Slashdot Mirror
Facing 16 Years In Prison For Videotaping Police
krou sends this snip from the Maine Civil Liberties Union: "The ACLU of Maryland is defending Anthony Graber, who faces as much as sixteen years in prison if found guilty of violating state wiretap laws because he recorded video of an officer drawing a gun during a traffic stop. ... Once [the Maryland State Police] learned of the video on YouTube, Graber's parents' house was raided, searched, and four of his computers were confiscated. Graber was arrested, booked, and jailed. Their actions are a calculated method of intimidation. Another person has since been similarly charged under the same statute. The wiretap law being used to charge Anthony Graber is intended to protect private communication between two parties. According to David Rocah, the ACLU attorney handling Mr. Graber's case, 'To charge Graber with violating the law, you would have to conclude that a police officer on a public road, wearing a badge and a uniform, performing his official duty, pulling someone over, somehow has a right to privacy when it comes to the conversation he has with the motorist.'" Here are a factsheet (PDF) on the case from the ACLU of Maryland, and the video at issue.
... you've nothing to be afraid of. So, I wonder what it is they're afraid of?
Its unfortunate that he will most likely win (atleast, we all hope) and will probably end up getting some money out of the state for his trouble. But the thing is, the people that made those decisions won't be punished, its the tax payers that will be punished because now the defecit due to the lawsuit has to be made up for.
It's growing more and more apparent every day. It's a shame that when we start doing something about it we'll be completely unarmed, defenseless, and powerless.
Camping on quad since 1996.
When is anyone anywhere going to learn about the Streissand Effect? This would only even be slightly more idiotic or ironic if in they video, they're pulling over Barbara Streissand herself. Now millions of people and probably CNN if it's a slow news day will pick up this story and know what a bunch of assholes these morons are and there will be resignations and law suits and blah blah blah just because of a few arrogant jackasses trying to use scare tactics. Well, at least the good news is they're all going to get what they deserve.
Btw, since they're probably not above suing over comments about this story also, SUBPEONA THIS! *flips off the screen*
Lol, just try and take me to court to make me prove you're all jackasses as stated (and make it a jury trial.)
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
We're all one traffic stop away from total financial ruin and potentially jail. If it's not for something illegal today, it'll be for something illegal tomorrow, or simply something the police think might be possibly illegal.
Whether he's found guilty or not, his life is basically over.
If he's lucky, the ordeal will cost him thousands (maybe tens of thousands) when it's all said and done, and he wont get any of his stuff back. He'll have an impossible time getting a job, a loan, a security clearance, etc. with an arrest in his background. Many (most?) employers now ask if you've merely been arrested, regardless of whether you were charged or found guilty, so he'll be making minimum wage at best.
If he's unlucky, he'll have a bunch of jack-booted "law and order" Americans on his jury who side with the police by default and just want to see more people put in jail.
I love how video+audio = "wiretapping", which is by definition, tapping into the wires of a phone or communications system to record the conversation. So have the politicians been jailed for taking video of their child at school and happened to video someone else? Have people been arrested for using a digital recorder at the local college lectures? What about the new crew?
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Fuck yeah I am glad I don't live there. Would you like to import some of our (backward) European freedoms?
I like to know when I'm being recorded, thank you very much. The problem here is the ridiculous idea that a police officer in a public place has the same right to privacy as two people involved in a private telephone conversation.
On a side note I can't figure out who is the biggest asshole involved in this: the motorcyclist himself for doing 127mph on a public road while weaving between cars and doing wheelies, the cop for briefly pulling a gun and immediately putting it back into the holster, or the Maryland State Police for going after the guy. I vote for the Maryland State Police, with the motorcyclist himself in close second and the cop in third place.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Definately, not you.
Just imagine if LAPD pulled that on the person who filmed the Rodney King incident.
-Fiend-
Out of interest, were you guilty of any crime?
But regardless - the way plea bargaining works in the US is a travesty of justice. The whole system is weighted to encourage it as well. It requires much less work and no aditional staff costs (e.g. researches) for a DA to negotiate a plea bargain.
I have an honest question for you: Why the fuck do you still live in that country?
Honestly, a place where cops are practically untouchable, the justice system amounts to "plea guilty and do a few years, or else...." and guilt is determined by your average group of mouthbreathers with an extremely mis-placed sense of justice on a power-trip. Why the hell would anyone want to live there?
