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.

21 of 878 comments (clear)

  1. If you've nothing to hide... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:If you've nothing to hide... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:If you've nothing to hide... by gd2shoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    3. Re:If you've nothing to hide... by Mattcelt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:If you've nothing to hide... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:If you've nothing to hide... by X0563511 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      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...
    6. Re:If you've nothing to hide... by X0563511 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      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...
    7. Re:If you've nothing to hide... by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    8. Re:If you've nothing to hide... by Teux · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. Lose lose situation by Stiletto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Lose lose situation by sqrt(2) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    2. Re:Lose lose situation by flimflammer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Lose lose situation by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

  3. Re:Its unfortunate by Ami+Ganguli · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
  4. Imagine If The LAPD did that to R. King by Linux-Fiend · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    -Fiend-
  5. Re:Its unfortunate by popo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
  6. Re:"Facing" and serving are very different things. by Vectormatic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  7. Re:USA - Police State by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  8. Re:"Facing" and serving are very different things. by droopus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
  9. What if he shot the cop? by spidr_mnky · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:USA - Police State by Dhalka226 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!