Videotaping crooked cops could land YOU in jail

[Greenwich Pope]

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.

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.

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.

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."

LINK

 

[Cookie monster]

A law that has been preverted and is now used to protect crooked cops.

Jesus the cops in America really have it sewn up dont they!

 

[MarquisBlack]

That Thomas White case is particularly fucked.

 

[Sir Smokesalot]

I've seen the cops take a camera phone away from a guy that was taping the cops arresting(beating down) some dude on the street. The cops told the camera guy to come get the camera at the station. Fucking crooked shit, if the cops can't be held up to the standards that they are requiring everyone else to stand up to then they shouldn't be cops.

 

[Cookie monster]

if the cops can't be held up to the standards that they are requiring everyone else to stand up to then they shouldn't be cops.

It's funny when you think about how it's perfectly legal for cops and pretty much every city,shop, street, or public building to video tape people without their consent.
Public safety and crime prevention are the usual reasons cited, the same thing should apply to the cops.

I'm not very familiar with U.S laws but from the article I gather in those states a bad cop can pretty much do whatever they want and seize and video evidence?

For argument's sake lets say a bad cop beats the hell out of somebody for no valid reason and it's captured on a stores CCTV outside on the street.
Going by the laws in the article can a cop go in and demand the tapes and threaten the store owner with arrest if they refuse to hand them over?

 

[Kush_Dreams]

Keep video taping!! We literally have the constitutional right to do so!

 

[Leon Brooks]

once again...

FUCK THE POLICE!!!

 

[Maria_Vanessa]

Here is a link from the Cato Institute giving more details about the Graber case.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11861

Maryland Wiretapping Law Needs an Update

by David Rittgers

David Rittgers is an attorney and legal policy analyst at the Cato Institute. His e-mail is drittgers@cato.org.

Added to cato.org on June 1, 2010

This article appeared in The Baltimore Sun on June 1, 2010.
Share with your friends:

Anthony Graber is facing felony charges today. His crime? Recording a traffic stop with a video camera — supposedly prohibited in Maryland under an archaic "anti-wiretapping" statute that is well past due for a revisit by the General Assembly.

Mr. Graber was riding his motorcycle on I-95 in Maryland, speeding and popping wheelies and recording the experience with a helmet cam. An unmarked car cut him off as he slowed for traffic, and a man in a sweatshirt and jeans jumped out with a gun in his hand. Five seconds after the armed man exited his vehicle and approached Mr. Graber, he identified himself as a Maryland state trooper. But for the first four seconds of the encounter, it looks like a carjacking. Mr. Graber accepted a speeding ticket.

That was the end of the story until Mr. Graber posted video of the encounter on YouTube. Then six state troopers showed up with a search warrant, seized two computers, two laptops and a camera. The officers served the warrant at 6:45 a.m. on a weekday, detaining Mr. Graber's family for 90 minutes and forbidding his mother from leaving for work and his younger sister from going to school until the search was complete. Mr. Graber says he was shown a copy of a search warrant with a judge's signature on it but was only allowed to keep an unsigned copy — because the judge's identity is being kept secret.

Prosecuting those who capture police misconduct on tape thwarts the rule of law and makes civil servants into bullies.

Mr. Graber, who serves in the Air National Guard, was detained for 26 hours in the Baltimore County jail before seeing a judge to set his bond.

How is this possible? Because the Maryland wiretapping statute makes it a crime to record any conversation without the consent of all parties — a "unanimous consent" law. Maryland is one of a dozen states with such a statute; most jurisdictions are less strict. The penalty can be up to five years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine. When the prosecutor asked for a $15,000 bond for a $10,000 crime, the judge questioned both this maneuver and the use of the law against Mr. Graber.

The judge was right to ask how Mr. Graber came into custody. Maryland courts have consistently held that where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, there is no violation of the wiretapping law. An assistant attorney general confirmed this reading of the law in a letter to the state legislature last year. Mr. Graber's conversation with the officers giving him a speeding ticket, on a public highway and observed by hundreds of motorists, could not have been in a more public setting. It seems certain that even if Mr. Graber is convicted he will win on appeal and have the verdict thrown out because of the state's overbroad reading of the wiretapping statute.

