to avoid this test and ruin me financially and stain my credibility." Hyde used his recording to file a harassment complaint against the police. After doing so, he was criminally charged. In short, recordings that are flattering to the police - an officer kissing a baby or rescuing a dog - will almost certainly not result in prosecution even if they are done without all-party consent. The only people who seem prone to prosecution are those who embarrass or confront the police, or who somehow challenge the law. If true, then the prosecutions are a form of social control to discourage criticism of the police or simple dissent. A recent arrest in Maryland is both typical and disturbing. On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III's motorcycle was pulled over for speeding. He is currently facing criminal charges for a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop. The case is disturbing because: 1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter, he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car, jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents' house (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation of wiretapping law. 2) Baltimore criminal defense attorney Steven D. Silverman said he had never heard of the Maryland wiretap law being used in this manner. In other words, Maryland has joined the expanding trend of criminalizing the act of recording police abuse. Silverman surmises, "It's more [about] ‘contempt of cop' than the violation of the wiretapping law." 3) Police spokesman Gregory M. Shipley is defending the pursuit of charges against Graber, denying that it is "some capricious retribution" and citing as justification the particularly egregious nature of Graber's traffic offenses. Oddly, however, the offenses were not so egregious as to cause his arrest before the video appeared. Almost without exception, police officials have staunchly supported the arresting officers. This argues strongly against the idea that some rogue officers are overreacting or that a few cops have something to hide. "Arrest those who record the police" appears to be official policy, and it's backed by the courts. Carlos Miller at the Photography Is Not A Crime website offers an explanation: "For the second time in less than a month, a police officer was convicted from evidence obtained from a videotape. The first officer to be convicted was New York City Police Officer Patrick Pogan, who would never have stood trial had it not been for a video posted on Youtube showing him body slamming a bicyclist before charging him with assault on an officer. The second officer to be convicted was Ottawa Hills (Ohio) Police Officer Thomas White, who shot a motorcyclist in the back after a traffic stop, permanently paralyzing the 24-year-old man." When the police act as though cameras were the equivalent of guns pointed at them, there is a sense in which they are correct. Cameras have become the most effective weapon that ordinary people have to protect against and to expose police abuse. And the police want it to stop. Happily, even as the practice of arresting "shooters" expands, there are signs of effective backlash. At least one Pennsylvania jurisdiction has reaffirmed the right to video in public places. As part of a settlement with ACLU attorneys who represented an arrested "shooter," the police in Spring City and East Vincent Township adopted a written policy allowing the recording of on-duty policemen. As journalist Radley Balko declares, "State legislatures should consider passing laws explicitly making it legal to record on-duty law enforcement officials." Wendy McElroy is the author of several books on anarchism and feminism. She maintains the iconoclastic website ifeminists.net as well as an active blog at wendymcelroy.com. The author of this post can be contacted at [email protected] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #2 June 5, 2010 WOW....Moved at the speed of light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #3 June 5, 2010 Quote WOW....Moved at the speed of light! How did you think it would not be?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #4 June 5, 2010 Quote Quote WOW....Moved at the speed of light! How did you think it would not be? I haven;t got used to the heavy handed moding here, ,. Sorry,, used to a more open forum...i',m learning! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #5 June 5, 2010 My state is a one-party consent state for recordings. Hopefully that would apply to recording police officers as well."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #6 June 5, 2010 Getting closer to a police state every day.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #7 June 5, 2010 Quote Getting closer to a police state every day. There should be a caluse added to the second amendment defining cameras as weapons. The camera is far more powerful than the gun in the modern struggle against tyrany. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #8 June 6, 2010 Quote My state is a one-party consent state for recordings. Hopefully that would apply to recording police officers as well. Of course it may not be a crime, but admission is something else. I've audio recorded piggies at teh traffic stop, yet to have one admitted or even heard. I video recorded the scene weeks later, took it to court, the pig-lover wearing the robe allowed me to show it but not cross-examine the piglet. As I've said many times, this country is a dictatorial, oppressive turd, why is it that people agree in part, yet become offended by my remarks? The answer is to get the fuck out, wish I could go somewhere descent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #9 June 6, 2010 At least by the letter of the law it would be admissible in my state. Whether the judge would let you do it or not is an open question. Amazing that judges don't actually follow the laws or procedures they are supposed to. The only exception here is that one part consent recordings are not admissible in divorce proceedings."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #10 June 6, 2010 QuoteAt least by the letter of the law it would be admissible in my state. Whether the judge would let you do it or not is an open question. Amazing that judges don't actually follow the laws or procedures they are supposed to. The only exception here is that one part consent recordings are not admissible in divorce proceedings. In Nazizona, the Rules of Civil Procedure for Civil Traffic Violation Cases (exact title) has no parameters for the judges procedure; they let him do what he wants. If he differed from rule it would be appealable. In my case: - Cop was sitting under an overpass, down a hill and around a fairly ight bend - Testified he visually measured my speed via his mirror, as he was pointed the same direction I was - Claimed he measured speed and then triggered radar to verify (the typical schpeel-lie BS they are trained to say) - I submitted a 20-something manual from the radar manufacturer for a different gun from that manufacturer - pig models are not published and since the RCP for civil traffic allows for no discovery I couldn't subpoena it. That