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.

Comments

If you've nothing to hide...

[Gordonjcp]

... you've nothing to be afraid of. So, I wonder what it is they're afraid of?

Re:If you've nothing to hide...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have nothing illegal to hide - but I still want to. That's what privacy is.

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.

Re:If you've nothing to hide...

[gd2shoe]

Most of the video is boring. Skip to 2:55. He did deserve to be pulled over, but not like that.

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 agree, but it's more than that. They're authority to use force derives from our rights. We have every right to ensure that they are properly executing their duties (without interfering with said duties). The first amendment was specifically intended to allow for dissemination of information regarding improper use of authority. He has an affirmative right to post that video. At best the officer can claim the inferred right to privacy, which shouldn't be granted in this context.

Re:If you've nothing to hide...

[Mattcelt]

You're right in a way, and wrong in a way. Law enforcement officers hold an office of Public Trust. While it's correct that they are not *employees* of the Public, insofar as any member of the Public cannot order them about, they are still accountable to the Public (and all of its constituents thereof). Video recordings are a powerful means by which to ensure that accountability is retained. Thus it does have a great and necessary bearing on the taxpayers.

Re:If you've nothing to hide...

[sumdumass]

You're right in a way, and wrong in a way. Law enforcement officers hold an office of Public Trust. While it's correct that they are not *employees* of the Public, insofar as any member of the Public cannot order them about, they are still accountable to the Public (and all of its constituents thereof).

No, they are no more and probably less in practice, accountable to the public then you or I am. Cops and public officials are given greater lenience in violations of laws when they are performing their jobs. It's even worse with cops because you can't vote them out of office. Even you elected officials do not have the authority to directly fire them.

This "they work for me because I'm a tax payer" all stems from a romantic notion that politicians are worried about getting reelected and do not want to piss the populace off. The You work for me or the I pay your salary is little more then Hyperbole . Union contracts protect most police from that kind of abusive influence and the politicians simply aren't afraid to piss the people off anymore.

And don't think for a minute that without you the government wouldn't exist, they pass laws all the time to piss people off. How about another tax hike, how about making driking and driving laws so strict that using mouthwash 10 minutes before driving to work will put you over the legal limit, how about the war on drugs and the laws against certain harmless ones like Pot, how about all the regulations that drive up the costs of consumer goods, how about the laws about speed on straight roads in the middle of nowhere with no traffic besides you and the bugs. Yes, you have a say in government in theory, but it's not working for you in any way.

Video recordings are a powerful means by which to ensure that accountability is retained. Thus it does have a great and necessary bearing on the taxpayers.

Accountability is another thing. I never spoke against accountability, I only spoke against the idea of ownership of the government or who was who's employer. By all means, the police need to be accountable for their actions as well do the politicians. This is done by using the same systems as they use, the courts. Video taping simply makes it easier to show when they do something wrong. Public opinion doesn't really matter in courts unless it's used to influence a jury (which I suspect this article is attempting to do) which can lead to crimes not being prosecutable because of it becoming impossible for the defendant (in our case, a cop) to get a fair trial. An no, not matter how pissed we are, we don't want to stop giving fair trials because it will come back and bite you sometime too.

Re:If you've nothing to hide...

[Anonymous Coward]

By that logic, you wouldn't mind if we went ahead and aired some of your private conversation as well, right? I really hate when your argument is used in situations like this one. If you want to argue that they have no right to privacy because they're civil servants doing their job in a public space, that's fine, but don't try to argue the whole "if you've nothing to hide" line, because it can just as easily be turned around towards us.

Your argument doesn't address what actually happened. The camera man was taping himself riding in public. Somebody in civilian clothes decided to get out of his car while the rider was stopped at an intersection and decided to point a gun in his face without identifying himself as being an officer. The rider was taping in public. The rider did not know the gun man was a police officer when the cop decided to wave a gun in his face.

Are you saying a person cannot film in public because an undercover police officer might unexpectedly show up in the film? Your argument is either based on ignorance of the actual facts, or just plain stupidity.

Re:If you've nothing to hide...

[Man On Pink Corner]

The cop pulls him over, pulls a gun out of his belt, waves it around for a second or two, then puts it back in his belt. Sure, the gun was unnecessary, but if anybody was being a danger to anyone else, it was the motorcyclist. Can't say I'm overly sympathetic.

