Man facing possible 16 years for videotaping police

[MotF Bane]

Right, big-government liberals are the pro-police-state crowd.

One: Maryland's governor is a Democrat.
Two: Yes, they are - consider gun rights.
Three: Big-government neocons are just as bad or worse.

 

[piasabird]

It is wiretapping if you record sound and video. This is the key legal point.

Otherwise every store like 7-11 with video surveilance would be committing a crime.

Tell this to the bank robbers???

 

[Freshgeardude]

Biggest bullshit law ever made. People arent aloud to protect themselves from cops? Cops have been known to break the law. they arent perfect law abiding robots like the police captains wish for.

 

[alphatarget1]

Which states allow people to videotape cops without their consent?

 

[Freshgeardude]

Which states allow people to videotape cops without their consent?

google state laws on phone call recordings. Usually states that require consent on both sides are states that enforce these stupid videotaping laws

 

[Svnla]

So it became my word, my cousin, and 1 friend against the one cop. I lost. I didn't want to pay the appeal fee of $350 which was more than the damn ticket at the time. Damn tiny hick towns with their hick judges and cops. They were just there for the money.

There you go. I am very very be carefull whenever I drive by a small town/village. They give the true meaning of "highway robberies".

If anyone want to do a study, try to drive pass the small town of Bradley, south of Arkansas on highway 29. There is a cop in a unmarked car nears the Exxon station waiting for you.

Or Logansport in North Lousiana or Tenaha in East Texas. These two little towns were so bad that state and federal governments had to step in.

 

[Merithynos]

I watched the video a couple more times. The plainclothes cop is extremely lucky the motorcycle rider wasn't carrying, legally or otherwise. My first thought when he came out of the car would have been, "holy shit, road rage, he's got a gun"...

 

[StageLeft]

Here is the vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7PC9cZEWCQ

 

[woolfe9999]

Again, no case for this has won, which is pointed out in the article. The cops threaten you, but in the end it is so far an empty threat. In a public place anyone can be video taped. While out in public you have no reasonable expectation to privacy which is the whole point of freedom of the press and free speech.

Exactly, the courts have consistently held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on public streets. However, the threat of prosecution, and the fact that some are actually being prosecuted, is meant to intimidate the public into not taping the police.

- wolf

 

[Zargon]

Again, no case for this has won, which is pointed out in the article. The cops threaten you, but in the end it is so far an empty threat. In a public place anyone can be video taped. While out in public you have no reasonable expectation to privacy which is the whole point of freedom of the press and free speech.

I believe in IL we have a state law against recording police officers

 

[Vette73]

Here is the vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7PC9cZEWCQ

Climax scene with sound.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts78N-W_9oU&feature=related

 

[keird]

Looking at Massachusetts law; I can conclude that if your video capture device doesn't have the capability to record sound, it doesn't violate the section: Interception of wire and oral communications.

It's really an old wiretap law.

 

[piasabird]

Just because they have a law, it does not mean it is constitutional.

 

[Zorba]

Here is the vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7PC9cZEWCQ

WTF! That cop is very lucky he didn't get shot.

This is such BS, the problem is this guy is going to have to spend a ton of money/time defending himself over this BS. Especially considering the guy was filming long before the hick cop jumped out with him gun.

 

[Zorba]

Looking at Massachusetts law; I can conclude that if your video capture device doesn't have the capability to record sound, it doesn't violate the section: Interception of wire and oral communications.

It's really an old wiretap law.

I guess it is time to start suing every store and police department that uses dashboard cams.

Not to mention the families vacationing at the beach, videoing their kids. They might overhear you talking about the sunset!

 

[senseamp]

I have one of these helmet cams, and it's not a hidden camera, it looks like this:

and has a big red blinking LED on front indicating that it's on.
The cop should have been fully aware he was being recorded, and if he didn't want something on tape, should have kept his mouth shut. This is outrageous abuse of authority, the voters should demand serious changes in both Police and DA offices.

