Motorcyclist Wins Taping Case Against State Police

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Motorcyclist Wins Taping Case Against State Police

Posted by Soulskill on Monday September 27, 2010 @11:20AM 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."

391 of 485 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Alright! by chaboud · 2010-09-27 11:21 · 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 pjfontillas · 2010-09-27 11:26 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Thank goodness. Lately all I've been reading about is how we're getting screwed by court decisions left and right. Good to hear something done right.
  
  --
  Life. Is. Good.
2. Re:Alright! by phantomfive · 2010-09-27 11:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And then suddenly, all of the traffic tickets issued by certain policemen are getting dismissed. I mean, if the police are going to play unfair, the judge is one of the people most capable of fighting back. Police VS Legal system = legal system win.
  
  --
  Qxe4
3. Re:Alright! by Whomp-Ass · 2010-09-27 11:32 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It's usually a bad idea for the police to meddle in the affairs of the members of the judiciary and/or legislative body. For instance, near my hometown in Cleveland, a cop pulled over one of the members Of the state legislature and gave him a ticket. Said legislator introduced a bill, the next week, requiring that all municipalities in the state must have, in order to patrol the highways within their jurisdiction, x size of population and y amount of highway running through it (something like, greater than a mile or two). The town in question only had a quarter mile of highway. They also realized something like 75-85 percent of their income via speeding tickets...all gone...
4. Re:Alright! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 11:40 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I don't see the downside....?
5. Re:Alright! by interkin3tic · 2010-09-27 11:40 · 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.
6. Re:Alright! by CajunArson · 2010-09-27 11:49 · 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.
7. Re:Alright! by muridae · 2010-09-27 11:52 · 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.
8. Re:Alright! by Wyatt+Earp · 2010-09-27 11:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No way, if theres a group that the police won't fark with, it'd the judges.
9. Re:Alright! by nomel · 2010-09-27 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly, parent should probably be marked as insightful/informative rather than funny. :-\
  Still...very good news for The Land of The *Free*!
10. Re:Alright! by ICLKennyG · 2010-09-27 12:03 · 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.
11. Re:Alright! by Gaygirlie · 2010-09-27 12:05 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Good to hear something done right.
  Don't worry, they'll get another judge and fix this.
12. Re:Alright! by chaboud · 2010-09-27 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  God, I hope you're right. Given what Sheriff Joe has done, I'm not sure that's true.
13. Re:Alright! by phantomfive · 2010-09-27 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  What makes you think the judges in Arizona don't agree with Sheriff Joe? For a long time, he was fairly popular in Arizona, after all.
  
  --
  Qxe4
14. Re:Alright! by bigspring · 2010-09-27 12:22 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Agreed. If you carefully read the Maryland laws in question (which my IRC channel did, accompanied with a good deal of argument) it becomes clear that this the correct decision. It could only have been considered interception ("wiretapping") if the person recording the interaction was not a participant and did not have the consent of either of the parties to distribute the recording. Since Garber was the one who had the gun pulled on him and he was also the one who willingly posted the video, he is not in violation of the laws in question.
15. Re:Alright! by shoehornjob · 2010-09-27 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  sometimes you just gotta take one for the team.
  
  --
  "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
16. Re:Alright! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 12:28 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  "Break the law" is a very loose definition. Since you brought it up, I would like to point out that wikileaks isn't breaking the law to the slightest. It may sometimes (always?) be in violation with US laws, but US laws do not apply on Swedish soil.
17. Re:Alright! by ChromeAeonium · 2010-09-27 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  Seeing them unable to enforce the ones that are deserved would be just as distressing as seeing them creating ones that don't exist.
  Huh? Seems to me that it'd be better to a handful of exceptionally excessive speeders go on their way than have a bunch of other people get the shaft.
18. Re:Alright! by dkleinsc · 2010-09-27 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  The downside for those of us who live and work near the most likely target, the village of Linndale, OH, is that they're already patrolling their few thousand feet worth of city streets like crazy looking for anyone they can ticket for any minor infraction.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
19. Re:Alright! by muridae · 2010-09-27 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  Removing the ability to stop speeders because one of the people speeding happens to be a state representative doesn't seem like a good reason to me.
  It's not likely, but maybe the town got all it's revenue from tickets because many people were speeding there. It seems just as likely that this is the case, as it is that the representative passed this law out of careful consideration and not self serving greed and ego.
20. Re:Alright! by HangingChad · 2010-09-27 13:08 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
  And what stops them or the state patrol from doing it again? Just because the charges are dropped doesn't mean there's no penalty. Dude has an arrest record now, even if he gets that expunged, it's still in a database somewhere.
  Unless the victims sue and start winning big judgments, this behavior isn't going to change.
  
  --
  That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
21. Re:Alright! by shoehornjob · 2010-09-27 13:10 · Score: 1
  
  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. We have one of those near me and the only upside to this is that the town is so small that almost anyone from the area knows where he will be waiting. The state nailed the town for excessive ticketing recently and it's been relatively quiet since then.
  
  --
  "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
22. Re:Alright! by JesseMcDonald · 2010-09-27 13:11 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The term is frequently misused, but it really only applies to rulings which go against traditional jurisprudence. A common trait is that applying the logic behind the new ruling would require former cases to be decided differently than they were.
  Of course, almost no one bothers to contest a ruling they agree with. Only those negatively impacted by the decision have a strong incentive to look for weaknesses.
  
  --
  "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
23. Re:Alright! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 13:30 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  If a town's revenue is dependent on excessive speeding tickets, then the town't budget has serious problems. The idea that they need that ticket revenue to meet their budget is a ridiculous excuse.
24. Re:Alright! by ShakaUVM · 2010-09-27 13:33 · 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.
25. Re:Alright! by IndustrialComplex · 2010-09-27 13:41 · Score: 1
  
  Under no circumstances should revenue be tied to the enforcement of laws.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
26. Re:Alright! by webminer · 2010-09-27 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  It's a bit like saying "An enemy of mine who is my ally."
  Doesn't pakistan fit that description?
27. Re:Alright! by Attila+Dimedici · 2010-09-27 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  This was not an activist judge. A clear reading of the law says that this was the correct decision. An activist judge is one who overturns a clearly written law on the basis of his, or her, interpretation of a vague phrase in the Constitution (either state or federal), or even worse based on something they find in the "penumbra" of the Constitution.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
28. Re:Alright! by westlake · 2010-09-27 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  Let's hear it for a sudden outbreak of common sense from the judiciary!
  Just a word of caution here.
  Your video becomes evidence for both the defense and the prosecution. Bith the good bits and the bad bits (from your point of view) can be shown to the jury.
  "Give a man enough rope and he will hang himself."
29. Re:Alright! by The+Snowman · 2010-09-27 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  If a town's revenue is dependent on excessive speeding tickets, then the town't budget has serious problems. The idea that they need that ticket revenue to meet their budget is a ridiculous excuse.
  I agree. If the local government needs money, pass a levy. If the voters shoot it down, do what us normal people do faced with a budget shortfall: cut spending.
  
  --
  24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
30. Re:Alright! by luther349 · 2010-09-27 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  well he has a arrest record for his other charges.
31. Re:Alright! by Firethorn · 2010-09-27 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  Unless the victims sue and start winning big judgments, this behavior isn't going to change.
  Even then it doesn't always help, as the police simply pay the judgment and take it out of their budget, the offending officers never have to pay a cent. Then the department goes to whatever level of government that funds them and goes 'we need more money or we can't do our jobs!', and everybody in the area ends up paying more taxes as a result.
  Big judgments, in my opinion, are less than optimal when it comes to affecting the behavior of government organizations. There are better options.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
32. Re:Alright! by commodore64_love · 2010-09-27 14:38 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  I always thought "activist judge" meant someone who ignores law and/or MAKES law (promotes self to a legislator, not just a judge).
  I hate to pick on Sonia Sotomayor, but she's the first example that springs to mind. Some firefighters took a test in order to achieve a higher-level promotion. Some of the white guys passed, but none of the black guys so the black guys sued, claiming the test was racist. Current Law says the test must be demonstrated to have a bias, due to its content. Mrs. Sotomayor decided to ignore that law and made her own determination that "because no black guys passed" that must prove the test is racist, despite no evidence in the written pages.
  An activist judge. MAKING the law instead of enforcing what the Legislature actually wrote on paper. Her decision was later overturned.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
33. Re:Alright! by drsmithy · 2010-09-27 14:39 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It's not likely, but maybe the town got all it's revenue from tickets because many people were speeding there.
  If large numbers of people are breaking a speed limit, it nearly always means the limit is wrong.
34. Re:Alright! by jhylkema · 2010-09-27 14:40 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  This is easily rule 11 territory as any first year law student can tell you . . .
  
  Any first year law student can tell you that Rule 11 is a civil rule, not a criminal one.
  I don't know why I waste my time . . .
35. Re:Alright! by Mr.+Freeman · 2010-09-27 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  It's generally a bad idea to antagonize a judge. They tend to have connections to the boss of said officer.
  
  --
  -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
36. Re:Alright! by TooMuchToDo · 2010-09-27 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. If your town can't live without ticket revenue, it's time to dissolve it's charter and let the land become unincorporated (and patrolled by the county sheriff).
37. Re:Alright! by Moryath · 2010-09-27 15:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's worse than that.
  All this tells the cops is that next time, they need to beat the guy up and break his camera/phone bad enough that the video can't be recovered. That way, they can lie and say whatever they want about what happened, and the video can't contradict him.
  We have an asshole cop who has learned a neat "trick" near my house; he parks at a 45-degree angle, the wrong way down the wrong side of a cul-de-sac, and watches for people to go past the stop sign, making sure his dashcam can't see the sign or cars. Then, soon as anyone pulls out, he just pulls forward, cites for a fraudulent "failure to fully stop", and fills his ticket quota for the month.
  Until it's a requirement that all police interactions must be videotaped, the fucking pigs will find any way they can to avoid it. They're all corrupt - if you don't believe me, ask yourself how many traffic cops you think are legit, and then realize they ALL start out on a traffic beat learning from the other cops how to get away with fraudulently filling their quota and acting outside the system.
38. Re:Alright! by russotto · 2010-09-27 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  Big judgments, in my opinion, are less than optimal when it comes to affecting the behavior of government organizations. There are better options.
  Taking the offending police officer or prosecutor out the back of the courtroom and executing him isn't going to happen, though.
39. Re:Alright! by cynyr · 2010-09-27 15:15 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  it's not the speeding ticket(the reason he was pulled over in the first place) that was dismissed. It was the wire tapping charge, for wearing a head mounted camera that was. If you remember this was the plain clothes off duty cop that cut the motorcyclist off, then got out of his car with is firearm drawn, and shouted "hand up and get of the motorcycle slowly" a few times and then finally said "get off the bike state police" all while having his badge mostly covered by his shirt. The motorcyclist admitted to speeding/reckless operation of a motor vehicle. Anyways, no it wasn't a "ticket" that was overturned.
  