People, what a bunch of bastards
Yep. You're crazy.
You've forgotten about the law of unintended consequences. Do you really think it aught to be legal for anybody you've invited into your home to plant bugs or cameras? They're there lawfully, and you're proposing giving them the right to record without being party to the conversation. What about bed/bath rooms? What about corporate espionage? Messy divorces? Foreign agents?
One party consent seems to be a sane minimum without a warrant. I understand the desire/need for two party consent laws, but they too have unintended consequences, and needs to be fine tuned (as this incident shows).
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
"Expressing the sense of Congress that the videotaping or photographing of police engaged in potentially abusive activity in a public place should not be prosecuted in State or Federal courts."
Concurrent Resolutions have no force of law.
Even if this one did, limiting it to "potentially abusive activity" still gives the cops plenty of wiggle room to justifiably arrest you and let a judge sort it out later... exactly the king of chilling effect we should strive to avoid.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Really? If you were completely innocent, but had been indicted on Federal charges that would most likely put you away for life if you blew trial, or you were offered a two year plea deal, you'd actually gamble your life on twelve people who hear a very colorized version of the truth?
The cold facts:
93.6% of Fed cases result in a guilty plea.
75.6% of Fed criminal defendants are convicted following trial.
97% of Fed criminal defendants are sentenced.
82.8% of Fed criminal defendants receive a prison term.
That's not guilty defendants: it's ALL defendants.
Many of the people I met in Fed prison had either done nothing, or something so minor as to certainly not merit hard time. (I was a bit of a jailhouse lawyer..not much else to do.) I saw guys serving 20 years for making a phone call. I am not kidding.
As I said, it doesn't matter at ALL whether you did it or not. It matters what you can prove. And trust me, it's YOU that needs to do the proving, innocent till proven guilty is BS.
So, maybe you didn't do it, but you almost certainly will lose at trial. Yes, you''l be "right" and will have the moral high ground,..and wear khakis the rest of your life.
"The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
I saw the video. The cop is in an unmarked car and plain clothes. He pulls up past the motorcycle while it's stopped at an exit, veers in front of it, stops, and gets out with a gun drawn, saying, "Get off the motorcycle. Get off the motorcycle! Get off the motorcycle. State police."
So what if this guy had been exercising the second amendment, and happened to be an overconfident quick-draw artist, and got "lucky" enough to shoot first?
Right up until he says "State police," it doesn't look like a traffic stop to me. It looks like a crime in progress. Even then, pretty much anyone can say "police". He could at least flash a badge. The video did cut off right there, but that was more than enough time for something bad to happen.
Cops on duty shouldn't have any privacy. Everything they do should be recorded (except when cost would prohibit recording). As a tax payer, and therefore, the employer of all police officers, I want to make sure my employees are behaving.
I disagree with that to some extent.
Cop is on duty even when he goes to bathroom. Cop is on duty even when he sends an e-mail to his doctor (I'm assuming that the goverment offers them some form of healthcare, though I'm not familiar with how the system works in USA) about some problem of his. Cop is on duty when he asks that secretary from another department to go out with him. Cop is on duty when he tells a (perhaps slightly sexist or the like) joke to a co-worker... IE: They are workers and humans like all of us. I think we are only shooting ourselves in the foot if we try to rob them the amount of limited privacy that pretty much all other employees can expect. Even though I don't have anything that big to hide at my workplace, I would be calling my union if the boss tried to record every minute of my life there. If the union couldn't help (in my country, I'm pretty sure they could), I would find another place to work. If that wouldn't be an option, I would continue working there but be a lot more dissatisfied and angry about my job, life, etc... Which might not be what you want if my job might involve me pointing a gun at you!
What I am arguing for is their limited privacy even on duty because very few of us actually work nonstop from the time we go to work to the time we leave. We need some socializing with co-workers, breaks, a moment of browsing slashdot... Without fearing that all of that is recorded (Or worse: the records are made public and some "journalist" goes through all of them trying to find something that he can misinterpret to make it scandalous). Many people seem to think that public employees don't deserve that same time but I am fairly certain that if we took it away from their, there would be a lot of negative consequences.