Abstract thinking not being your strong suit, and all.

Re:If you've nothing to hide...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

"If you've nothing to hide... ... you've nothing to be afraid of."

Thats what the police and government want us to believe because it makes their job easier, and their abuses of power are hidden away from the public.

It really is funny how the police and government cover up everything they do wrong, but want to know everything you do.

Filming a police officer should be completely legal. As long as they have power over us, and we pay their wages... We have every right, like a boss would, to review their on the job behavior.

Re:If you've nothing to hide...

[Skapare]

Correction: Cops should not have any expectation of privacy when performing any actual police function. Even "on duty" there are moments of personal time, whether taking a leak in the can. or having an afternoon delight with another cop in a back room. Even things like working out at the gym. As a taxpayer, you may well want to be sure if cops are wasting their time when officially "on duty" but off doing something in the back room. But a video or even audio recording of it, is for the most part, out of bounds (it might be admissible in court to counter a denial, if the matter gets there, but that should be for the judge and jury to see, not the general public).

Any police function, particularly when facing members of the public, are not private.

Re:If you've nothing to hide...

[X0563511]

Said cop was completely out of uniform, pulled the gun out BEFORE the badge.

That is not acceptable. "I'm a cop" doesn't fucking cut it.

Re:If you've nothing to hide...

[X0563511]

He was out of uniform and did not present his badge. He just said "I'm a cop".

What stops me from cutting someone off who pissed me off in traffic, jumping out, drawing, and saying "i'm a cop"? My sanity. That's all, and not everyone with road rage would have that.

If this had happened to me, I'd probably be going away for a very long time, because my own reaction to this would have been to draw and defend myself.

Re:If you've nothing to hide...

[TVmisGuided]

Indeed, the laws of the United States are quite clear. If something occurs in a public place (and a public street definitely qualifies), it may be photographed or videographed by any person with clear line of sight to that event. The exception would be if the event took place inside a vehicle, which most jurisdictions consider an extension of a person's home or corporation's property, in which case the implied right of "privacy in the home" applies.

The charge of "unlawful wiretapping" is nothing more than an attempt at an end run around Graber's rights. I hope the judge can see this.

DISCLAIMER: IANAL. I am, however, a photographer.

Re:If you've nothing to hide...

[couchslug]

"His weapon was drawn before he announced that he was a police officer."

If Joe Citizen were to do that, they could get busted for "pointing and brandishing" the firearm.

Re:If you've nothing to hide...

[Beezlebub33]

The issues here are completely independent. The motorcyclist needs to get tickets for his infractions, and I'd say that reckless endangerment is one of the likely ones, and so he'll get what he deserves.

The cop is still wrong for pulling the gun completely unnecessarily. When he steps out of the car, the first thing he should do is flash the badge and order the guy off the motorcycle. The hand motions were actually pretty close to what they should have been, but he had the wrong thing in his hand. There are rules for when and why you pull a gun, and this is absolutely not one of them.

The state is completely wrong for charging him with a wiretap law. There is no way that a public street has any expectation of privacy.

Re:If you've nothing to hide...

[joebagodonuts]

That's not the point of the article. The point is a wiretapping law that doesn't apply was used to threaten and intimidate. Seems like I hear of people getting harassed because they take pictures of cops making arrests, etc. If the guy is an idiot on his motorcycle, and a danger to other motorists - take his license. and hist motorcycle. Don't twist an unrelated law that doesn't apply. Especially when the twisting just seems to be an attempt to control perception.

"In a trend that we've seen across the country, police have become increasingly hostile to bystanders recording their actions. You can read some examples here, here and here."

Re:If you've nothing to hide...

[Attila Dimedici]

What's funny/ridiculous about Maryland doing this is that in Maryland many police cars have video cameras installed in them to record traffic stops (and other police activity). The police do not find it necessary to inform those they pull over that they are being videotaped. The justification for that is that those being pulled over do not have an expectation of privacy when they are on the public roadways. Yet in this and several other cases, prosecutors (and police officers) assert that the police have an expectation of privacy when conducting their duty (in some cases the very same traffic stops that they would contend the ordinary citizen would have no expectation of privacy if the officer had a video camera in his car).

Re:If you've nothing to hide...

[Teux]

I've always found the "to protect and serve" on police cars to be intensely ironic considering that they do neither.