  --
  All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
40. Re:Alright! by thrawn_aj · 2010-09-27 15:15 · Score: 1
  
  Here's an idea - raise property taxes to the point where the village can exist without extorting its people in random ways. Oh wait, no one's gonna want that either are they? It's like a bad game of Monopoly where any half-penny township gets ticketing control over the tiny stretch of federal or state roadway that runs through it. Or like a mundane version of 'Salem's lot :p
41. Re:Alright! by JesseMcDonald · 2010-09-27 15:20 · Score: 1
  
  I always thought "activist judge" meant someone who ignores law and/or MAKES law (promotes self to a legislator, not just a judge).
  That is basically what it means. However, ignoring the way the law has been interpreted in the past, and ruling in a manner which is inconsistent with past judgments, effectively is ignoring and/or making law. It is a rare judge that is willing to blatantly disregard the written law—although there obviously are a few—but activism can also consist of more subtle changes to interpretation of the law which are within the scope of the text, but would contradict prior rulings.
  
  --
  "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
42. Re:Alright! by izomiac · 2010-09-27 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  The difference is that the legislator has the power to make laws, whereas the police officer is given the power to enforce them.
  
  In the former case, the legislator's experience gave him an idea for a necessary law, so he fulfilled his duty by introducing a bill into the proper channels, his colleges decided that it was valid, and it was voted into law by elected officials. Of course, that's not to say that the legislator didn't pull a few favors and get an unjust law passed, but at least it's an open process in public view.
  
  In the latter case, the police officer is guilty of selective enforcement at best, and acting with complete disregard for the law at worse. Either way, he's acting illegally and covertly.
43. Re:Alright! by gmhowell · 2010-09-27 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  That town was featured more than once in stories in Car and Driver magazine in the 90's. Quite a little racket they had going.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
44. Re:Alright! by Surt · 2010-09-27 15:29 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It's hard to pass a levy on people who don't live in your town.
  Unless you issue speeding tickets to all passing through.
  Otherwise, if you just charge a fee for driving through, you'll just divert traffic to nearby routes, if you even have the legal authority to charge such a fee.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
45. Re:Alright! by Surt · 2010-09-27 15:30 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  But since that limit was set by the feds, what can your town do?
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
46. Re:Alright! by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2010-09-27 15:36 · Score: 1
  
  It's usually a bad idea for the police to meddle in the affairs of the members of the judiciary and/or legislative body. For instance, near my hometown in Cleveland, a cop pulled over one of the members Of the state legislature and gave him a ticket. Said legislator introduced a bill, the next week, requiring that all municipalities in the state must have, in order to patrol the highways within their jurisdiction, x size of population and y amount of highway running through it (something like, greater than a mile or two). The town in question only had a quarter mile of highway. They also realized something like 75-85 percent of their income via speeding tickets...all gone...
  A bad idea, yes. Also just as much an abuse of power - if not more so - than the cop who pulls you over for an arbitrary reason, breaks your taillight, then gives a ticket for it.
47. Re:Alright! by GospelHead821 · 2010-09-27 15:37 · Score: 1
  
  OMG! You're talking about Lyndale. I love you. I always drive the speed limit so Lyndale was never a problem for me personally but I loved to see them get roasted.
  
  --
  Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
  Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
48. Re:Alright! by GospelHead821 · 2010-09-27 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  The town in question owned a quarter mile of highway that was part of an important artery into and out of the city. Generally, I'd support their right to enforce the law as strictly as they like but it was actually making the highway more hazardous. None of the neighboring municipalities enforced nearly as strictly so you'd have people all of a sudden trying to slow down; or just the general congestion caused by having people getting pulled over a lot during rush hour. The highway became safer when everybody was free to pass through that city at the same ~7 mph over the speed limit that they drove the entire rest of their commute.
  
  --
  Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
  Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
49. Re:Alright! by nedwidek · 2010-09-27 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/414/right-to-remain-silent
  Act 2 starts at the 17 minute mark.
  It's based on this story from the Village Voice. Apparently this is not uncommon.
  
  --
  Post anonymously - For when your opinion embarrasses even you!
50. Re:Alright! by profplump · 2010-09-27 15:50 · Score: 1
  
  I think the point might have been that the town isn't entitled to any money from the use of the road anyway, whether people are speeding or not.
51. Re:Alright! by fluffy99 · 2010-09-27 16:08 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  We have an asshole cop who has learned a neat "trick" near my house; he parks at a 45-degree angle, the wrong way down the wrong side of a cul-de-sac, and watches for people to go past the stop sign, making sure his dashcam can't see the sign or cars. Then, soon as anyone pulls out, he just pulls forward, cites for a fraudulent "failure to fully stop", and fills his ticket quota for the month.
  Then by all means then, get your camera and quit whining. You lose the right to complain when your too freaking lazy to do something about it.
52. Re:Alright! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 16:19 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I hate to pick on Sonia Sotomayor, but she's the first example that springs to mind. Some firefighters took a test in order to achieve a higher-level promotion. Some of the white guys passed, but none of the black guys so the black guys sued, claiming the test was racist.
  That's not what happened. The city decided on its own to discard the test because they feared that it was culturally biased, since many of the minorities who failed that test had easily passed similar tests previously. It was the "white guys" who sued to get the existing test results to stand.
  
  Current Law says the test must be demonstrated to have a bias, due to its content. Mrs. Sotomayor decided to ignore that law and made her own determination that "because no black guys passed" that must prove the test is racist, despite no evidence in the written pages.
  Again, that's not what happened. It was actually a lower court that determined that the city was within its rights to not certify the test. Sotomayor and two other judges merely upheld that ruling through a Summary Order, which essentially means that they simply agreed that the lower court did not make any legal errors in reaching their conclusion, and they had no further opinion to contribute to the case. Of course, ultimately, the Supreme Court disagreed, and the lower court ruling was overturned.
53. Re:Alright! by hamanu · 2010-09-27 16:31 · Score: 1
  
  um yeah except the WHITE firefighters were the ones suing, after the CITY decided to throw out the results of the exam, and IIRC she was following precedent that the supreme court later reversed itself on........ so how did the supreme court reversing its own precedent become her fault? Oh yeah race-baiting fox news.
  
  --
  every _exit() is the same, but every clone() is different.
54. Re:Alright! by BKX · 2010-09-27 16:36 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  What? No. All speed limits are set locally. In Michigan, they're set by the county and sometimes by the city, as in the case of home-rule cities (like Grand Rapids and Detroit). Elsewhere it's either the state, county, city, township, etc., depending on state law. It's never set by the fed, and never has been. Even during the 55 MPH national maximum speed limit days, the most the fed could do was take away a state's federal funding for roadwork if the state didn't comply.
55. Re:Alright! by babyrat · 2010-09-27 16:53 · Score: 1
  
  uhhh---he got a speeding ticket...
56. Re:Alright! by Firethorn · 2010-09-27 17:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Then by all means then, get your camera and quit whining. You lose the right to complain when your too freaking lazy to do something about it.
  I'm reminded of the phrase 'Evil wins when good men do nothing'. I'm probably butchering the statement, but ignoring an injustice like this doesn't help end it.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
57. Re:Alright! by xero314 · 2010-09-27 17:07 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  The fact that he was re-elected 2 years ago, kind of implies that he was at least fairly popular then, and probably still is now.
58. Re:Alright! by haruharaharu · 2010-09-27 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  Bogus story is bogus. The town was new rome, Ohio, and they were infamous for making their income off of traffic enforcement. It wasn't just the one time that did it, it was years of abuse.
  
  --
  Reboot macht Frei.
59. Re:Alright! by omnichad · 2010-09-27 17:35 · Score: 1
  
  And if you were short on cash, you'd lower the speed limit to bring in more ticket revenue.
60. Re:Alright! by Tom · 2010-09-27 17:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And what stops them or the state patrol from doing it again?
  It's called a precedent.
  Next time this goes to court, the judge will look at them funny and essentially say "you know this has been decided. Why, pray tell, are you wasting my time?"
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
61. Re:Alright! by MBGMorden · 2010-09-27 17:50 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I know lots of such small towns. One near me (Jamestown, SC) has a population of less than 100 people and much like the OP's stated town, only about a quarter mile of highway going through it. Over 2/3's of their budget comes from traffic infractions. I doubt anybody in the "town" would care if the "town" lost all their revenue. It's not as if it's really providing them social services. It employs a mayor, judge, and 2 cops (for a while it was just one) whose basic sole purpose is the issuance of traffic tickets, which pay their salary so that they can write more tickets. It's basically like the town incorporated just to setup a circular loop for these couple of clowns to have a job. Nothing they do couldn't be handled just as easily (and likely better) by the county sheriff's office, who is patrolling the whole area around their little 1/4 mile stretch anyways. It doesn't work as is. Heck when they're not getting enough revenue they appear to just make up charges. My sister was actually pull there for not stopping at a stop sign for "long enough". The cop acknowledged that she had come to a complete stop, but that it wasn't for "long enough". Even their judge had to throw that one out, but it was still a day wasted going to the court to plead the case. Not to mention it seems like going through that town with an out-of-state license plate is a ticketable offense. They know out-of-state travelers aren't going to come back to dispute it, so they're far more likely to write them tickets.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
62. Re:Alright! by kumanopuusan · 2010-09-27 18:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The intentional abuse of legal authority by police officers, prosecutors and judges should be a capital crime. No other crime so greatly and directly injures the rights of the public as a whole while simultaneously destroying the ability of the people to defend those rights through legal recourse.
  
  The small risk of danger to fellow citizens and property damage caused by a single instance of speeding is routinely used to justify everything from excessive fines up to felony charges of reckless endangerment. In contrast, the irreparable damage inevitably done to both individual and public well-being, rights and liberty caused by a single act police or judicial corruption certainly merits more severe punishment of those responsible, but in practice is almost entirely unpunished.
  
  Though there are exceptions, even serial killers rarely have more than 15 victims. Over the course of a career, how many criminal cases does one judge try, for how many indictments is one prosecutor responsible, and how many arrests does one police officer make? In total, how many life-times of imprisonment, deprivation and suffering does each of those represent? Of course this is in addition to the actual loss of life due to beatings, cases of positional asphyxia, shootings and tasings administered by police and lethal injections administered by court order.
  
  Further, such acts demonstrate that the offender does not respect the rights of other citizens, which is the fundamental compromise upon which cooperative, mutually beneficial societies are constructed. Persistently ignoring and willfully violating others' rights is the essential core of antisocial personality disorder—a condition for which there is no treatment. Barring major advances in psychiatry, rehabilitation is simply impossible.
  
  There exists no graver crime. There exists no criminal with less hope of reintegration into society. If capital punishment is ever justifiable, it is justifiable in such cases.
  
  --
  Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
63. Re:Alright! by tokul · 2010-09-27 19:03 · Score: 1
  
  Let's hear it for a sudden outbreak of common sense from the judiciary!
  
  Common sense would require to punish that cop for pulling a gun without identifying himself.
64. Re:Alright! by 91degrees · 2010-09-27 19:04 · Score: 1
  
  All this tells the cops is that next time, they need to beat the guy up and break his camera/phone bad enough that the video can't be recovered.
  