I am not saying that this privacy extends to everything they do. Arrests, pulling people, over, etc. should always be recorded. If for no other reason, then because those are likely to be used as evidence in court. I'm not comofortable with "A cop's possibly honest, possibly accurare memory of the events" vs. "Another person's possibly honest, possibly accurate memory of events" being seen in court (and defaulting to "The cop is right")
its aruldy been ruled videotaping a cop is not illagle. its just the police trying to get back at the guy for catching there buddy acting like a shitbag. been a few of these cases latly and every time the cops lose. as for the whole the guy will never find a job again i dought it. its only a traffic charge and a made up wiretapping charge that won hold up in court. its not its robbery assult or anything like that and employers ignore traffic charges unless you apply for a driving job. as for not getting his stuff back when he wins his court case they have to return everything if they dont he can sue them for it.
AFAIU it's not the motor cyclist who's facing 16 years. Or are you going to argue that videotaping is an act of wildly and dangerously breaking traffic law?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
An unmarked police car pulls a guy over and the cop jumps out with a gun... at what point was the motor cyclist supposed to turn off the camera - after the fact he didn't know it was a police car? We don't know the history of the person being pulled over, for all we know he was a person of interest to the cops (his name popped up on the computer after the cop checked the registration of the bike then the cop proceeded with caution by pulling out a gun - maybe the motorcyclist had prior "dangerous" convictions?). Regardless, they might have had nothing on him and are using the "make an example out of him" method making his life hell. How many riots, uproars have happened when someone has video taped a cop? Authorities want to get the message across of don't do it or else this will happen to you... Anyway, if the filming part was so bad why didn't they confiscate the camera? How did the video end up on the internet?
Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
Your previous posts suggested that the one-party system simplified everything, and then when I asked on corner cases (based entirely on things that you introduced to the discussion), you said it's all basic logic and "this is not hard to understand", as if I was an idiot for not being able to immediately grasp the world's simplest law and all its implications that come about through basic logic.
Now you're saying it's just as complicated as any other law, and this suggests to me that the claim present in this thread's subject -- "The problem is Maryland's two-party law" -- is perhaps erroneous. Perhaps the problem is more that Maryland's officials seem to think that videotaping a police officer in a public place carrying out official duties is an infringement of privacy. I'm pretty sure even if they had a one-party law, they'd be able to find some other reason to throw the book at the accused.
It certainly doesn't help to have laws prohibiting people from doing things they ought to be allowed to do; but with such a complicated legal system, it's almost guaranteed that in any given situation there's some law that could be used. There's no reason they had to prosecute this guy under wiretapping laws; they did it because they wanted to suppress criticism of the conduct of police officers. (I'm not entirely sure they've succeeded in that goal.)
Or to put it more simply: if Maryland was a one-party state, would this guy still have been charged -- just with something else? I don't have access to any alternate realities myself, but I don't think it's a bold claim to suggest that they simply went after him with whatever they had available, and changing this particular law probably wouldn't have solved anything. The problem is more one of a culture of bullying and intimidation.
Wait. What? Why is this a troll. Someone help me out here.
The law AFAIK is quite clear: Unidentified man, in unidentified car leaps out pointing a gun at you? YES, you are within your rights to SHOOT HIM IN THE FACE.
IANAL, but am I wrong here???
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Because I personally think speeders should be locked up for life, I do not give a shit if this person goes to jail.
Fine, but if he goes to jail it should be for reckless driving, not for some trumped up charge that could set a nasty legal precedent that has serious ramifications for everyone.
Blank until
Why your contempt for juries? It's the last line of civil defense against unjust laws
Because it turns out that they don't actually do that job. Judges regularly lie to juries that it isn't their job to stop unjust laws, and ill-educated juries swallow it whole.
FGD 135
You don't have any right to know you are being recorded in a public place, witness the recent case Girls Gone Wild won. Maryland's law will be overturned eventually.
Btw, you'll notice that many federal politicians live in Maryland. I'd imagine the original subtext behind this law was making it easier for politicians to accept bribes.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
My largest concern is an out-of-uniform cop in an unmarked car (or not a cop car at all) drew his gun and only said "i'm a cop" - you draw a weapon without your uniform etc, and "i'm a cop" doesn't cut it. You have a badge for a reason. You have a uniform for a reason.