Modern police serve mainly to try to keep the peace and to clean up after crimes. They come into most situations and arrest whoever is causing the most ruckus or is most uncooperative. They act like frustrated, tired parents who just want some quiet when they come home from work. Right and wrong mean a lot less then just getting everyone out of their hair.

Then comes the counselor act, where the cops show up after a crime. They assure everyone the that criminal will be caught (rare unless they are caught in the act of another crime) and clean up the mess a bit after pretending to care for a bit.

I'm sure my contempt for the police shows in this post, but I really do believe that as a whole we need more control of the people we allow to walk among us with guns.

Re:If you've nothing to hide...

[sleeping143]

The case has nothing to do with who was being put in danger. To be fair to the rider, he has accepted the consequences of his speeding. The problem here is that the officer refuses to admit that his behavior was not appropriate to the situation, and is now trying to destroy the evidence of his mistake.

If I remember correctly from a previous posting about this case, the officer claimed he pulled the gun because the rider was backing away from the car. Personally, I'd do the same thing if an unmarked car pulled in front of me like that. This rider can consider himself lucky for having such a calm, collected response, though. He could have easily panicked and put his hands up. That would have made the bike lurch forward as the clutch engaged, which easily could have resulted in him getting shot.

Re:If you've nothing to hide...

[farble1670]

The "victim" was driving 127mph on a public road with other traffic around.

yes the driver was irresponsible and breaking the law. no one is arguing that. however, aiming a gun at the driver after he pulled over didn't help matters. no one was made safer by that action (quite the opposite).

not to mention he just jumped out of an unmarked car aiming a gun. watching the video, there was no indication that he was an officer of the law. the cop was obviously "pissed off" when we got out of his car (watch his face). not exactly the type of cop you want ... one that gets mad and pulls his gun when someone is speeding.

Re:If you've nothing to hide...

[canadian_right]

Motorcycle dude posted his video, but did not otherwise complain about the police actions, as far as I can tell. Seems like motorcycle dude rightly deserved his speeding ticket. The real issue is abusing a wiretapping law to silence free speech, the posting of the video that may be construed to show the police in a bad light.

The issue is that any citizen should be allowed to tape public police actions and post them to the internet without being charged with a crime. Any discussion about whether the police actions in this cause were good police work or not is a separate issue.

And where do they find judges that will allow this sort of abuse?

Its unfortunate

[Beowulf_Boy]

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.

Re:Its unfortunate

[Ami Ganguli]

I seriously doubt anybody will get more than a slap on the wrist.

This is a problem pretty much everywhere. When law enforcement does nasty stuff they're rarely punished. If a private citizen pulled a gun on a motorist, then broke into his home, kidnapped him for 26 hours, and stole this computers, there would be serious prison time, but when cops do this there are no real consequences.

I think that it would probably help the majority of decent, competent cops to do their jobs if the bad ones (and their superiors) were fired and punished when they pulled this sort of crap, but whenever anybody calls for bad cops to be held accountable, police unions raise a stink.

Re:Its unfortunate

[popo]

The motorcyclist would have been 100% within his rights to draw a gun and shoot his attacker in the face. This police officer is extraordinarily lucky to be breathing.

Re:Its unfortunate

[TheTurtlesMoves]

but whenever anybody calls for bad cops to be held accountable, police unions raise a stink....

And "good cops" start bleating in the corner about why they didn't say anything. Some crap about don't snitch on your fellow inmates^W cops. Well if the "good cops" started actually being good cops --rather than an accessory after the fact (and probably an accessory before the fact), then my faith in the uniform wouldn't have been lost.

But when good cops bleet on about what would happen --ie are intimidated... where do we, who are not cops, stand?

Lose lose situation

[Stiletto]

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.

Re:Lose lose situation

[sqrt(2)]

That's why I hope he wins his case, and then turns around and sues the state and Police Department for millions.

Being "tough on crime" is a joke in an age where nearly everyone, everywhere in our country is guilty of SOMETHING that could land them in prison. There is something fundamentally wrong with our legal system. It no longer seeks justice, it seeks to create more criminals because criminals are now a product that the state can sell to industrialists who build and maintain prisons. You make more criminals by making more behavior criminal, and forcing segments of the population toward criminal behavior - our inner cities are crime factories, and that's exactly what the state wants because if the prisons are empty, then more won't be built.

