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.

62 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 Splab · · Score: 4, Informative

      Anything you say, can and will be used against you - it's that simple. Spend an hour on this video:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

    4. 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.

    5. Re:If you've nothing to hide... by snorris01 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm sure that the founding fathers would have had an amendment of the constitution that guaranteed against what is going on right now.

      People should also focus on how unnecessarily dangerous that traffic stop was.

      Why did off-duty officer feel it was necessary to endanger his own life, the motorcyclist and the life of the motorists in the nearby vehicles? His weapon was drawn before he announced that he was a police officer. Somebody who would have chosen fight over flight could have caused a serious altercation. IANAPO, but why couldn't the officer have recorded the details of this obvious lawbreaker and reported it to a marked unit to take care of traffic violations?

      I'm hoping there are other details I don't know about, but the video evidence seems to indicate an investigation of the officer's conduct would be prudent.

    6. Re:If you've nothing to hide... by sumdumass · · Score: 4, 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).

      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.

    7. 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.

    8. Re:If you've nothing to hide... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:If you've nothing to hide... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

    10. Re:If you've nothing to hide... by Skapare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    11. 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...
    12. 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...
    13. Re:If you've nothing to hide... by TVmisGuided · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
    14. Re:If you've nothing to hide... by couchslug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    15. 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.
    16. Re:If you've nothing to hide... by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Interesting

      He also drew his gun while in the car, and brandished it at the guy before identifying himself as a police officer.

    17. Re:If you've nothing to hide... by joebagodonuts · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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."

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
    18. Re:If you've nothing to hide... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    19. 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.

    20. Re:If you've nothing to hide... by harl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Lie:
      It wasn't 82.

      The video clearly states 69 mph on the cop pass.

      Misrepresentation:

      The cop didn't pull him over.

      An out of uniform cop in an unmarked car cuts him off. Gets out. Draws the gun. Tells him to get off the bike. It appears to be a car jacking. Only when Anthony starts trying to back away does he identify himself as state police.

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
    21. Re:If you've nothing to hide... by Sta7ic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Himself. Motorcycles have a lot of speed, high acceleration and maneuverability, little mass, and very little between the rider and the road. If he'd met another vehicle at 127mph, the other vehicle would be operable with a dent, and this video would've ended with road pizza.

      Stupid driving? Extremely. Dangerous to those around him? Not really.

      Here in my state, what the cop did would be called 'threatening with a deadly weapon'.

    22. Re:If you've nothing to hide... by sleeping143 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    23. Re:If you've nothing to hide... by farble1670 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    24. Re:If you've nothing to hide... by canadian_right · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Anarchists never rule
  2. Its unfortunate by Beowulf_Boy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. 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
    2. 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 : )
    3. Re:Its unfortunate by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
  3. Re:The problem is Maryland's two-party law by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yep, if you live in a two party state, you need to get on your representatives to change the law. The problem is just as this illustrates: EVERYONE involved in a conversation has to be informed and often to consent to the recording. If not, it is illegal. While obviously it is the easiest for the police to abuse this, normal citizens can too. You see a gang banger beating the crap out of someone, you covertly film it, his attorney presses to have you criminally charged. Or you have a boss who screams racial slurs at people your record that on a tape recorder and then the boss find out and has you charged.

    A one party system is a much better way to go. That means one person in a conversation , the person recording, has to be aware a recording is being made. Nobody else needs to be told. This means you can't just record anything, you can't sneak cameras in to your neighbour's house, but you can put them in your own. You can't place a tap on a random phone but you can record your own calls, and so on. You can record things you are involved in (such as having a camera on your person), property you own, etc.

    Do that, and then police, or anyone else, can't pull this shit.

  4. 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 clarkkent09 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    3. 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.

    4. Re:Lose lose situation by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Many (most?) employers now ask if you've merely been arrested...

      In all the countries i live in, you can answer no to such a question regardless (its also illegal to ask it in the first place). Only the police have the information and its not public and it will not be on your criminal record.

      Ironically having a record in the countries i live is also not such a death warrant for jobs either. Generally people are prepared to believe you turned over a new leaf--even if its just about a book of new leafs.

      But its not all peaches and sunshine. In particular if it goes to trial, that is a matter of public record. One guy got news headlines that he knocked up a little girl and was a dirty pedo, with a "unrelated" picture next to his mug shot of 5year old girl playing in a new playground on the front page. He was fully acquitted since the girl in question was 15 and he meet her in a bar (drinking age back then was 20) and she acted 20 claiming to have a office job etc. The Judge/jury said there was no way the defendant could have reasonably expected that she was underage.

      It didn't matter. In the end the fully acquitted and innocent guy had to change his name and move countries.

      So I do agree. There is a very real social cost with an arrest, one that cops generally don't pay. And they wonder why so many of us don't respect the uniform.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    5. 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.

  5. Dashcams by david+duncan+scott · · Score: 5, Informative

    I can't speak for MD in particular (although I do live here) but beyond the pernicious "the public can't watch us do the public's work" aspect of this is those dashboard cameras we all love on America's Funniest Car Chases and whatever. I've certainly seen clips that include audio from the citizen as well as the police officer--are we to take it that these too are felonious wiretaps?