  That's not going to be easy. You can breeak a camera easily enough but SD cards are exceedingly robust.
65. Re:Alright! by 91degrees · 2010-09-27 19:10 · Score: 1
  
  It could only have been considered interception ("wiretapping") if the person recording the interaction was not a participant and did not have the consent of either of the parties to distribute the recording.
  
  I thought in Maryland both parties had to give consent.
66. Re:Alright! by Entropius · 2010-09-27 19:31 · Score: 1
  
  Most of them don't down here in Pima County, in the sane part of the state.
67. Re:Alright! by FuckingNickName · 2010-09-27 20:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yeah none of this is relevant to his right to record the police.
68. Re:Alright! by tehcyder · 2010-09-27 20:15 · Score: 1
  
  That anecdote says more about the corrupt nature of your politicians than anything to do with your police.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
69. Re:Alright! by wildstoo · 2010-09-27 21:14 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but I just took an old 128MB SD card I had lying around and snapped it in half with my fingers, and I am no superman.
  Robust? Not exactly.
70. Re:Alright! by Jurily · 2010-09-27 21:14 · Score: 1
  
  but US laws do not apply on Swedish soil.
  Tell that to The Pirate Bay.
71. Re:Alright! by turbidostato · 2010-09-27 21:59 · Score: 1
  
  "That should be enough for reasonable doubt right there."
  Hence, since there is reasonable doubt, the cops will be fred from the brutality charges.
  QED.
72. Re:Alright! by Khyber · 2010-09-27 22:31 · Score: 1
  
  "All this tells the cops is that next time, they need to beat the guy up and break his camera/phone bad enough that the video can't be recovered."
  Then we need to start building cameras into the car bodies.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
73. Re:Alright! by muridae · 2010-09-27 23:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it was a grudge law. Same way as a cop with a grudge takes it out on a motorcyclist. Don't let the fact that you are surrounded by others who hate over-zealous cops blur that fact. Was someone speeding in the cops jurisdiction, or not, and why would you hamper the police in this area. Why not, and this is just a wild idea that would never work, change the way ticket fines are levied and distributed? If the system is unfair, why punish one area and not another; if not for the simple issue that this legislator wanted to screw with the people who pissed him off.
  
  I do know of a town with about a mile of highway and a ton of revenue from tickets.
  That sentence alone suggests that their motivation isn't public safety but revenue. If they view this stretch of highway as a revenue generator and enforce more strictly than surrounding communities, they are effectively taking money away from communities that really do have costs associated with speeding. Furthermore, unlike surrounding communities, they have no interest in a smooth traffic flow, so they'll enforce to the detriment of commuters all around.
  How on earth do you connect those two? I can see one of the first points; obviously a town with more tickets issued is enforcing the law more stringently than surrounding areas. It's either that or the road conditions and surroundings make people think a higher speed is safer. I have no clue how you get that a community must have no interest in smooth traffic flow if it enforces the traffic laws. That just seems a non-sequitur to me. How on earth could a local cop know more about the safe driving speed of a stretch of road than the people who drive through it once a week or less? It isn't like the cop knows that the two-lane road has a blind corner around the next tree, or that it really is a school zone even if the drivers can't see the school.
  It strikes me by the way everyone is acting here, is highway one of those words that mean something different based on where you are? Here, a highway is any of the state routes, from the ones that the interstate parallels to the small routes that just wind between the hills to neighboring cities; usually capped at 55mph and passing through farms and school districts at varying speeds. Interstates are the higher speed, accesses controlled, roads that just pass through some small towns. I can see telling a small town that they can't issue tickets to drivers on the interstate, but since there are rarely state cops out on the highways that seems an absurd step.
74. Re:Alright! by Kijori · 2010-09-27 23:21 · Score: 1
  
  Are you sure of this? I don't know much about the US court system, but in the UK county courts do not create a precedent. Even if that's not the case in the US, given that this was apparently heard by only one judge I would be very surprised if it created a precedent that would bind other county court judges.
  What would be more likely to stop them from doing it again would be the availability of punitive damages for abuses of power by public servants - i.e. a civil remedy rather than a decision in a criminal case.
75. Re:Alright! by Anonymous+Cowpat · 2010-09-27 23:21 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't that because most of the people who are treated to his 'hospitality' also cease to have the privilege of voting?
  
  --
  FGD 135
76. Re:Alright! by zippthorne · 2010-09-27 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting argument. I'd like to add that I think it might be even worse, though: is there any documentation that traffic stops actually do anything substantive to reduce your chance of vehicular injury?
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
77. Re:Alright! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 23:59 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Yes. Clearly execution is the most reasonable way to rectify this this type of situation. Not like, oh, I don't know, replacing the AG or judge with a new one when voting time comes.
78. Re:Alright! by kevinNCSU · 2010-09-28 00:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Considering how many ridiculous traffic violations I see on my daily drive to work somehow I have a hard time believing many police officers need come up with elaborate schemes and camera angles to make up traffic citations to fill quotas. Especially when cop cars are big ole stupid magnets that seem to just attract people to do stupid things like drive straight into them because they can't help but to stare and drive where they're staring. And it's once in a blue moon that I've ever seen someone come to a full legal stop (includes the "rollback") at a stop-sign (I don't even bother with it, less I KNOW there's a cop watching) so I don't understand why he'd be making that up of all things. That coupled with your claims in absolute terms that ALL cops are corrupt makes me think you're full of crap with this story. So why don't we kill two birds with one stone and say video proof or it didn't happen. Then you can convince us you're not full of shit and solve your problem with the police officer doing corrupt stuff at the same time.
79. Re:Alright! by osgeek · 2010-09-28 00:04 · Score: 1
  
  There are several places where I group up in South Louisiana that were the same way. It's like some kind of Little Man Syndrome. I especially love when you have a major road going through the town but they slow everything down to 35mph. Go 36mph and that's a ticket.
  Then they're the ones who scream bloody murder when interstates and other bypasses are proposed. Jackasses.
  
  --
  Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
80. Re:Alright! by mcgrew · 2010-09-28 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  Cops don't like pulling judges over. Judges are far more powerful than cops. Ask any organized criminal -- a judge is far more costly to bribe than a cop.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
81. Re:Alright! by b0bby · 2010-09-28 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  I just took an old 128MB SD card I had lying around and snapped it in half with my fingers, and I am no superman.
  Robust? Not exactly.
  There's a decent chance that you'll be able to reattach the contacts to the chip inside & still read the data. I remember a test of SD cads from years ago where they ran them through washing machines etc to try to get them to fail. Nothing would kill any of them so the reviewer started nailing them to the wall. Even that only ended up killing a couple, with most the nail missed the chip and they still worked fine. You'd have to beat on a camera really really hard to mess up an SD card inside to the point where it was unreadable.
82. Re:Alright! by b0bby · 2010-09-28 02:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  From the Washington Post article:
  "Because it is a circuit court ruling, it is not binding on other judges. However, unless it is appealed, said Graber's attorney, David Rocah of the ACLU of Maryland, "it is likely to be the last word" on the matter and to be regarded as precedent by police."
  I live in MD, and I'd still like to see the law changed, but this is a good first step.
83. Re:Alright! by idontgno · 2010-09-28 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  Dark Helmet: So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.
  No? Not what you were thinking of?
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
84. Re:Alright! by operagost · 2010-09-28 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  And here I thought it was property tax. You're essentially renting your own property.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
85. Re:Alright! by Carik · 2010-09-28 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I can tell, this doesn't create a legal precedent, which means judges aren't required to follow this guy's example. However, there is now a record of a judge making this decision, and other judges may choose to follow along, now that someone else had been the first one to have their name attached to the idea that citizens have the right to protect themselves.
86. Re:Alright! by calbanese · 2010-09-28 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  Any first year law student could also tell you Rule 11 isn't going to apply in a state court action.
87. Re:Alright! by Andy+Dodd · 2010-09-28 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  I do hope the police officer involved does have disciplinary action. He pulled his gun prior to identification, and his vehicle did not appear to have any sort of police lights installed.
  However, the person in question would have had an arrest record anyway for his reckless driving infraction. He's still going to get nailed hard by the courts, but at least now he's getting nailed for the right reasons.
  
  --
  retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
88. Re:Alright! by harrkev · 2010-09-28 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  is there any documentation that traffic stops actually do anything substantive to reduce your chance of vehicular injury?
  Even if there isn't, imagine if the police NEVER did traffic stops. Most teenagers would start driving much faster. If there was no chance of a speeding ticket, I would even drive faster. I am sure that there are some people who would have no problem going 80 MPH in a residential area on a motorcycle.
  Just the threat of a ticket is enough to keep most people mostly honest most of the time.
  
  --
  "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
89. Re:Alright! by QuantumPion · 2010-09-28 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  I would define an activist judge as one whom - rather than starting with the facts of the case, the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law - has a preconceived desired outcome for the case (based on political ideology) and uses legal mumbo jumbo to justify his position.
  For example, in the recent 2nd amendment supreme court ruling, the minority opinion could be basically boiled down to "society is too violent, and I want to ban guns. Therefore I think the 2nd amendment doesn't say X, but says Y." Where as the majority opinion used historical arguments and writings of the guys that wrote the constitution to figure out what the spirit of the law as written actually was.
90. Re:Alright! by 2names · 2010-09-28 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Consent is not the issue here, it is whether the officer had a reasonable expectation of privacy. He did not. No one has a reasonable expectation of privacy on a public motorway in broad daylight.
  
  --
  "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
91. Re:Alright! by xero314 · 2010-09-28 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  I don't like the guy, but I would bet that most of the people treated to his 'hospitality', as you put it, either never had the privilege to vote (a.k.a. Illegal Immigrants) or chose not to vote. And in my opinion, choosing not to vote, is just as bad as voting for a bad candidate.
92. Re:Alright! by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-09-28 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  That actually gives you really good grounds to fight a speeding ticket in said low-limit zones. Every few years or so your county and/or city should be conducting traffic studies on all county and city maintained roads in your area. Those studies will involve both traffic volume and average traffic speed. All of that information is public record and you can get it by simply calling up your public works department and asking. Once you have the most recent traffic speed study in hand, you can submit it as evidence that the vast majority of people who drive through the area drive higher than the speed limit (if that is truly the case). Suggest in your testimony that the law (the speed limit) is supposed to represent a social contract between citizens and government and note the citizens have spoken, through their officially recorded actions, that the law is wrong (speed limit is too low). You get bonus points if the study is more than 5 years old or so because it means the current speed limit is out of date and probably shouldn't apply any longer (you need to look up your state's laws regarding this matter).
  
  After a testimony like that, even if the citing officer submits a testimony against yours, you have a decent chance of winning in court. IANAL, but I am offering you this advice because I just fought my own speeding ticket for this exact same reason and won by doing what I described. For what it's worth, I went through a trial by written declaration, rather than an actual court trial.
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
93. Re:Alright! by j00r0m4nc3r · 2010-09-28 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Well, citizens should all have dashcams too. That would certainly put an end to abuse like this.
94. Re:Alright! by harl · 2010-09-28 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  The constitution makes no mention of sculpture nor books. Protecting both these under the first amendment was the doing of "activist judges."
  
