Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Motorcyclist Wins Taping Case Against State Police

Posted by Soulskill on from the development-on-camera-tasers-continues dept.

stevegee58 writes "Slashdot readers may recall the case of a Maryland motorcyclist (Anthony Graber) arrested and charged with wiretapping violations (a felony) when he recorded his interaction with a Maryland State Trooper. Today, Judge Emory A. Pitt threw out the wiretapping charges against Graber, leaving only his traffic violations to be decided on his October 12 trial date. 'The judge ruled that Maryland's wire tap law allows recording of both voice and sound in areas where privacy cannot be expected. He ruled that a police officer on a traffic stop has no expectation of privacy.' A happy day for freedom-loving Marylanders and Americans in general."

11 of 485 comments (clear)

  1. Alright! by chaboud · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's hear it for a sudden outbreak of common sense from the judiciary!

    Now, of course, this judge is going to get pulled over every day, even if he walks to work.

    1. Re:Alright! by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      so Slashdot suddenly loves activist judges when they make decisions Slashdot agrees with

      "Activist judge" has always been code for "judge who made a ruling we didn't like" for as long as I've been hearing the term. So "activist judge making rulings you like" is nonsense. It's a bit like saying "An enemy of mine who is my ally." Unless you're proposing a change in the meaning of the term "activist judge" to "A judge who does anything." Which I guess makes more sense than what it means now.

    2. Re:Alright! by CajunArson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is not a case of judicial activism. Judges are supposed to interpret the law, which is exactly what this judge did... the existing wiretap laws in Maryland were (quite rightly) found to NOT cover a police officer who is on duty on a public roadway. An "activist" judgment that Slashdot would agree with would be where a judge rules a computer fraud law unconstitutional because someone that Slashdot approves of (like say.. Wikileaks) breaks the law with a "morally correct" motive (meaning the plebes on Slashdot agree with the ends so therefore any and every means are justified). That is judicial activism, not what the judge did here.

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    3. Re:Alright! by muridae · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And this is different from the cop with a power trip, who issues you a speeding ticket just because you do something he doesn't like? Both of them are taking their personal grudges out of people, and doing so to the detriment of the people they are supposed to represent and protect. Garbage, all around.

      I do know of a town with about a mile of highway and a ton of revenue from tickets. Seeing them unable to enforce the ones that are deserved would be just as distressing as seeing them creating ones that don't exist.

    4. Re:Alright! by ICLKennyG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem however remains that the judge did not sanction the DA or AG who decided that this obvious abuse of the law was a good idea. This is easily rule 11 territory as any first year law student can tell you there is no privacy expectation in a public place. The fact remains is that this guy had to fight to get his rights vindicated and too often, fighting is too expensive.

    5. Re:Alright! by ShakaUVM · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >>If you lived in that town you would see the downside. Since they are so small sometimes they have to rely on tickets as a major source of revenue.

      That's a travesty, pure and simple. There should never be a major economic reason to issue tickets - it makes a mockery of the very concept of justice.

  2. What? by U8MyData · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A public employee's expectation of privacy? They are public servants and as such should never have an expectation of privacy while on duty. I'm happy about the decision. We need more like it....

  3. a police officer on a traffic stop? by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "a police officer on a traffic stop", or "a non-uniformed police officer on a traffic stop using a non-labeled vehicle, not identifying himself as police before pointing a gun like a crazy man"?

  4. Consequences for the Cops by Concern · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What about the asshole cops and prosecutor that put this sick joke of a "wiretapping case" on the taxpayers tab?

    Anyone losing their jobs? Suspensions?

    If this isn't malicious prosecution, what the fuck on earth is?

    If we all just walk away from this without going any further, expect another case just like it next week, and another the week after. The point is intimidation, after all. Plus eventually they'll get some idiot judge who agrees with them.

    --
    Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
    1. Re:Consequences for the Cops by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would like to think the cop gets convicted of assault as well for brandishing a weapon before properly identifying himself, especially since it was supposedly a traffic stop. The police aren't supposed to make citizens fear for their lives over a traffic stop. They're actually supposed to stop other people from making citizens fear for their lives.

  5. In other news by emt377 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Idiot cowboy cop racks up tens of thousands of dollars in damages to be paid by taxpayers to issue a $125 traffic citation. Where do they even find inept morons like this?