    --

    This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander

  6. Wiretapping.... by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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"
  7. These cases catch hooks and miss exemptions by mentil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I actually read an article about issues like this, and it seems different states have different wording in their wiretapping statutes. In some states, the audio part of the recording is what's illegal (many cellphones and pocket cameras record audio when they record video with no way to turn the microphone off). In other states, there's an exemption if it's obvious to all parties that what's happening is being recorded (local Channel 5 reporters with 50-pound cameras talking into a huge mic.) or if it's taking place in a public area (no privacy in public, remember?) but it seems judges are ignoring the public area exemption in cases like these.

    If you have such a video, submit it to your local news station with a note requesting anonymity, or use a Youtube account created and accessed via TOR. If the police confiscate your camera/phone, you can sue and successfully get it back.
    One thing I do wonder: how is it not a violation for cops to have dashboard-mounted cameras that record audio and video constantly, yet a brief cellphone video of a pulled-over cop is a violation.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  8. "Facing" and serving are very different things... by droopus · · Score: 5, Informative

    What Graber filmed was called a Terry Stop and the cop is able to search you without a warrant within your "wingspan" to check for weapons that may threaten him or other people. There are a lot of laws that cops often break on Terry Stops. My car was searched on my own property under the guise of a Terry Stop, which of course is wildly illegal, but I digress.

    What Graber is "facing" is a maximum..he will never serve it unless he decides to roll the dice with a jury, blows trial and the judge sentences him to the maximum. Since the ACLU is involved, you can bet that will never happen.

    But States and more often, the Feds will indict you for offenses that carry insane sentences in order to convince you to plead out, as the vast majority of people do. I did. I was facing five life sentences plus 105 years for an offense no one had ever been jailed a day on before. If I went to trial and lost on one single count, I would have done fifteen years, mandatory. (No parole in feds, BTW...you do 87.5%) I signed for five years, did 52 months.

    Now, would you have fought? Really? Many people say they would, but it's a lot different when you are considering giving your life to 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty. When you realize that the whole system is set up to plead out 95+% of cases and do anything possible to convince you to not go in front of a jury, the average person has almost no chance in the system as it is set up. You didn't do it? That doesn't matter. It's what you can PROVE to a jury. And most of the time, the Government has much better lawyers and resources, so Graban is actually lucky...he won't serve a day, IMVHO.

    CSI, Law and Order are worse than misinformation..they are propaganda, brainwashing us into thinking the system is fair and equal. It isn't. Graber is lucky that his case has publicity value. He may be "facing" sixteen years, but he'll never serve any.

    But we aren't all lucky. We are indeed one Terry stop away from ruin. Be careful.

    --
    "The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
  9. Re:The problem is Maryland's two-party law by clarkkent09 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  10. Who watches the watchers? by gmuslera · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Definately, not you.

  11. Congress getting interested - write and call by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    Support House Concurrent Resolution 298, "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." US citizens, click here to write your congressional representative.

  12. 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-
    1. Re:Imagine If The LAPD did that to R. King by 1s44c · · Score: 4, Informative

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

      The police would have got away with it and those same police would be beating citizens to this day.

      Rodney King is the reason police hate anyone to film them. The only films they want are ones that can 'get lost' in their evidence room if they turn out to be inconvenient.

      There is a reason they are called 'filth'.

  13. 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
  14. 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!
  15. Re:The problem is Maryland's two-party law by gd2shoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  16. 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."
  17. 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.

    1. Re:What if he shot the cop? by jafiwam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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. ;)

  18. Maryland Cops by funkboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is the gazillionth story I've heard of Maryland cops wantonly abusing their power.

    The most blatant one I've heard happened to a coworker of mine from Bethesda in about '98. His car had been stolen and was reported to the police about a month prior to the incident. The police had actually recovered his vehicle and he had picked it up at the city impound lot earlier in the week.

    On a Friday night, he was pulled over while riding with a friend. The cops ran to his car with guns drawn, pulled the doors open, dragged them out of the car, forced them to the ground, and kicked the crap out of them. All the while they were both of course shouting that this was their car and trying to show ID etc.

    After they were both beaten into submission, the cops did eventually look at the car papers and ID, and then verified with their dispatcher that the car had been recovered that week, after which they simply drove away. I believe there were exchanges of something along the lines of "you have no proof of anything".

    Now, my friend should have gotten a lawyer, but where he messed up was that he & his dad went to the police station to complain, which got them basically nowhere. Actually this was also about the time he left our mutual employer and we haven't really discussed it since, so I'm not sure how it turned out in the end.

  19. Re:There's a difference by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  20. Re:You have to forgive many of us if we are skepti by droopus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Really? Anything that involves interstate commerce can immediately be classified as federal. And it's easy to classify anything has having an effect on commerce.