 

[HumblePie]

Just watched the video and the cop only pulled the gun but never pointed it at the suspect. The suspect was being tailed by a marked car and an unmarked car. He knew he was being followed so the cops actions were in my opinion, not out of line. However, the reaction to his video tape is out of line. The guy was a douche for speeding the way he was and popping wheelies. Such actions means cops have no way of knowing the mental state of the person involved and having a weapon at ready is NOT out of line when confronting a suspect as the guy in the video. The fact that the cop never pointed his weapon at the suspect, or tried to tackle him or do any other overly forceful action only shows in my mind the cop was acting in proper mode.

Again, the video does not prove to me the cop did anything wrong at all. I will state that the fact the guy is facing charges for taping is a fucked up thing though.

 

[Cogman]

My problem is that the video you record can not be used for evidence in court more and more. I had a speeding ticket a few years back where I was going to a wedding. People in the car had the camera rolling when I was pulled over. I was NOT speeding. I went to court and did a judge only trial. I didn't hire a lawyer because I thought I had overwhelming evidence with witnesses to prove my case. Brought the people with me in the car as witnesses and had the camera recording, which the judge threw out. I asked for the video the cop was suppose to have and it was "lost" and couldn't be found to use as evidence.

So it became my word, my cousin, and 1 friend against the one cop. I lost. I didn't want to pay the appeal fee of $350 which was more than the damn ticket at the time. Damn tiny hick towns with their hick judges and cops. They were just there for the money.

Anyhow, I had something similar happen a few years later, but I had no witnesses or video. I decided to do a jury trial instead of a judge only one, and called a friend who was a lawyer to at least make contact with the court. The case was dropped before it went anywhere and I didn't have to pay a dime.

Moral of the story is a few cops and judges I've ran into and read about seem to love using strong arm tactics when it suits their agenda, mood, or prerogative. However, when they are caught in the light they back track. They don't like having their dirt laundry brought to light.

Now, I have known come good cops though in my time and I will state that not everyone of them is a power tripping prick. Quite a few are though.

This is the biggest issue I have with cop cams. Pretty much every time a cop does something wrong that should be recorded by their camera, all the sudden, the camera is "lost" or "malfunctioning". Its the biggest load of BS out there. I can understand the want/need for cops to protect themselves, but the fact is, they are not above the law.

Now, as for video evidence for someone. I can understand not allowing it. You don't know when the video was filmed, or if it has been edited. However, if you have more then one filming (BART officer) by separate people, that become pretty damning.

Having 5 friends to vouch that you didn't break the law doesn't really cut it either. However, the cops inability to produce video evidence should be questionable. Cops should be able to prove their tickets beyond a "I caught him speeding" claim... Thats what I don't like.

 

[Zorba]

Just watched the video and the cop only pulled the gun but never pointed it at the suspect. The suspect was being tailed by a marked car and an unmarked car. He knew he was being followed so the cops actions were in my opinion, not out of line. However, the reaction to his video tape is out of line. The guy was a douche for speeding the way he was and popping wheelies. Such actions means cops have no way of knowing the mental state of the person involved and having a weapon at ready is NOT out of line when confronting a suspect as the guy in the video. The fact that the cop never pointed his weapon at the suspect, or tried to tackle him or do any other overly forceful action only shows in my mind the cop was acting in proper mode.

Again, the video does not prove to me the cop did anything wrong at all. I will state that the fact the guy is facing charges for taping is a fucked up thing though.

Undercover, plain cloths cops shouldn't be making traffic stops. It puts everyone in danger, the cop, the person they are pulling over and everyone else that may get pulled over by a fake cop. I know there has been a few impersonators around here in the past that pull women over on the highway. The car and officer should be clearly identifiable as police. Not to mention this officer got all the way to the motorcycle before he bothered to identify himself. Even after he identified himself, he still didn't show a badge or anything.

I think if that cop would've pulled that in my part of the country he would've been shot, which probably would've ended up with a dead motorcyclist all because a plain cloths cop wanted to be a big-shot.

 

[BoberFett]

Right, big-government liberals are the pro-police-state crowd.

/facepalm

What's the point of big government if not to police people? The police state is just government doing what it does best. Creating new types of criminals.

You've never really thought things through, have you?

