• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

MD court throws out charges against motorcyclist that recorded traffic stop

shocksyde

shocksyde

Diamond Member
Baltimore Sun Article

A Harford County Circuit Court judge ruled this afternoon that a motorcyclist who was arrested for videotaping his traffic stop by a Maryland State Trooper was within his rights to record the confrontation.

Judge Emory A Pitt Jr. tossed all the charges filed against Anthony Graber, leaving only speeding and other traffic violations, and most likely sparing him a trial that had been scheduled for Oct. 12. The judge ruled that Maryland's wire tap law allows recording of both voice and sound in areas where privacy cannot be expected. He ruled that a police officer on a traffic stop has no expectation of privacy.

"Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public," the judge wrote. "When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation."
Click to expand...

This has been a pretty hot issue recently, and this is the first step in getting charges like this dropped. Not sure if there will be an appeal of any sort (is that even possible?)

I cannot believe cops believe they have the right to not be taped in public. Absolutely ridiculous.
 
AWESOME! Now what about that trigger happy pig who pulled the pistol? I hope he's reprimanded for being a total douche.
I cannot believe cops believe they have the right to not be taped in public. Absolutely ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Federal mandate should come down saying any cop acting in his capacity in public should always expect, and accept, to be filmed or taped. Always.
 
Good. I hope more people challenge state laws that prohibit the recording of cops. When you don't have a recording of what happened, its always the cops word against yours, i.e., guilty until proven innocent.
 
This is a good result, but the state can intimidate people by just the threat of these kinds of charges. Even if you end up winning or having the charges thrown out later, you'll end up with very hefty legal bills.....
 
shocksyde said:
Baltimore Sun Article



This has been a pretty hot issue recently, and this is the first step in getting charges like this dropped. Not sure if there will be an appeal of any sort (is that even possible?)

I cannot believe cops believe they have the right to not be taped in public. Absolutely ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Good news. Lets hope this prevails and police all over the country stop their bullying behavior in this regard.

..
 
StageLeft said:
AWESOME! Now what about that trigger happy pig who pulled the pistol? I hope he's reprimanded for being a total douche.Federal mandate should come down saying any cop acting in his capacity in public should always expect, and accept, to be filmed or taped. Always.
Click to expand...
Wow we arent biased. I hope some nice man rapes your family and kills you while the cops stuff their faces. Fucking assclown.
You have a PM. -Admin DrPizza
 
Last edited by a moderator:
shocksyde said:
Baltimore Sun Article



This has been a pretty hot issue recently, and this is the first step in getting charges like this dropped. Not sure if there will be an appeal of any sort (is that even possible?)

I cannot believe cops believe they have the right to not be taped in public. Absolutely ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Agree completely. I hope the judge also awards him legal costs.
 
Ns1 said:
this sets a precedent that can be used across the states, right?
Click to expand...

No, not necessarily.

This ruling just says that MD doesn't have a law on its books that prohibits the recording of police officers. Some states/localities do have that law, despite there being no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places. This ruling does nothing for those states which have laws specifically banning the video taping of police officers.
 
I agree, its a victory for common sense, therefore awesome, but sadly its only a temporary victory. We really need SCOTUS to rule, and end the abuse permanently.
 
How was this law justified?

The police had to be protected from getting videotyped when they break the law?

To do their jobs, the police have to be able to do things that they do not want to be recorded?
 
Siddhartha said:
How was this law justified?

The police had to be protected from getting videotyped when they break the law?

To do their jobs, the police have to be able to do things that they do not want to be recorded?
Click to expand...

Well, to be honest, it's a state law and such laws don't actually violate the Constitution. The ruling here was not whether laws that say videotaping police are wrong, but rather that Maryland doesn't have a law that says you can't do that.

Wiretapping laws generally say that you can legally record someone if there's not a reasonable expectation of privacy. A more specific law that says "You can't record police officers" would supercede such law and doesn't run contrary to any section of the Constitution.

That said, there's a difference between a state saying "you can't show recordings of police officers" and the state saying "you can't record police officers". The former IS contrary to the First Amendment, while the latter runs contrary to public good while not technically being unconstitutional.

The SCOTUS will not hear such a case, because it doesn't apply to them. A state can make a law that says "you can't record X". The issue becomes whether or not such a law is something that the public desires. If the residents of a state don't like those laws, they should write to their assemblymen and make known their opposition.
 
I don't know how a cop can record you on tape via his camera when he stopped you but you can't return the favor (in public roads).

I understand that you can't record undercover cops or covert operations but if he/she was in uniform and in marked car, then what good for the goose is good for the garnder.
 
Last edited:
PokerGuy said:
This is a good result, but the state can intimidate people by just the threat of these kinds of charges. Even if you end up winning or having the charges thrown out later, you'll end up with very hefty legal bills.....
Click to expand...

Once legal precedent is set like in Maryland... the judges in the lower courts will likely dismiss those types of charges. Police will still be douches and arrest you for it though.
 
drebo said:
No, not necessarily.

This ruling just says that MD doesn't have a law on its books that prohibits the recording of police officers. Some states/localities do have that law, despite there being no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places. This ruling does nothing for those states which have laws specifically banning the video taping of police officers.
Click to expand...

Did you get that info from somewhere else? The article linked by the OP is almost totally devoid of facts (is quoted in it's entirety in first post). If MD didn't have such a law on the books, what did they charge him with-disturbing the peace?

I doubt any such laws will withstand constitutional scrutiny, but people are going to have to spend major bucks to establish that.
 
rudder said:
Once legal precedent is set like in Maryland... the judges in the lower courts will likely dismiss those types of charges. Police will still be douches and arrest you for it though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it sets a good precedent (at least in MD) that you will likely prevail, but it's going to cost you a ton in legal fees and the message is still crystal clear: don't do it, even if you're well within your rights to.
 
drebo said:
Well, to be honest, it's a state law and such laws don't actually violate the Constitution. The ruling here was not whether laws that say videotaping police are wrong, but rather that Maryland doesn't have a law that says you can't do that.

Wiretapping laws generally say that you can legally record someone if there's not a reasonable expectation of privacy. A more specific law that says "You can't record police officers" would supercede such law and doesn't run contrary to any section of the Constitution.

That said, there's a difference between a state saying "you can't show recordings of police officers" and the state saying "you can't record police officers". The former IS contrary to the First Amendment, while the latter runs contrary to public good while not technically being unconstitutional.

The SCOTUS will not hear such a case, because it doesn't apply to them. A state can make a law that says "you can't record X". The issue becomes whether or not such a law is something that the public desires. If the residents of a state don't like those laws, they should write to their assemblymen and make known their opposition.
Click to expand...

It ought to be legal to record any public official while they are doing their public duties in public. Everyone knows this.
 
Thump553 said:
Did you get that info from somewhere else? The article linked by the OP is almost totally devoid of facts (is quoted in it's entirety in first post). If MD didn't have such a law on the books, what did they charge him with-disturbing the peace?

I doubt any such laws will withstand constitutional scrutiny, but people are going to have to spend major bucks to establish that.
Click to expand...

It's this bit right here:

The judge ruled that Maryland's wire tap law allows recording of both voice and sound in areas where privacy cannot be expected. He ruled that a police officer on a traffic stop has no expectation of privacy.
Click to expand...

That's pretty standard fare as far as wiretap laws go. There are, however, states which have laws that specifically prohibit the videotaping of policemen. New York comes to mind, here. Maryland doesn't have one, according to the judge's decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top