Re:Lose lose situation

[clarkkent09]

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.

I think it's clear that riding a motorcycle at 127mph in traffic while doing wheelies is pretty fucking illegal. What the police department did about the recording is very wrong but that's a separate issue. The initial traffic stop was completely justified and the guy should lose his license if not worse. Don't make him into some kind of innocent victim.

Re:Lose lose situation

[flimflammer]

As far as I'm concerned, he is a victim. He may have broken the law but that doesn't justify 16 years in prison or anything related to the video taping. Just because you break the law in some fashion does not mean you're free to have anything done to you. He should be fined, lose his license, or something related to his crime. All this wiretapping bullshit is getting a bit ridiculous.

Re:Lose lose situation

[FrameRotBlues]

My car is governed at 128, and I've previously been stopped for doing 94 in a 55. I received a hefty ticket and I paid it. The police did not get an arrest warrant, search my house, or seize my computers.

What the police department did about the recording is very wrong but that's a separate issue.

And that "separate issue" would be the issue at hand. The defendant has everything coming to him regarding speeding and/or reckless driving citations, but that's not why the ACLU is representing him, nor why he's facing 16 years in jail. In that respect, IMHO he is an innocent victim.

Wiretapping....

[Fallen Kell]

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?

Re:The problem is Maryland's two-party law

[clarkkent09]

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.

Who watches the watchers?

[gmuslera]

Definately, not you.

Imagine If The LAPD did that to R. King

[Linux-Fiend]

Just imagine if LAPD pulled that on the person who filmed the Rodney King incident.

Re:"Facing" and serving are very different things.

[Vectormatic]

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?

Re:USA - Police State

[DNS-and-BIND]

Oh, bullshit. I'm sure it's exhilarating to push the +1 Insightful moderation, but I live in an actual police state. If I went to city hall with a group of people waving signs, we'd have the People's Armed Police up in our grill faster than you can say "Jiminy Cricket". I just cringe when Americans make idiot statements like yours.

Re:The problem is Maryland's two-party law

[gd2shoe]

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).

Re:"Facing" and serving are very different things.

[droopus]

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.

What if he shot the cop?

[spidr_mnky]

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.

Re:What if he shot the cop?

[jafiwam]

Acting appropriately would be to tail the guy as long as is safe, and let the UNIFORMED police do the stop.

Some random guy pulling a gun (which is what the video looks like is occurring) and chasing someone, boxing them in, is grounds for JUSTIFIED SHOOTING of that person. Trying to get away is a much milder and very sensible response to what the aggressive asshole in the car was doing.

Someone saying they are a cop, does not make them a cop.

The cop is stupid because he let his ego get him into a situation that could get him shot for no reason.

Secondly, fuck your talk about traffic stops. This is not about traffic stops. This is about a corrupt police officer, in a corrupt department, backed by a corrupt district attorney.

Losing this case will result in more dead cops. When it gets to the point that what is what should be a big ass speeding ticket and loss of license instead turns into a trumped up charge that will result in life destroying federal prison sentences. Some people will just shrug, and then open fire on the cops.

Speeding is small potatoes compared to what this case could do in the long run. I know Slashdot is full of nearly autistic detail picking dumbshits, but come on, see the big picture for once.

And then post it on YouTube. ;)

Re:There's a difference

[maxwell demon]

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?

Re:USA - Police State

[Dhalka226]

Routinely, eh? Then surely you can provide a citation delving into what percentage of protests end in police intervention more than a simple arrest of a person or persons acting in a clearly illegal manner? How many times tear gas has been fired at protesters in, say, the last decade? How many times rubber bullets were fired?

There's an awful lot of paperwork involved with such things, so surely you must have this information since you're comfortable characterizing its frequency.

Or you're making something that happens rarely sound, ahem, "routine" in order to bolster a silly claim?

Eagerly waiting to find out which. So suspenseful!

Wait, what?

[popo]

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???

Re:Wait, what?

[couchslug]

You weren't in error at all. Some people are offended by the concept of self-defense, but if your only option to instantly stop an obvious assailant is to disable their central nervous system by "shooting them in the face" that is what to do.

Some are of the belief that the victim is worthless, the assailant is the victim of society (weeps...), and that you should wait to be mugged or injured rather than shoot back.

Re:"Facing" and serving are very different things.

[Anonymous Cowpat]

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.