  --
  I find being offended by me offensive.
95. Re:Alright! by Achromatic1978 · 2010-09-28 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  Which would be why I said "although I disagree entirely with the wiretapping BS they tried to pull", I suspect ...
96. Re:Alright! by Anonymous+Cowpat · 2010-09-28 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Excluding the illegal immigrants; I suspect that all of the others, even if they had never voted before, would have gone to the ballot box just to get rid of Sherriff Joe.
  
  --
  FGD 135
97. Re:Alright! by Anonymous+Cowpat · 2010-09-28 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  I felt like I was purposely being provoked for no reason at all
  Obviously, because when you lamp him one, he can get some more charges against you, not to mention an extra arrest for his statistics.
  
  --
  FGD 135
98. Re:Alright! by harl · 2010-09-28 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  You realize that your position says sculpture and writing is not protected under the first amendment since they're not mentioned right?
  
  --
  I find being offended by me offensive.
99. Re:Alright! by Surt · 2010-09-28 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but in practice that power is infinite ... there's not a single state that turns down that money in exchange for freedom from those restrictions.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
100. Re:Alright! by IndustrialComplex · 2010-09-28 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  I do hope the police officer involved does have disciplinary action.
  Who would decide to apply that disciplinary action?
  The police.
  They have already stated that they feel the officer did nothing wrong, even going so far as to imply that they would do it again. Hope usually implies a chance it could happen.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
101. Re:Alright! by IndustrialComplex · 2010-09-28 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  It's hard to pass a levy on people who don't live in your town.
  Unless you issue speeding tickets to all passing through.
  Otherwise, if you just charge a fee for driving through, you'll just divert traffic to nearby routes, if you even have the legal authority to charge such a fee.
  Why is it the responsibility of other people to pay for a town they don't live in?
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
102. Re:Alright! by Surt · 2010-09-28 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  You're suggesting they should pay for things themselves? That's not the American way, buddy, go back to China.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
103. Re:Alright! by 91degrees · 2010-09-28 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  The comment I replied to seemed to come to the conclusion that consent was the issue. As far as expectation of privacy goes, I totally agree with you and so did the judge.
104. Re:Alright! by EvilBudMan · 2010-09-28 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  Why not let the police record what you and them say and do to protect both parties? I'm not saying all of the time but you know when they make a traffic stop or an arrest of some sort. Why the defendant can't record what the police says to him seems kinda odd that they would even care if they were doing what was right.
  So let me get this straight, they want to be able to know every move we make but they are trying to hide what they do. Not good.
105. Re:Alright! by b4dc0d3r · 2010-09-28 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  I've been looking at that picture, I don't see the lights. If someone stopped in front of me, jumped out of the car, and pulled a gun, I really don't think I would have had time for a hidden object game. I watched the video, and would have picked up on the lights and called them out on it, but nope I don't see it. I just watched the video, still don't see it.
  Where are the lights?
  I didn't have sound on - a helmet would cause directional problems so it would be plausible to understand that a police car was chasing this maniac. YT video doesen't have 3D sound, so it's kind of hard to tell.
  Plus there's a real cop car right behind the guy once he backs up and realizes what's happening. Maybe that's where the siren is coming from, and the lights you see are the reflection?
  Seriously, I don't see it. He was speeding and deserved a ticket, no question. The wiretap charge was just intimidation for recording the unnecessary show of force.
106. Re:Alright! by Tom · 2010-09-28 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Even if it is not a precedent in the legally binding sense, lawyers love to cite other courts' decisions and judges usually take them into consideration.
  I live in a country where precedents are never legally binding, even if a higher court made them. Nevertheless, most courts follow other courts' decisions unless they find a good reason to deviate (usually because the case is similar, but not identical) and very few courts deviate from the opinion of higher courts (mostly because they know on appeal they'd be overturned anyways).
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
107. Re:Alright! by Hognoxious · 2010-09-28 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  This is someone who was charged with multiple counts of reckless endangerment, failure to stop, speeding (and when we say speeding, we're referring to "approaching 130mph on a 60mph freeway"), and so on.
  Separate offense. This is why, in general, other convictions are not declared during a trial.
  The law is supposed to try the case, not the defendant. Some of us still believe in concepts like "each case on its merits", and other old fashioned shit like that.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
108. Re:Alright! by Kijori · 2010-09-28 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  In a common law system (like the US or UK) you have a division between binding precedents and persuasive precedents, the latter being, I think, what you're referring to. At least over here (in the UK), though, County Courts aren't either; the judges have little or no legal training and don't give much reason for their decisions, and the decisions aren't reported in the law reports, which means they would have no real authority anyway. Other than where the case is particularly odd no-one will normally even hear about them, and a lawyer trying to cite one in court would get a funny look. As one of my lecturers likes to say, the lower courts have massive importance for the country as a whole, but no importance at all for the law.
  There was no real legal issue to be resolved in this case, and the issue of the camera should never have made it to court - the police lawyers should have advised them that they had no chance at all. If there had been any legal issue the judge would almost certainly have put it to a higher court.
109. Re:Alright! by GooberToo · 2010-09-28 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Only the cop in question wasn't on duty, he was in his personal car AND in plain cloths, drew his gun BEFORE identifying himself as a police officer. He should at the very least lose his job.
  The cop is lucky he didn't get his brains blown out. And justifiably so. That's what "cowboy cop" refers to - idiots like that cop who clearly feel they are above the law. We don't need or want police like that. He should be fired and blacklisted from every police department in the country. He needs a new vocation where people's lives are not in the balance.
  Hopefully police departments will use this video to instruct other police on how not to do everything completely wrong. He literally did nothing right.
110. Re:Alright! by Firethorn · 2010-09-28 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  You'd have to beat on a camera really really hard to mess up an SD card inside to the point where it was unreadable.
  In the semi-near future you might not even have and SD card to attack to destroy a recording, in Iran there are people actually helping to create fixes for this I understand. Given that they actively protest even though their cops are much more known to destroy stuff(including people), they're already developing countermeasures like having the camera(normally on a cell phone) be automatically uploading even as it's recording.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
111. Re:Alright! by mark72005 · 2010-09-28 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  pwnt
112. Re:Alright! by Achromatic1978 · 2010-09-28 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  Good points, and valid. Yet, somehow, "but it was only a speeding ticket" was somehow "insightful". Goose, gander.
113. Re:Alright! by okmijnuhb · 2010-09-28 14:52 · Score: 1
  
  It will be in Canada's records. If he ever tries to visit Canada, and they ask him if he's ever been arrested, and thinking it's been expunged from his record, he answers no, they will turn him around and refuse entry to Canada for lying.
114. Re:Alright! by PMuse · 2010-09-28 20:57 · Score: 1
  
  Enact this statewide: all revenue from traffic citations shall become part of the state general budget.
  There would never be another pointless speed trap. Cops would be reassigned to duties that are actually useful. Enlarged, cancerous, metastasized, small-town highwaymen^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H police forces would shrink back to healthy levels.
  
  --
  "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
115. Re:Alright! by Sally+Forth · 2010-09-29 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Which at this point is kind of like the parent saying that he won't stop you from going, he'll just dock your allowance and forbid you the use of the car.
  
  Everything the Federal Government has, it took from us, and everything it gives back to us, it does with strings attached. Sadly, it takes so much that we can't get by without what it gives back...
116. Re:Alright! by ShakaUVM · 2010-09-29 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  I've long wanted a proposition that says this exact thing.
117. Re:Alright! by zippthorne · 2010-10-02 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe that's how it works in your state. But I've been to about half of the nation's 50 states, and outside of the puritan states (the "government corridor" from boston to washington, and a few others), and people on the road in most of them seem more concerned with doing the right thing than forcing others to do the right thing.
  I am sure that most people have no idea what the speed limit in residential areas is, yet still manage to avoid running down their neighbors.
  The threat of causing injury to my fellow man "keeps me honest." The threat of a ticket only keeps me wary of cops. I suspect that it's the same in most teens as well. Your ephebiphobia notwithstanding.
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
118. Re:Alright! by BKX · 2010-10-03 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  Not true, not true. Alaska doesn't accept any federal roadway funding (although they still get highway funding for the interstate system, IIRC). This is because Alaska's alcohol age limit is 19 and not 21, which disqualifies them. It's done because the taxes generating by taxing alcohol consumed by 19 and 20 year-olds s greater than the funding they would receive, probably because of their low population.
  Also, several states have turned down money at different points so they could do similar things. Colorado had speed-limitless roads for a while, and a couple of other states have had less-ridiculous-than-federally-mandated drunk driving and alcohol age limit laws at different points in time (like Michigan for a few years in the 70's.).
Flip side by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 11:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

A happy day for freedom-loving Marylanders and Americans in general.
But a sad loss for power tripping pigs.
What? by U8MyData · 2010-09-27 11:23 · 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....
1. Re:What? by icebraining · 2010-09-27 11:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I don't agree that they never have an expectation of privacy, but they certainly don't when they're interacting with the public.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
2. Re:What? by bistromath007 · 2010-09-27 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  Only if Agent Scully is real. :V
3. Re:What? by U8MyData · 2010-09-27 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, not all instances of course. It's another story when acting in an official capacity.
4. Re:What? by Alwin+Henseler · 2010-09-27 11:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Ehm... 'public servant' need not automatically imply 'open for public view'. Examples: court cases behind closed doors (rarely, but sometimes for good reasons), public servants working with privacy-sensitive information (like your tax returns, medical records), etc, etc.
  Location where it happens is the deciding factor IMHO. If it can be seen on/from a public road, it's fair game regardless who or what.
5. Re:What? by Fjandr · 2010-09-27 11:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Such things don't qualify as being "on-duty," but you probably actually knew that and chose to troll a perfectly legitimate comment anyway.
6. Re:What? by jamesh · 2010-09-27 11:55 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I don't think he's saying that but you have the whole internet at your disposal - it is almost guaranteed that there are sites dedicated to watching middle aged men in bathrooms if that's what floats your boat.
7. Re:What? by HermMunster · 2010-09-27 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  Department stores, clothing stores, etc already have cameras in the restrooms and changing rooms. Do you not expect privacy there as a customer?
  If a cop goes into the restroom and takes drugs or beats up a civilian in the restroom, do you think they should be covered by privacy laws?
  The point I'm making isn't to substantiate against your premise, it's just to point out that your premise fails on its face.
  
  --
  You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
8. Re:What? by HermMunster · 2010-09-27 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  Closed door court cases are rarely closed to protect the public servants. Generally, they are closed to protect either the defendant or plaintiff (or a witness such as a child, etc).
  