The deterrent to recording police is still established. Mr. Graber faces long hours and thousands of dollars in attorney's fees. Even if he sues the police for violating his civil rights and wins monetary damages, he has been put through the wringer enough to make citizens pause before pushing the record button. In short, you may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride — the ride to the station house and into court.

This boils down to "contempt of cop," as it is known in civil liberties circles. The police are, in effect, telling Mr. Graber and anyone else who might record police activity in Maryland that they have little interest in police transparency and accountability.

David Rittgers is an attorney and legal policy analyst at the Cato Institute. His e-mail is drittgers@cato.org.
More by David Rittgers

This comes at a time when four Prince George's County officers have been relieved of duty and face both county and federal investigations for beating a University of Maryland student during a post-basketball victory celebration. Video of the beating made all the difference in that case. But if it had caught any conversation between the officers and the student, prosecutors could have treated it as a felony instead of what it was: a necessary bit of transparency in policing.

The Maryland wiretapping law is itching for an update. The police work for the citizens of Maryland, and there is no reasonable argument that the citizens are not owed a transparent accounting of police actions funded by their tax dollars and potentially infringing on their liberties. Prosecuting those who capture police misconduct on tape thwarts the rule of law and makes civil servants into bullies. The legislature should amend the law and let Maryland law enforcement officers know that if they're doing good police work, they should not be worried about getting caught on tape.

 

[Bacchus]

Why can't these laws be flipped on the cops or anyone using CCTV to monitor their store or buisness?

"You can't use the tape of me pistol whipping your cracker ass while I rob the store, without my consent" - Mr.Robber.

 

[Stoner4Life]

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.

In my eyes that makes all cop car dashboard camera recordings ILLEGAL in those 3 states, fight fire with fire.......

 

[bombadil.360]

Why can't these laws be flipped on the cops or anyone using CCTV to monitor their store or buisness?

"You can't use the tape of me pistol whipping your cracker ass while I rob the store, without my consent" - Mr.Robber.

yeah, everything cop-car cameras record is then rendered useless evidence by this new fucked-up standards...

edit: ok, I'm saying the same as Stoner4Life... lol... duh!

 

[guest456mpy]

Yes, God forbid we have more trials like the one in Chicago charging cops with MAJOR torture to get confessions ! We need to test the constitutionality of the arrests for filming these encounters. After all if there is nothing to hide they shouldn't mind, right?

 

[Cookie monster]

In my eyes that makes all cop car dashboard camera recordings ILLEGAL in those 3 states, fight fire with fire.......

Ah they probably have some exemption for cams in cop cars, evidence n all that
Videos they can play in court to convict you of some crime.

"Video of the beating made all the difference in that case. But if it had caught any conversation between the officers and the student, prosecutors could have treated it as a felony instead of what it was: a necessary bit of transparency in policing."

Going by what I've read it's not illegal to film the cops but it is illegal to take any sound recordings?

 

[bombadil.360]

they are screwed anyway, the technologies that allows everyone to video and sound record are accessible to pretty much everyone, even in developing countries...

and anyone who says video and sound recordings are illegal evidence are obviously afraid of getting caught doing something illegal themselves.

fuck this.

 

[White-rhino]

I thought it was only wiretapping if the person wasn't notified that they were being recorded. You hold up a video camera and tell the cop you are recording, it isn't wiretapping.

And some states say it isn't wiretapping if at least one party knows they are being recorded. If you are the one taping, you know it is being recorded.

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/consent.html pretty good source

 

[Yes4Prop215]

not surprised its all in democratic states...liberals love the nanny state

 

[Stoner4Life]

not to bring up a controversial figure once again but
that's what Barry Cooper was doing although they've
only charged him w/reporting a false incident I think
unless someone knows any more about it.......

 

[Stoner4Life]

Going by what I've read it's not illegal to film the cops but it is illegal to take any sound recordings?

in some cases that's exactly the statute they're exploiting, it was originally meant to protect individuals in more private settings but of course the little piggies all jacked up on sugar 'n caffeine have nothing better to do than twist those laws and bust citizens with camcorders.......

 

[PoopyTeaBags]

they are now saying that its illegal to video tape people? SO everyones home movies on vacation are illegal?


every single show that shows video tape from a store is illegal? does it just protect pigs?

i hope the average american realizes soon that his rights are just an illusion...

 

[Danks2005]

That should be hard to believe, unfortunatley it is not. The US is headed down a dark path, democracy is an illusion when the majority is blind.