If you have a reason to NOT be in your uniform, you should not be acting in such a way. It wouldn't be so very hard to assume he was a road-rager coming to ventilate him. That's likely what I would have thought, and had I been armed, I would have been in serious trouble, because the dipshit wasn't wearing his uniform.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
First, it's true - I looked into it just about 6 months ago, since I've always wanted to travel to the UK (I've been to most of the EU). Second, the 60+% was talking about ALL taxes, not just income tax. You forget the massive taxes on gas, VAT, and the tax on pretty much else imaginable that's all added on top of the typical 40-ish% income tax.
But hey, why let facts get in the way of bashing someone.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
The police dash-cam is explicitly exempted in MD's law.
In this case, the police are misusing the law to try to prevent the videotaping of police activity. This is one of the danger signs down the slippery slope to a police state.
Recently the police ganged up on and beat up a UMD student who it turned out did nothing wrong at all. The police lied and fabricated probable cause for arrest and said his beating was due to his resisting. Unfortunately for the police, their actions were caught on a cell phone video camera and used against them later.
The police's actions out in the open should be subject to public scrutiny. Unless someone can point out cases where a recording of police actions had some kind of effect detrimental to public safety I'll continue to hold this opinion.
While the ACLU document does mention that this police officer unholstered his weapon before identifying himself as a police officer, this is not the crux of their complaint. If I am stepping out in front of an unknown individual (his face obscured) on a heavy motorcycle, I too am going to want some form of quick defense. I am no expert on the rules of escalation of force for MD state troopers, but at worst the unholstering of the weapon is a training issue that needs to be corrected with this individual.
The ACLU is, instead, focusing on the use of the recording laws in Maryland as a form of suppressing speech; in my opinion, a much more important issue.
Most posters here just want to run a jack-boot-thug, social-feedback-loop rant. They are completely missing the point of both the ACLU and the slashdot submission.
most of the low speed limits are about makeing cash and not safety just like the red light cameras.
The Maryland State Police is a branch of their State Government. Like all police, they take an oath of office that requires them to uphold and serve the citizens and their State Constitution as well as the Federal Constitution. How can a "servant of the citizens of Maryland" have an expectation of privacy in the course of his normal duties. Especially when he, in the course of his duties, videotapes every traffic stop that he makes and also files a report on every stop and arrest and ticket that he makes? Any expectation of privacy is a joke.
Not only should this case be thrown out of court on its rear, the District or State Attorney that filed this case should, at a minimum, lose his job for bringing such a ridiculous case forward to the court. At a maximum that attorney himself should be arrested and charged for attempting to defraud the State of Maryland and under a charge of _______ (fill in your blank: racketeering, blackmail, intimidation, breaking his own oath of office to serve Maryland's Constitution) for attempting to intimidate, coerce, or falsely imprison a Citizen of the State.
Actually, posting the video *with* the speeds made it - IMHO - less biased.
Sure, he looks like a jackass for speeding, but at least he didn't try and act as if he wasn't pulled over for no reason. In addition to cases like this, there's plenty of edited footage out there too that shows the cops knocking a guy down, but neglects the 30 seconds prior when he was pounding at them or attacking somebody else, etc...
This is much more dangerous that most people realize because this is a trend in law enforcement. I am an artist in Chicago threatened with the very same offense. I was arrested while testing the misdemeanor peddlers license requirement in Chicago for selling art for $1 on State Street in the downtown area. Because I audio-recorded my own arrest in order to collect evidence of what happened during my arrest I was charged with a 1st class felony for violating the arresting officers privacy rights. As noted in this discussion, police officers on duty in public arresting people are not acting privately and the State does not accord them privacy rights while on duty. Yet, three States are testing new wiretapping laws, Maryland, Massachusetts and Illinois, with the idea being that if they are able to take our 1st Amendment right to watch our public officials (mainly police) away from us they can neutralize the threat of citizens using cell phone technology to gather information to protect themselves from a budding police state. We must establish our right to use our technology to protect ourselves. That is what is at stake. This is a fault line, one side is a police state and the other is democracy. you can read more about my case by googling "Chris Drew eavesdropping" or visit my website at http://www.c-drew.com/blog where I explain lots of interesting First Amendment issues. Sincerely, Chris Drew
A lightweight motorcycle these days is over 500 pounds. No matter what kind of cage you're in, I don't think you'd feel too comfortable with a 500 pound mass being launched at 127 mph in the direction of your cage.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.