  --
  You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
9. Re:What? by crow_t_robot · 2010-09-27 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  On duty != On doodie
10. Re:What? by hedwards · 2010-09-27 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  What part of the world are you living in where they have cameras in the changing rooms or restrooms? People can and do go to prison for putting cameras in those types of places.
11. Re:What? by mrsquid0 · 2010-09-27 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  That is utter nonsense. A public employee has the same right to privacy at work as a private-sector employee does.
  
  --
  Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
12. Re:What? by HermMunster · 2010-09-27 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  Any part of the US can have that. The point isn't that all have it, but that it has been ruled legal.
  
  --
  You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
13. Re:What? by hairyfeet · 2010-09-27 12:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Where you been at? They figured a way around that a looong time ago. Walk into any Walmart supercenter. You'll find the changing rooms are in the middle of the store, have NO tops on them, and just so happen to have one of those security ball cameras with 180 degree rotation ability right above the changing rooms. This way they can say "It is for watching the aisles and not the changing rooms" and they can still see inside the changing rooms just fine.
  As for TFA, it is nice to see at least a little common sense now and then. I'm personally glad my state has the wiretap laws written so one is allowed to tape oneself, which actually came in handy with an ex-GF seriously harassing me because I'd moved on. One should ALWAYS be allowed to tape oneself, period. And anybody with a little common sense would know a cop in the middle of a street waving a gun has NO expectation of privacy. If they are on the clock in the street doing their job then frankly they should be recorded. This way there is always a record of an arrest and video doesn't lie.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
14. Re:What? by fyngyrz · 2010-09-27 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  None.
  
  --
  I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
15. Re:What? by demonlapin · 2010-09-27 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  i.e., almost nil? Your employer can monitor just about anything you do at work; if you work for the people, it stands to reason that the people can monitor you.
16. Re:What? by TaggartAleslayer · 2010-09-27 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree. As a public employee, you are working for... the public. Hence the name. As an employee of the people, public employees should be held to a higher standard of transparency than a private sector employee. With transparency comes a loss of privacy. That's just the way it goes.
17. Re:What? by shadowbearer · 2010-09-27 13:53 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I agree with your second paragraph, but have to say that the Walmart superstore in my area has tops on the changing rooms. I was just in one of those rooms a few days ago. The department employee did check on what I brought in and brought out carefully, however, and didn't allow me to take my backpack in, which I thought was reasonable as long as I got it back and it wasn't searched outside of my presence.
  Doing some google searches I see quite a few hits for lawsuits involving Walmart and bathroom surveillance, but not for changing room surveillance. Got a cite?
  SB
  
  --
  It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
18. Re:What? by hairyfeet · 2010-09-27 14:19 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It doesn't make what I said any less true, it just means different stores have different rules. I've been in about half a dozen supercenters in my area and all but one have the open tops. As for a cite, sorry I just knew a guy that worked security at my local walmart, he said they could see in the changing rooms just fine, but didn't bother as they were too busy unless given a heads up by the door girl about a suspect customer entering one. That is the thing about living and working in a small town, you end up knowing everything about everybody. Everybody knows old Ray won't allow no pervy crap on his watch, as he is an ex-cop that took early retirement when his knee went.
  Personally I had to agree with him that it was much ado about nothing, as it weren't like there was just some guy watching the cameras like a perv. he was surrounded by other security guys and was watching half a dozen cams at a time, so peering down some girl's top wasn't exactly high priority for him. he said they were too busy watching the electronics and meat of all things. according to him you'd be surprised how many dumbasses would try to stuff meat in their pockets. He said they nabbed one little old lady with over $500 in her pockets trying to stuff steaks in her coat.
  But maybe it is based on the amount of crime a store sees? Many of the ones I went to were in higher crime areas as I was doing hired hand work and needed blanks for backup. Is your store in a high or low crime area?
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
19. Re:What? by shadowbearer · 2010-09-27 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  High or low crime area? I'm not privy to the local retailers estimates, so couldn't say. Given what I know of my area, however, I'd say that shoplifting is probably no more prevalent here than in most other places. I know I can leave my door unlocked pretty much all the time, and nothing gets ripped off, and most of the retailers I deal with say that shoplifting is fairly minor here. Extremely small town, BTW, 10k.
  I used to work a lot of retail jobs, so I'm pretty familiar with the stunts people pull in order to rip something off, even people who can afford to spend what they need to.
  Still would like a cite. If even a significant minority of Walmart stores had cameras watching public changing rooms, I suspect that the lawsuits regarding privacy rights would be easy to find, given that Walmart is a major corporation with a lot of stores.
  No cite, no joy.
  I had to think about it a bit, but I remember that the other three Walmart SS's in other towns that I've been in recently (recently being the last five years or so) - none of them had open top changing rooms, either. I don't shop department stores much, but I think I would have noticed ;-)
  SB
  
  --
  It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
20. Re:What? by TheLink · 2010-09-27 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  And cops aren't just any public employee. They are amongst the few entities allowed to legally exert substantial violence over others.
  
  As such there is more reason for them to be monitored.
  
  And if they're doing nothing wrong, what's there to fear right? The Government uses that argument on us, so why doesn't it apply to them... ;)
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
21. Re:What? by russotto · 2010-09-27 15:18 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  He said they nabbed one little old lady with over $500 in her pockets trying to stuff steaks in her coat.
  I stole a bunch of steaks from WalMart once, in early spring. They'd just gotten a shipment of employee caps in, so I snagged one of those and put it on. I grabbed one of those aprons, too. Then I went out to the garden center where the grills were, and fired one up (nice of them to keep the charcoal and lighter fluid nearby). Then I told one of the employees that we were running a promotion and asked him to get me a bunch of steaks. I grilled them up, ate a bunch myself, and served the rest to other customers. Then I went home.
  (believe it...or not)
22. Re:What? by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-09-28 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  That's why I always do a full strip tease when I use Wal Mart change rooms. There's nothing like watching a fully-bearded, young American white fella that can't dance to convince the Wal Mart security that it's better to turn those cameras off....
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
23. Re:What? by locallyunscene · 2010-09-28 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  FWIW always recording(or being able to record) your own actions and using it to monitor those with authority over you is called sousveillance.
  
  I find David Brin's writing on the subject to be rather insightful even when I don't agree with him, but of course, YMMV.
24. Re:What? by Fjandr · 2010-09-28 06:33 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Your response is in pretty much the same vein: short-sighted, lacking the application of sense (common or otherwise), and generally asinine.
  In your example, yes, still not technically "on duty." That's not necessarily the same thing as being "off shift," depending on the job. Does he have a duty to get his ass out of the bathroom ASAP? Yes. Is he expected to be actively engaged in his job function while actually on the toilet? No.
25. Re:What? by tjhart85 · 2010-09-28 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  I'd like to point out that it is COMPLETELY legal to stuff those steaks in your shirt just so long as you don't pass the point of sale and attempt to walk outside. If you haven't made an attempt to leave the store, you haven't stolen anything yet. Now, if they were breaking packaging or anything like that, then yes, since they haven't paid for it yet, they have broken the law.
26. Re:What? by mrsquid0 · 2010-09-28 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  No, public employees should be held to the same standard of transparency as any other employee. Remember, paying taxes does not confer any employer status over public sector employees, just as buying a jar of peanut butter does not confer employer status over the peanut butter employees.
  
  --
  Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
Of course the big irony here is... by Palestrina · 2010-09-27 11:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

... that cameras are not allowed in many/most court rooms.
1. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by caffeinemessiah · 2010-09-27 11:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  ... that cameras are not allowed in many/most court rooms.
  It's not ironic because there is an expectation of privacy in a courtroom. Hypothetical: I accuse you of being a pedophile, procure tons of evidence against you, which I display in court. Sure, the case gets thrown out (maybe I face charges myself, but I'm reckless that way), but someone videotapes the proceedings, edits out the juicy bits and puts it up on youtube without context. Pretty sure your life's ruined.
  If my fate's being determined, that's between me, the lawyers, the defendant/plaintiff, and the judge/jury.
  
  --
  An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
2. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by Kenja · 2010-09-27 11:36 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Irony... you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
3. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by HungryHobo · 2010-09-27 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't this the basic script for court cases now.
  only the reporters just take a sketch book and take notes.
4. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by StikyPad · 2010-09-27 11:50 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  No, there's no expectation of privacy in a courtroom (in the US) except in certain circumstances, usually involving a minor. The proceedings are open, anyone may attend, and transcripts are public record. The ban on cameras in most circumstances has more to do with maintaining decorum -- so people aren't playing to the cameras -- than with preserving non-existent expectations of privacy.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
5. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by blair1q · 2010-09-27 11:52 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  there is an expectation of privacy in a courtroom.
  No, there isn't.
  Exactly the opposite, in fact.
  Everything that transpires in a courtroom is public knowledge. It's against the law for the public to be excluded completely*. Reporters, sketch artists, and members of the general public can all sit in the gallery during a trial.
  Technological means of recording are a tiny fraction of the age of the legal system, so the legal system does not yet (and probably never will) consider them necessary implements to be used in informing the public, so the use of them is at the court's discretion.
  * - there are exceptions where there are statutory claims of privacy, such as when the evidence is classified or the defendant is a minor.
6. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by milkmage · 2010-09-27 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  that's due to safety. how'd you like your mug recorded if you're testifying against someone and your pic ends up all over the internet as "the snitch" if you were ever in a situation where you were eligible for the witness protection program... your pic is the last thing you want taken.
  probably not a good idea to take pictures of the jurors either.. (tampering/threats or worse) ..and cameras could be allowed if the judge says so.. cameras aren't illegal.. it's a rule, not the law.
  OJ Trial?, Court TV? (before it was truTV, it was basically live coverage of ongoing homicide trials). nevermind the part where you, for the most part, can get a trial transcript just for the asking - it's public record for christ's sake.
7. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 12:00 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Irony: the element shown between Manganesey and Cobalty on the standard periodic table (although alternate tables exist). A metally element in the first transition series, it readily combines in many oxidy states.
  Am I doing okay so far?
8. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by HermMunster · 2010-09-27 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  The failing of your argument about editing out the juicy stuff is that most of the details about what was edited will ultimately be revealed. Your's is a pure hypothetical since it won't really ever happen that way.
  Places like Slashdot.org (and the plethora of others) exist to discuss and reveal to others those things they miss. It has been my experience that if you keep reading you will ultimately uncover most of the points of view of others and there are a great many, most of which have merit (in some even tiny way).
  We tend to uncover every pimple on every ass so to speak.
  
  --
  You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
9. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by Palestrina · 2010-09-27 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  From the Oxford English Dictionary entry for "irony"
  
  2.2 fig. A condition of affairs or events of a character opposite to what was, or might naturally be, expected; a contradictory outcome of events as if in mockery of the promise and fitness of things. (In F. ironie du sort.)
  As in it is opposite to what might naturally be expected for the courts to rule that videotaping is not forbidden in public where there is no expectation of privacy, but forbid it themselves in a venue which they control which is also a public setting.
  Any questions?
10. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by loki_tiwaz · 2010-09-27 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  if cameras and microphones were allowed in courtrooms defendants would thusly be denied the right of due process due to making it into a media spectacle. whoever modded up the parent is a retard.
11. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by DrugCheese · 2010-09-27 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  Good reference.
  