manual talks of cosine error when the holder of teh radar gun isn't in a straight line with vehicle being measured. - Cop testified that he had 700 yards with which to visually estimate my speed, when the video I submitted shows only about 100 yards would be maximum that he could see me with bridge pillars in the way. Robe-wearing pig-lover reluctantly allowed me to show video, but after piggy testified and then he wouldn't let me cross sir piglet on this. - When I read people saying how Illinois is the dirtiest state in the nation, I just understand that they can't fathom how redneck filthy Nazizona is. This law in 2-party states is dangerous, it follows suppression of the media and real Nazi-like tatics. The government and its representatives must be an open book in regard to public goings on and this is strict suppression. Not an expert, but I think 2-party laws: - Apply to audio recordings - Don't always require consent, just notification. I think only a couple require actual consent, most of the 12 2-partiers just require notification of recording. When we get to the pointwhere we suppress memorialized events / actions of our gov, we are in deep shit, nevermind 2nd issues, this is far more huge and will pass with typical American apathy. This is where the Euro's have a sack and we do not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #11 June 6, 2010 Deja vu all over again. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #12 June 6, 2010 Hire an attorney that has been to law school and can fucking spell. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yourmomma 0 #13 June 6, 2010 "Hire an attorney that has been to law school and can fucking spell" Lucky, is that ad homien? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #14 June 6, 2010 Quote The camera is far more powerful than the gun in the modern struggle against tyrany. I dunno. . .I don't have any scars on me from bein' shot with a camera! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #15 June 6, 2010 Quote There should be a caluse added to the second amendment defining cameras as weapons. The camera is far more powerful than the gun in the modern struggle against tyrany. but then (by your own admission) only state militias should have cameras.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #16 June 6, 2010 QuoteHire an attorney that has been to law school and can fucking spell. You know when people are out of things to say when they defer to typos. Thx for the confirmation, go buy a case of flags while your nation proves itself to be closer and closer to China everyday.....other than fiscally, we're more and more distant. As for hire a lawyer, the Rules of Civil Procedure for Civil Violation Cases are still that, even for F Lee Bailey. The judge wasn't violating the rules, he was following the laws as established by the same kind of garbage that gave us SB 1070. Now discretion could allow him to be reasonable and have all evidence examined/crossed, but hey, he's just being an AZ judge. With that said, Jugde Donahoe and a few others are great judges, but so many, esp lower court judges aren't even lawyers, most are not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #17 June 6, 2010 Quote"Hire an attorney that has been to law school and can fucking spell" Lucky, is that ad homien? Yes, it's an ad hominem. Also a demonstration of not being able to follow the issue and focus on a typo. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #18 June 6, 2010 Quote Quote The camera is far more powerful than the gun in the modern struggle against tyrany. I dunno. . .I don't have any scars on me from bein' shot with a camera! No, but if the nice piggy shoots you and claims you attacked him first, that guy with the camera is a criminal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #19 June 6, 2010 QuoteQuote There should be a caluse added to the second amendment defining cameras as weapons. The camera is far more powerful than the gun in the modern struggle against tyrany. but then (by your own admission) only state militias should have cameras. You are very perceptive! Tell me what this means: "The pen is mightier than the sword" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #20 June 6, 2010 Quote You are very perceptive! Tell me what this means: "The pen is mightier than the sword" yes yes... let's not re-hash jr-high... I was pointing out that you might want to re-think your 2nd amendment suggestion as then it would (by your thinking) limit 1st as well-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #21 June 6, 2010 QuoteQuote Getting closer to a police state every day. There should be a caluse added to the second amendment defining cameras as weapons. The camera is far more powerful than the gun in the modern struggle against tyrany. So you are now on the side of armed peoople? Not unarmed people? Earlier you wanted only police to have weapons and control of weapons! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #22 June 6, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote Getting closer to a police state every day. There should be a caluse added to the second amendment defining cameras as weapons. The camera is far more powerful than the gun in the modern struggle against tyrany. So you are now on the side of armed peoople? Not unarmed people? Earlier you wanted only police to have weapons and control of weapons! Yes ... as long as they are armed with pens and recording devices! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #23 June 6, 2010 QuoteQuote Getting closer to a police state every day. There should be a caluse added to the second amendment defining cameras as weapons. The camera is far more powerful than the gun in the modern struggle against tyrany. OK, I read this agin, looking at it with yoru warped sense of thinking people should nopt be able to protect or arm themselves... WTF do you mean? You think amera;s that can show soemoen was beat to death by the p0olice are bad? or that they protect the poeple is Good? You confuse me! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #24 June 6, 2010 Quote Quote You are very perceptive! Tell me what this means: "The pen is mightier than the sword" yes yes... let's not re-hash jr-high... I was pointing out that you might want to re-think your 2nd amendment suggestion as then it would (by your thinking) limit 1st as well I know what you were trying to do Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #25 June 6, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Getting closer to a police state every day. There should be a caluse added to the second amendment defining cameras as weapons. The camera is far more powerful than the gun in the modern struggle against tyrany. So you are now on the side of armed peoople? Not unarmed people? Earlier you wanted only police to have weapons and control of weapons! Yes ... as long as they are armed with pens and recording devices! So, I get it, this is where you draw your line, 9yet seem to think ALL people shoudl draw the saem line.. Recording without permission, OK.. Protecting your family with a gun "Bad" Correct? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