 

[HumblePie]

Undercover, plain cloths cops shouldn't be making traffic stops. It puts everyone in danger, the cop, the person they are pulling over and everyone else that may get pulled over by a fake cop. I know there has been a few impersonators around here in the past that pull women over on the highway. The car and officer should be clearly identifiable as police. Not to mention this officer got all the way to the motorcycle before he bothered to identify himself. Even after he identified himself, he still didn't show a badge or anything.

I think if that cop would've pulled that in my part of the country he would've been shot, which probably would've ended up with a dead motorcyclist all because a plain cloths cop wanted to be a big-shot.

Not when the cyclist in question is doing over a 100mph, popping wheelies on a freeway, and endangering everyone around him. If I am a plain clothes cop and I see that, I'm doing everything in my power RIGHT AT THAT MOMENT to stop the reckless endangerment of that motorist. I am not waiting 5 minutes or more for a marked car to show up.

However, in this case, there was a marked car and BOTH pulled him over. If you watch the video, the cyclist turns around first to see the blinking lights and a uniform cop coming up to him for a split second before facing forward and seeing the plain clothes cop coming from in front of him. Obviously with a plain clothes person coming in front with a gun out and a uniform officer coming behind while not seeming to care about the actions of the plains clothes person with a gun, I'm pretty sure most people with intelligence would put two and two together. Again, the actions of the cops in the video in my opinion were correct for the situation. There was no overuse of force and they did what they could to stop that idiot from continuing to endanger others around him. All that I agree with.

The part I don't agree with is trying to charge him for wiretapping for taping the incident. That is wrong.

 

[child of wonder]

Not when the cyclist in question is doing over a 100mph, popping wheelies on a freeway, and endangering everyone around him. If I am a plain clothes cop and I see that, I'm doing everything in my power RIGHT AT THAT MOMENT to stop the reckless endangerment of that motorist. I am not waiting 5 minutes or more for a marked car to show up.

However, in this case, there was a marked car and BOTH pulled him over. If you watch the video, the cyclist turns around first to see the blinking lights and a uniform cop coming up to him for a split second before facing forward and seeing the plain clothes cop coming from in front of him. Obviously with a plain clothes person coming in front with a gun out and a uniform officer coming behind while not seeming to care about the actions of the plains clothes person with a gun, I'm pretty sure most people with intelligence would put two and two together. Again, the actions of the cops in the video in my opinion were correct for the situation. There was no overuse of force and they did what they could to stop that idiot from continuing to endanger others around him. All that I agree with.

The part I don't agree with is trying to charge him for wiretapping for taping the incident. That is wrong.

If there was a marked car behind the motorcyclist then the unmarked cop should have done one of two things:

1. Let them uniformed officer handle the situation.
2. The plain clothes officer should have exited his vehicle with his badge held high and immediately identified himself. Gun drawn is fine so long as the badge is also out.

Imagine if the motorcyclist was legally armed and when a plain clothes person suddenly jumped out at him with a gun, he pulled his own weapon. This story would be much more tragic.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Shouldn't the 'non-police state' ACLU be defending this guy?

 

[Craig234]

Shouldn't the 'non-police state' ACLU be defending this guy?

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/acl...-representing-motorcyclist-prosecuted-state-p

I hope your membership is paid.

And that your post wasn't sarcastic.

Thank goodness the ACLU does what it does.

 

[shira]

/facepalm

What's the point of big government if not to police people? The police state is just government doing what it does best. Creating new types of criminals.

You've never really thought things through, have you?

Ask yourself who coined the term "Law and order Republican?" Who coined the term "tough on crime?" Who pushed the agenda of three strikes and you're out (and who opposed it) and huge increases in sentences? Then ask yourself what sort of government - and what sort of police force - it takes to implement those policies.

No, my misguided friend, "big government" is as meaningful as "activist judges:" When it's YOUR policies that are furthered, the expansion of government - and the overreaching of judges - is just fine. But when it's the policies of the other side that are getting traction, it's government out of control.

But at least the left and right on ATPN seem to be in complete agreement that prosecuting private citizens for recording videos of the actions of on-duty cops is outrageous. Leave the trolling on "big government" to another thread.