  --
  *DrugCheese rants*
12. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by T-Bone-T · 2010-09-27 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  Already forgotten about Google getting charged with defamation in France? A man was convicted of rape but under French law is presumed innocent until the appeal says otherwise but a search for the man's name on google connects him to the alleged rape. It isn't exactly the same but it seems to me to be along the same lines.
13. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by The_mad_linguist · 2010-09-27 12:17 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I do not think it means what you think it means.
  Like rain on your wedding day?
14. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by HermMunster · 2010-09-27 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  Was it required reading? Not sure if your point is valid. Defamation and libel in the US are very hard to prove.
  And, your's missed the point. The case of Google being found guilty was with search results always cropping up when you searched for that man's name.
  I don't see how his case has anything to do with the equalization of accuracy. It would seem that this proves my point, that ultimately things equalize and we get a real picture, even if the view seems skewed initially. And I don't think this case is over yet.
  
  --
  You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
15. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by dkleinsc · 2010-09-27 12:49 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Not only that, it should be pointed out that the public nature of a criminal trial is enshrined in Sixth Amendment.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
16. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by GuruBuckaroo · 2010-09-27 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  Irony... you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
  These nails taste irony.
  
  --
  Poor means hoping the toothache goes away.
17. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by PachmanP · 2010-09-27 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  Like rain on your wedding day?
  Oh God. Not again!
  
  --
  You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
18. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by demonlapin · 2010-09-27 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  In the words of the great Larry Witkos (no, you've never heard of him, just a good guy who died too young): "That's not ironic. That just sucks."
19. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2010-09-27 14:21 · Score: 1
  
  You mean a positive omen according to most cultures?
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
20. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by dragonsomnolent · 2010-09-27 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  No, like a song called Ironic with no examples of irony in it. (sorry, just bugged me for a while now)
  
  --
  I got nuthin
21. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by penguinchris · 2010-09-27 21:19 · Score: 1
  
  I think that's the joke - the irony is that the song isn't actually about irony. Or something like that.
22. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by tehcyder · 2010-09-27 21:43 · Score: 1
  
  You'd never get to court, you fucking idiot, but if you did the trial would be a public affair unless it involved children or national security or some other pressing reason. The question of taping/photography is a separate one, depends on the particular court AFAIK.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
23. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by tehcyder · 2010-09-27 21:53 · Score: 1
  
  More like a black fly in your Chardonnay.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
24. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by tehcyder · 2010-09-27 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  Blackadder : Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?
  Baldrick : Yeah! It's like goldy and bronzy, only it's made of iron.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
25. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by Charliemopps · 2010-09-27 23:34 · Score: 1
  
  I can understand the judges in these cases... they don't want the trial to turn into a circus (like OJ) but they could at least let cameras in to record the proceeding for posterity. (I think this has been allowed several times actually)
26. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by harl · 2010-09-28 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Not ironic at all. A complete record of what goes on in the court room is kept.
  
  --
  I find being offended by me offensive.
27. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by blair1q · 2010-09-28 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, you made me reread it, because I went "wtf?", and I don't find that there. The jury is not part of the public, it's part of the trial, and isn't allowed to communicate (input nor output) with the public during the trial.
28. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by The_mad_linguist · 2010-09-28 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly! Most people would think that it meant bad luck, not good.
  So the analogy actually worked out after all. Now, what word would describe this course of events?
a police officer on a traffic stop? by Culture20 · 2010-09-27 11:25 · 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"?
1. Re:a police officer on a traffic stop? by snowgirl · 2010-09-27 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  "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"?
  We can only hope for the answer to be "both".
  
  --
  WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
2. Re:a police officer on a traffic stop? by jamesh · 2010-09-27 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  "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"?
  I'm not completely sure but I think that someone pointing a gun at you in a public place has already waived their right to privacy, be they police office or generic crazy person.
  That said, if someone points a gun at you, hasn't identified themselves as a police officer, and asks you to put the camera away, i think it's probably best to comply. There are no outcomes in such a situation that are going to be a win for privacy.
3. Re:a police officer on a traffic stop? by HermMunster · 2010-09-27 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  Hammer hits nail squarely on the head.
  
  --
  You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
4. Re:a police officer on a traffic stop? by DrugCheese · 2010-09-27 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah I'm curious if that asshole still has a job and why.
  
  --
  *DrugCheese rants*
5. Re:a police officer on a traffic stop? by loki_tiwaz · 2010-09-27 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, i'd say that'd be the next issue to come up for this guy, i bet the compensation for being threatened like that will cover the traffic fine HAHAHA stupid pig.
6. Re:a police officer on a traffic stop? by hedwards · 2010-09-27 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  I could be wrong, but when it gets to that point, I suspect that they're required to identify themselves as law enforcement. In many, if not all, jurisdictions pulling a gun on somebody is a force able felony and as a result if they don't identify themselves as law enforcement you would have the right to pull out your own weapon and defend yourself.
7. Re:a police officer on a traffic stop? by interkin3tic · 2010-09-27 12:32 · Score: 1
  
  I think we got the better ruling, though I'm no lawyer. I guess the police made the argument "Even though you had no way of knowing he was a cop, you should have stopped filming because he was a cop." I would have been pleasantly surprised if the outcome had been that once an officer identified himself you had to stop filming, but before that it was okay. And I say pleasantly surprised because it would have made some sense.
  This ruling is better though.
8. Re:a police officer on a traffic stop? by demonlapin · 2010-09-27 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  He'll just say that he said he was an officer of the law, it was just before you started recording.
9. Re:a police officer on a traffic stop? by chefmonkey · 2010-09-27 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  I know tracking down the actual article and reading it can end up being a bit of a chore. So, to assist you in finding your fallacy without putting you through the excessive work of figuring it out yourself: the guy who was pulled over was using a helmet cam. He had it on long before the law enforcement officer got involved -- quite possibly, in fact, before he even started the motorcycle in question.
  The only way the officer could make the claim you assert he would involves him finding the dude at the very beginning of the ride and saying something like, "hey, I'm a cop, and I might pull you over in a bit if you happen to do something illegal."
  But I doubt you're envisioning something like that.
10. Re:a police officer on a traffic stop? by demonlapin · 2010-09-27 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  I was speaking to a more general case, but in this one your point is well taken.
11. Re:a police officer on a traffic stop? by jamesh · 2010-09-27 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  An unidentified somebody pointing a gun at you means they intend to kill you.
  Your daddy might have told you to never point a gun at anything you aren't going to kill, but the bad guys daddy might have told him that people are more likely to do what they want if you point a gun at them.
  If they intended to kill you then you'll already be dead before you notice the gun pointing at you. If they haven't killed you yet then there's a good chance they won't unless you piss them off.
  
  Putting the camera away is the LEAST of the actions you should take. Responding more accordingly would be a higher priority. I.e. somebody points a gun at you, you should shoot them. Afterall, they are making it clear they intend to kill you. It's you or them at that point.
  "Excuse me Mr Bad Guy, just wait a second while I get my gun". If someone is pointing a gun at you and you make sudden 'getting my gun' movements then you are more likely to die, not less.
  
  If your options do not include "shoot them" because you are unarmed, then that is entirely your own sorry fault. The choice may cost you your life. Good luck.
  If most of the sheep have guns then I guess the rest of the sheep need guns too. Sounds like a real fun way to live. At least most of the crooks know they don't need to bring a gun with them - they'll almost certainly find one there anyway.
  Where I live, having a gun in your car without a really really good reason would get you in big trouble.
12. Re:a police officer on a traffic stop? by dragonsomnolent · 2010-09-27 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  Are you saying that a cop should be able to tell you to stop filming them doing a traffic stop? (or really their job while in a public place; undercover operations notwithstanding, I concede that filming an undercover cop could be a bad thing)
  
  --
  I got nuthin
13. Re:a police officer on a traffic stop? by interkin3tic · 2010-09-27 18:01 · Score: 1
  
  Are you saying that a cop should be able to tell you to stop filming them doing a traffic stop?
  No... that's in fact the opposite of what I was saying.
14. Re:a police officer on a traffic stop? by Kijori · 2010-09-27 20:09 · Score: 1
  
  Is there a video around that has the complete audio? The only videos I can find have the audio removed until just after the cop gets out of the car, which seems very suspicious.
15. Re:a police officer on a traffic stop? by Kijori · 2010-09-27 20:11 · Score: 1
  
  From watching the video, it looks like the vehicle had flashing lights to indicate it was a police car and was accompanied by a marked car, which stopped behind the motorcyclist. At one point he looks behind him at the uniformed cops who are standing outside their marked car, so I'm not sure he can really claim that he didn't believe the people stopping him were real police.
16. Re:a police officer on a traffic stop? by Mitsoid · 2010-09-27 21:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  -- No lights ( / unmarked car )
  -- No badge
  -- No uniform
  -- Gun drawn
  -- Charging me telling me to get off my vehicle
  -- Put hand on bike yelling at the driver
  -- Closes to 2-3 feet from driver
  
  As he has not yet identified himself as a police officer one would assume he is a crazy/road rage civilian, or a carjacker (motorcycle thief), that is charging me with a deadly weapon drawn.
  
  If you are a cop (or identifiable as such), then I would not defend myself, nor would I expect you to use your gun offensively.
  If you are not a cop (or not identifiable as a cop), I assume you're a thief and are using the gun as a weapon to deprive me of life and/or property
  
  At the first opportunity (in this case, when you were 2 feet away from me with a gun drawn, not pointed at me) I would have attacked you, as you are currently identified (to my mind trying to decide fight/flight) as a thief and/or really pissed off civilian... and you presented me with an opportunity to defend myself from you and get away... Probably harming you and/or myself in the process... It may not be the 'right' choice, but It is what you (police officers) preach (as in, self defense), and I'm a full supporter of that.
  
  Anyway, Any cops that read this, please keep this in mind when you charge a civilian with your gun out... Identify yourself as an officer... Otherwise, everything your department tells civilians to do is "to run away, or defend your life if you are unable to run"
No Wire by Sonny+Yatsen · 2010-09-27 11:27 · Score: 1

How can you prosecute under a wiretapping statute if there is no wire involved where a conversation is being intercepted? Clearly, the judge got the right idea.