    I did not say "I didn't do anything." I said "I was facing five life sentences plus 105 years for an offense no one had ever been jailed a day on before. " And that is absolutely true. In fact, I filed my own 2255 collateral attack and the judge issued a sua sponte ruling (in violation of Greenlaw) using Gonzalez v Raich, a 9th Circuit medical marijuana case, which states that the Government can regulate noncommercial INTRAstate activity in which it has an interest. (See Wickard v Fillmore.) No "special circumstance.." the Feds just need to have an interest in you.

    As for only "robbery with a gun" being an example of a life sentence requirement, that's bollocks. Feds operate on a very strict numerical system, (even though Booker says it's all advisory.) See this table? All you need to do is get up to Offense Level 37 with a few priors and you're gone forever. Or get a few 924(c) counts, the third of which puts you away for life, mandatory. There are white collar guys who are doing life because their dollar amounts are high. Bernie Madoff didn't use a gun, did he? How about Jeff Skilling? A guy who sells small amounts of drugs three times does 20 years, mandatory because of 18 USC 851.

    You can do life for conspiracy. If I call you and ask "hey want a pound of blow?" and you simply say yes, you can be indicted on a pound of blow..at least 15 years. No blow needs to exist. Happens every day.

    Just cause you have a pal who happens to work for a PD doesn't mean you understand just how unjust the system is. Actually, at the spot I served, I never saw a single inmate who claimed to be innocent.

    I'm just suggesting people be very careful.

    --
    "The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
  21. 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!

  22. Re:"Facing" and serving are very different things. by jbssm · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've looked into it, not that the 60+% taxes really make it appealing.......but when you're unemployed, you look at all options.

    60% taxes, where? I would say, that the most taxing countries (France for instance), get at most 50%. But look at it in another way, yes, you pay 50% taxes, but that comes with UNIVERSAL health care, real rights to the ones that get unemployed, children support, practically FREE education all the way until the end of college (ok, in some countries you have to pay like €1000 per year when you are in the University, but in some other, they actually pay you to go to University, although it's just something like €300 per month).

    And beside, what really kills me, is how you Americans just care about the money. Man, quality of life is much more than the money. It's support when you need it. It's knowing that you are protected in case something goes wrong and it's not entirely your fault, it's good climate (well, this only applies to Souther Europe), it's culture for free, it's really good food (once again ... only in southern Europe :D), it's living in a city where you don't have to drive every morning to work cause the public mass transport system is really effective or because the centre of the city is also occupied by it's citizens ... well, it's a very big bunch of many other things.

    I might not be rich ... but then again, I have everything I need to be happy, so what's the problem?

  23. Wait, what? by popo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 : )
    1. Re:Wait, what? by couchslug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  24. Re:There's a difference by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Informative

    AFAIU it's not the motor cyclist who's facing 16 years.

    YUIW:

    Anthony Graber was riding his motorcycle on Interstate 95, and was
    confronted by a plainclothes Maryland State Police trooper as he came to a stop at an
    exit. Graber had a video camera prominently mounted on his helmet to record his ride,
    and the camera recorded the officer's actions and statements at the outset of the
    encounter

    However it shouldn't make any difference. Just because someone is guilty of X doesn't make him guilty of Y - each case should be decided on its own merits. This is why many jurisdictions don't reveal a defendants previous offenses to the jury.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  25. Re:"Facing" and serving are very different things. by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  26. Re:"Facing" and serving are very different things. by jbssm · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sounds like you are rich, it's just that 20-30% of your money doesn't appear on your budget since you're enjoying it through all these public services.

    No, that's the part most of the Americans constantly fail to understand. I'm not rich in here, and I wouldn't still be rich if I hadn't to pay those extra 20%-30% more to get these benefits. In fact I doubt that 30% over the wage I get (around €1000 per month) would actually allowed my to buy all that stuff. More, I'm completely certain that it would not allow the people that earn the minimum wage (which in here is around €500 and that's very little even with these benefits), would allow them to have this.

    But his is the great part about it. The 20%-30% that a very rich people also has to pay, it's enough to give the benefits to that rich one, and there is plenty of money left to get those same benefits to a bunch the ones that earn much less than them.

    A small example. The tax over fuel in here it's huge. It's really one of the highest in EU, but on the other side, public transportation works well and it's quite cheap (€18 per month to travel as many time as you want in the metro, or €25 to travel all you want in metro and BUS). And I'm happy, it's this way. The city works much better than if everyone takes their cars around, it's less polluted, and it's better for the environment.

    It's not Socialism, it's Social Democracy and when done really correctly it works beautifully, like you have to admit it works in Northern Europe ... not so good in the South, but it's still ok in here. And well, although, Northern Europe is better in this social aspect and has all those nice blondes, but bah, it's too cold for me and the food kind of stinks ... and all that contributes to your quality of life :)

  27. One-button upload to Wikileaks by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here's a useful phone app someone into phone apps should write. When you push one emergency button, the phone starts taking video and audio and uploading it in real time to a server, which then immediately sends the video someplace where it can't be deleted. (Sending it to YouTube, Wikileaks, the ACLU, and CopWatch might be overkill, but it would work.)