--
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
1. Re:No Wire by chaboud · 2010-09-27 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  The law in question has to do with recording, so "wiretapping" is really a misnomer. Though I'm pretty sure you were just jokin'...
2. Re:No Wire by hedwards · 2010-09-27 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  Because it often includes other forms of discrete taping. Frequently the wire tap statutes will include provisions for wearing a wire, and I suspect that's what they based the decision on.
3. Re:No Wire by blair1q · 2010-09-27 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  It's called a wiretapping statute. Like most laws, its title isn't the entire law, and sometimes what you hear it being called isn't even its title. This one included other forms of recording, and conditions on applicability of the prohibition of them. The cops didn't understand the law when they tried to use it against the recorder. The recorder probably didn't even know about the law, he just thought he was covering his ass recording the incident. He got lucky. They learned something.
4. Re:No Wire by Myopic · 2010-09-27 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously! And what is with this "internet" thing!? That's not a net, which can be used to catch fish; it's some kind of system of interconnected computers! I can't fish with interconnected computers!
5. Re:No Wire by 91degrees · 2010-09-27 18:31 · Score: 1
  
  The wiretapping law also includes recording private conversations, which is sort of reasonable. It does not and should not include recordings of conversations in a pubic place.
6. Re:No Wire by azalin · 2010-09-27 19:59 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously! And what is with this "internet" thing!? That's not a net, which can be used to catch fish; it's some kind of system of interconnected computers! I can't fish with interconnected computers!
  But of course you can! As any fisherman can tell you, attaching something heavy (ie a computer) to your fishing net usually improves performance (although other configurations exist).
  But behold of the many other possibly methods of including computers in your fish gathering operations:
  - Sit! - Add some padding and your old tower p-c turns into a p-seat.
  - Smite! - Dropping computers from above.
  - Shock! - Leave the power cord on.
  - Awe! - Impress fish with latest 3D graphics, but mind the refraction index of water.
  - Lure! - Start farmville and collect them whenever you want. ...
7. Re:No Wire by Anonymous+Cowpat · 2010-09-27 23:58 · Score: 1
  
  It does not and should not include recordings of conversations in a pubic place
  Recording, or it didn't happen!
  
  --
  FGD 135
Consequences for the Cops by Concern · 2010-09-27 11:30 · 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 loki_tiwaz · 2010-09-27 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, what i want to see is a lawyer who has a bit of a bee in their bonnet about police brutality and abuse of privilege doing him a lawsuit pro bono for having a gun waved at him without legal justification.
2. Re:Consequences for the Cops by kaoshin · 2010-09-27 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  Never attribute to malice that which can be accounted for by a stupid cop. Seriously though, I think the issue there would be the burden of proving malice. I don't think either "he's out to get me" or "see, he's a big meaniehead" counts as proof.
3. Re:Consequences for the Cops by sjames · 2010-09-27 12:21 · 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.
4. Re:Consequences for the Cops by blair1q · 2010-09-27 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone ever prosecuted thinks they were maliciously prosecuted. You have to prove that the prosecutor knew the law was wrong. You can't do that, because no court had ruled it wrong yet. That's the way statutory law works. It's the law because it hasn't been overruled by a court or repealed by a legislature. No matter how stupid it looks, it's what the cops and the prosecutor are bound by law to enforce, and as long as the courts don't rule against it, it will continue to be enforced.
5. Re:Consequences for the Cops by CyprusBlue113 · 2010-09-27 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  No prosecutors are not bound by law to enforce anything, descretion is supposed to be the entire reason they get to select cases instead of everything being automatic.
  
  --
  a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
6. Re:Consequences for the Cops by HereIAmJH · 2010-09-27 13:55 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I don't know about Maryland, but in my part of the country police NEVER make a traffic stop with an unmarked vehicle. There have been problems with women being assaulted by fake officers. But depending on the situation (it's not possible to determine when the patrol car arrived), if someone in an unmarked car like that cut me off, then jumped out and pulled a weapon, quite likely they would be removing my bike from his teeth.
  The apparently off duty officer never should have been involved since there were uniformed officers in marked patrol cars present. This should be a training film on how to do something incredibly unprofessional and stupid that will get your ass fired.
  
  --
  Another day, another update to a Google android app.
7. Re:Consequences for the Cops by sjames · 2010-09-27 16:40 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Until he identifies himself as a police officer, he's just some guy waving a gun.
  The big reason the police wanted the guy under the jail is that he had actual video evidence (You might want to skip to the 3:00 mark) of the police detectives dangerous and unprofessional behavior. The officer was entirely indistinguishable from a crazed road-rager. No lights, unmarked car, no uniform, no badge, just a gun. Notably, he claims it was a traffic stop, but no ticket book either!
  It certainly looks a lot more like he was angry at being passed and thought waving a gun around was the answer. That's EXACTLY the sort of person we DON'T want carrying a gun in public.
  The department's subsequent actions in working with the AG to twist a wiretapping law into a pretzel trying to go after the motorcyclist sure seems to be an indication that they were well aware of the problem. If they actually believed the detective's actions to be appropriate why wouldn't they publicize the video themselves?
  As for the DC detective, note that his actions were not considered appropriate either. In fact, an internal affairs review recommended a 10 day suspension for his actions.
  Police do have a bit more latitude in law and in practice are granted still more, but not THAT much, particularly when they fail to identify themselves first.
8. Re:Consequences for the Cops by tehcyder · 2010-09-27 22:17 · Score: 1
  
  if someone in an unmarked car like that cut me off, then jumped out and pulled a weapon, quite likely they would be removing my bike from his teeth
  
  Here's a hint, in a bike versus firearm contest, the latter usually wins.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
9. Re:Consequences for the Cops by drinkypoo · 2010-09-28 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  someone in an unmarked car like that cut me off, then jumped out and pulled a weapon, quite likely they would be removing my bike from his teeth.
  That's exactly what I'm thinking, except I don't ride a motorcycle, I (primarily) drive a truck that weighs 6,600 lb unloaded. And if someone steps out of a vehicle and points a gun at me, and they're not obviously a cop, I'm going to do my level best to run them over with both of the 35" Dick Cepek Mountaincats that are on the appropriate side of the vehicle, after bouncing them off my winch-mount bumper. Where I come from (California) that kind of shit is called carjacking. Since it's impossible to properly identify yourself as an officer in that situation, it's clearly warranted. And since the officer in question didn't, he obviously commited assault with a deadly weapon by pointing his gun at the subject.
  This is the kind of thing that makes me want to add video monitoring to every vehicle I drive. It's on the list, I guess.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
10. Re:Consequences for the Cops by HereIAmJH · 2010-09-28 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  That really depends on whether you can hit your target under stress. I know a few cops, and none of them shoot like Mel Gibson does in the movies. It's more difficult when you aren't shooting at paper targets. Outside of the range, my dad never fired his service pistol once.
  Here's a hint for you. That guy seems to think he's super cop. And from experience, those kind tend to be mediocre at best. Does this guy draw his service pistol at every traffic stop, or just the ones when he's out of uniform, in an unmarked vehicle, and apparently pumped up on adrenaline? And does he realize that the uniformed officer with the marked patrol car BEHIND the motorcycle is likely in his line of fire.
  One thing I'm curious about is did the patrolman recognize him as an officer or did he think he was facing a lunatic with a gun and an innocent civilian in between.
  
  --
  Another day, another update to a Google android app.
11. Re:Consequences for the Cops by atamido · 2010-09-28 23:16 · Score: 1
  
  It certainly looks a lot more like he was angry at being passed and thought waving a gun around was the answer. That's EXACTLY the sort of person we DON'T want carrying a gun in public.
  ...
  As for the DC detective, note that his actions were not considered appropriate either. In fact, an internal affairs review recommended a 10 day suspension for his actions.
  This is the real crux of the problem. Bad cops aren't really the problem, it's the departments that support them. A good department will quickly weed out bad cops as the situations arise, while bad departments will clam up and support the bad cops, leading to the corruption of more cops.
  As far as the internal investigation goes, a 10 day suspension was basically a slap on the wrist, and continuing the charges against the motorcyclist is proof of that. It might be appropriate for a rooky traffic cop, but someone at a detective level should be held to much higher standards.
It's a Pyrrhic victory by GodfatherofSoul · 2010-09-27 11:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

He'll spend a lifetime in that county getting pulled over for crossing the yellow line and not signaling on lane changes.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
1. Re:It's a Pyrrhic victory by dcmoebius · 2010-09-27 11:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  He'll spend a lifetime in that county getting pulled over for crossing the yellow line and not signaling on lane changes.
  Which still seems a helluva lot better than being convicted of a felony.
2. Re:It's a Pyrrhic victory by blair1q · 2010-09-27 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  No he won't. Unless he got personal about it and slagged-off all cops. Then some might take a little revenge next time they have a legal chance.
  Otherwise, they have better things to do with their time than harass people who got the law right.
3. Re:It's a Pyrrhic victory by outsider007 · 2010-09-27 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  Not signaling on lane changes is dangerous. You should get pulled over for that.
  
  --
  If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
Next step by DaveV1.0 · 2010-09-27 11:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sue the city and the cops for malicious prosecution.

--
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Re:I can possibly see the future by CajunArson · 2010-09-27 11:32 · Score: 3, Informative

You obviously don't know anything about Antonin Scalia apart from what Moveon.org and the DailKos tell you to "think". Go read the wikipedia page for Kyllo v. U.S. Then go read the full opinion and come back when you know a tiny sliver about the law instead of the Pavlovian emotional responses that are bred into you by your blogging "friends".

--
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Seriously, what were the prosecutors smoking? by Haeleth · 2010-09-27 11:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

If their legal theory had held up, next thing we know we'd have had homeowners facing 10+ years in prison for "wiretapping" burglars' conversations on CCTV.
(Ooh, and the burglar was whistling "Happy Birthday", so you're liable for $160,000 in damages to the RIAA as well ...)
1. Re:Seriously, what were the prosecutors smoking? by virg_mattes · 2010-09-27 11:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Ha! Shows what you know! He'd have to be singing the words for it to be a problem, since the tune matches "Good Morning To You" and therefore is public domain.
  
  Take that!
  
  In all seriousness, though, the prosecutor wasn't high, he was trying to make his job easier. With restrictions on recordings of traffic stops, it's harder to prove mistakes in procedure. Based on the ruling, more cases will show up with recordings, which makes it tougher to prosecute the violations. It's self-serving but at least there's method in his madness.
  
  Virg
2. Re:Seriously, what were the prosecutors smoking? by snowgirl · 2010-09-27 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  If their legal theory had held up, next thing we know we'd have had homeowners facing 10+ years in prison for "wiretapping" burglars' conversations on CCTV.
  (Ooh, and the burglar was whistling "Happy Birthday", so you're liable for $160,000 in damages to the RIAA as well ...)
  CCTV doesn't come with audio recording precisely because in some states it is a violation of their wiretapping laws to record audio. It's not the BURGLARS that have an expectation of privacy in this case, but rather, employees and customers.
  
  --
  WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
3. Re:Seriously, what were the prosecutors smoking? by sjames · 2010-09-27 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  So, what is the status of the ever popular "you live in a zoo" variation?
4. Re:Seriously, what were the prosecutors smoking? by cynyr · 2010-09-27 15:25 · Score: 1
  
  HOMEOWNERS
  
  --
  All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
5. Re:Seriously, what were the prosecutors smoking? by snowgirl · 2010-09-27 20:30 · Score: 1
  
  HOMEOWNERS
  Here's an analogy for you. Employer is to employee/customers as homeowner is to roommates/household members/guests/visitors.
  
  --
  WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
6. Re:Seriously, what were the prosecutors smoking? by virg_mattes · 2010-10-01 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Funny that most cruisers in larger jursidictions are equipt with cameras, seeings how it makes the prosocuters job harder.
  There's a special case in that. A camera that the officer knows about makes the DA's job easier (a combination of officer confidence and proof of procedure). A camera he doesn't know about makes it harder (if a cop is going to step out of line he'll avoid doing it in view/hearing of the cruiser camera/mike).
  
  Virg
Scumbag lawyers! by Degro · 2010-09-27 11:35 · Score: 1

device primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of oral communications
They would put an end to recording devices in public just to win one stupid case against a kid on a bike. And what about that redneck cop that bursts out with a gun and no identification? I hope he gets canned? No mention.
1. Re:Scumbag lawyers! by Lehk228 · 2010-09-27 12:03 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  And what about that redneck cop that bursts out with a gun and no identification?
  
  if that is his habit, eventually the natural consequences will take care of him, hopefully whoever is involved is not vilified as a "cop killer" but he probably will be. either that or he'll fall down the stairs and land head first on a bullet on the way to the police station
  
  --
  Snowden and Manning are heroes.
2. Re:Scumbag lawyers! by Thing+1 · 2010-09-27 13:07 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  either that or he'll fall down the stairs and land head first on a bullet on the way to the police station
  
  My first interaction with the cops, drunk at age 16 and "trespassing" (went back to the house the party was at, but the sitter who invited everyone over was gone, and his sister had come home and was unwelcoming), they cuffed me and then I fell down a flight of stairs. And, unfortunately, I was too drunk to later recall whether I tripped or was pushed (or simply "wasn't restrained from falling", a softer version of pushed).
  Perhaps, I suppose, fortunately, (from being drunk) I didn't tense up, and therefore didn't break any bones. Looking back many years later, I consider myself very lucky to have survived that incident.
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
3. Re:Scumbag lawyers! by tehcyder · 2010-09-27 22:30 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps, I suppose, fortunately, (from being drunk) I didn't tense up, and therefore didn't break any bones. Looking back many years later, I consider myself very lucky to have survived that incident.
  
  Do you really think cops care so much about stupid drunk teenagers that they would risk murdering them on a whim? You're just paranoid. Even if you had been a terrorist pedophile they know they can't just get away with killing people they don't like.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
4. Re:Scumbag lawyers! by Thing+1 · 2010-09-28 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  Do you really think cops [...]
  
  Do I really think cops are arrogant shitheads? Yes, yes I do. They get away with killing people they don't like all the time. Just look at BART.
  Okay, apparently I'm some sort of cowboy and need to slow down, so I'll tell you about this great fortune I saw today, "QOTD: Flash! Flash! I love you! ...but we only have fourteen hours to save the earth!" When I saw it, after reading the first 6 words, I thought "huh, well, this couldn't be Apple speaking..." Then I read the rest, and realized it was from Flash Gordon. Enjoy my wasted time!
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Why do I have to read this? by frovingslosh · 2010-09-27 11:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

Rather than read about the judge's amazingly sane and rational decision, I would have preferred to see the video of him handing down the ruling, but I guess cameras are not allowed in the court room.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
1. Re:Why do I have to read this? by compro01 · 2010-09-27 15:01 · Score: 1
  
  Your signature is wonderful.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
2. Re:Why do I have to read this? by harl · 2010-09-28 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  So what. A complete public record of the proceedings is kept.
  
  --
  I find being offended by me offensive.
In other news by emt377 · 2010-09-27 11:37 · 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?
1. Re:In other news by apoc.famine · 2010-09-27 14:39 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Sadly, they're pretty damn common. The job is self-selecting. You generally need to be a cocky, power hungry bastard to want to be a cop. There aren't a lot of white knights becoming cops. Plus, it's pretty well documented that people get excused from being cops for I.Q. test scores that are too high. If you want to be scarred for life, here are a blogger couple who document as many of these morons as they can. They're pretty hardcore libertarian/anti-government, but they do link to all primary sources in the way of local newspapers. Unknown News: Cops you won't see on COPS.
  
  --
  Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
2. Re:In other news by gmhowell · 2010-09-27 15:27 · Score: 1
  
  I know that one person, who is a cop in Maryland (state or county, I'm not sure) exhibited some sociopathic tendencies growing up. The fact that he's allowed to carry a gun at the behest of the state is one of the singular facts that has me distrust any law enforcement until they've shown a reason to give that to them.
  (Yep, this now cop was the bully. I was the punching bag.)
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
3. Re:In other news by gmhowell · 2010-09-27 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, this here is an interesting site to go along with the others you have there.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
4. Re:In other news by Just+Some+Guy · 2010-09-28 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  There aren't a lot of white knights becoming cops. Plus, it's pretty well documented that people get excused from being cops for I.Q. test scores that are too high.
  I truly think that's the exception rather than the rule, though. I've known a few cops from various social situations and they were all smart, decent guys. For example, my oldest son is in Cub Scouts with the son of a policeman. As one of the Cub Scout meetings, that cop took us on a tour of the police station and showed the boys how to dust for fingerprints and answered a million questions from curious kids. He's a smart, nice guy who's fun to be around.
  Now admittedly my selection pool is biased, because I've only dealt with the kind of policeman who wants to spend time with his boy at Cub Scout meetings or take him to swimming lessons, and that alone would weed out the complete assholes from any occupation. I mean, you also won't find the stereotypical self-diagnosed-Asperger geek volunteering to coach a Little League team. But it bothers me when I hear cops described as power-mad, stupid, sociopaths. I know those people are out there, but the policemen I've known have been the guys you like to drink a beer with while flipping steaks on the grill.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:Sucks to be him, though by Degro · 2010-09-27 11:44 · Score: 1

Yeah, but at least the 'authorities' were the ones getting rebuffed in the end. I think it was worth it for that, even if it wasn't the intention.
Happy day... sort of by i_b_don · 2010-09-27 11:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm happy to hear the verdict, but it always strikes me as sad how we only seem to win the most obvious of court cases these days. I mean, who in their right mind would think it is not OK to videotape in public, or that we needed to "protect" the police from video cameras?!
From the stupid fucken judiciary that hasn't outlawed torture yet (despite it being on the books), who let the government get away with warrantless wiretapping, assassinations of american citizens, and who thinks its ok for an $80,000 per song downloaded verdict....
I'm happy with this verdict, but overall I'm still massively frustrated.
d

--
all language nazi's will burne in heil!
1. Re:Happy day... sort of by interkin3tic · 2010-09-27 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  I mean, who in their right mind would think it is not OK to videotape in public, or that we needed to "protect" the police from video cameras?!
  How many state legislators qualify as "in their right mind?"
  By the way, if anyone here is of the opinion that local control is the way to solve every problem, this is just one of hundreds of examples that I think demonstrate that local governments can be about as bad.
2. Re:Happy day... sort of by demonlapin · 2010-09-27 13:15 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Don't get too excited. In Illinois, you still can't record audio of your traffic stop (although the cops can). Possibly video, too.
3. Re:Happy day... sort of by mSparks43 · 2010-09-27 13:27 · Score: 1
  
  small victories....
  ->or that we needed to "protect" the police from video cameras.......
  http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1644048/jail-photographing-police
  Sigh,
  These days I'm beginning to wish Al Queda was real, and that they would actually come along and nuke these arseholes for me.
4. Re:Happy day... sort of by drinkypoo · 2010-09-28 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  How many state legislators qualify as "in their right mind?"
  The majority of them are probably sane. What's missing isn't sanity, but a moral compass.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Countersuit? by rsborg · 2010-09-27 11:51 · Score: 1

How much leverage does Graber have to go after this blatantly unjust perversion of police powers?
I would donate to such a cause... these proto-fascists need to be put in their place...
just the other day, a cop car pulled out wildly ahead of another motorist, turned on his siren and lights, zoomed past a few other cars, then shut off his siren... who's to bet there was no emergency other than the cop's inflated ego?

--
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
1. Re:Countersuit? by Spectre · 2010-09-28 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Police in my area will routinely pull up behind a motorcyclist and flip on their lights/siren, then flip them back off if the motorcyclist starts to pull over.
  Often, the motorcyclist comes to a stop and gets to inquire the reason for the stop, inevitably, the reason given by the police is "I wanted to see if you would run."
  
  --
  "Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
A sad sad story by oldhack · 2010-09-27 11:52 · Score: 1, Offtopic

The fact that this is even a news.
Are we really, really much better off than the poor schmucks in N. Korea?

--
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
1. Re:A sad sad story by hedwards · 2010-09-27 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, we are. And it's not even close. The conditions of our prisons are superior to the conditions of most North Koreans. To even suggest that we're comparable requires a level of ignorance sufficient to land one a commentator position on Fox news.
  
  OTOH I might have missed the forced labor camps where the US government sends dissidents to work themselves to death.
2. Re:A sad sad story by DigiShaman · 2010-09-27 12:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Oh, the N. Koreans are fucked. No question about it! And while I understand your frustration, let's at least put things into perspective.
  That said however, if we don't remain ever-vigilant, our current path will lead to absolute tyranny. Not today, not tomorrow. But someday it will happen if we collectively keep our heads in the sand by not holding our elected officials accountable.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
3. Re:A sad sad story by oldhack · 2010-09-27 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  You have any contact at Fox News? I can use the extra income.
  
  --
  Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
4. Re:A sad sad story by timeOday · 2010-09-27 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  A sad sad story... The fact that this is even a news.
  
  Perhaps, but I applaud slashdot for bringing us "the rest of the story" (as Paul Harvey would say). To often, the media only report the outrageous part of a story ("person files crazy lawsuit") then don't bother with the outcome if it is not also outrageous ("crazy lawsuit dismissed"). Over time, people are left with an exaggerated perception of everything going to hell in a handbasket.
5. Re:A sad sad story by Omnifarious · 2010-09-27 12:44 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I would replace 'not tomorrow' with 'probably not tomorrow'. Stuff can happen surprisingly quickly.
  
  --
  Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
6. Re:A sad sad story by PRMan · 2010-09-27 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention the TV (if you're so lucky) that has one channel with cartoons brainwashing your children to worship Obama. Oh, and it's probably spying on you. Not to mention the radio in the kitchen that you can't turn down, also saying "All hail Obama!"
  And your meat diet consisting of 1 chicken a month per family member.
  And being killed for your education or religious beliefs.
  If you think America is as bad as North Korea, you really should watch A State of Mind
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
7. Re:A sad sad story by Thing+1 · 2010-09-27 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  OTOH I might have missed the forced labor camps where the US government sends dissidents to work themselves to death.
  
  Sure, and on the gripping hand, I watch "prisoners" pick up trash every day on my way to work. They aren't camps; they're vans. And, it saddens me that many of them, after they have completed their debt to society, will be unable to determine the future course of the society that they are supposed to be reintegrated into. (I.e., felons can't vote.)
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
8. Re:A sad sad story by ckaminski · 2010-09-27 14:30 · Score: 1
  
  If they're picking up trash on the side of the road, they're probably misdemeanors fulfilling their public-service requirements and not felons.
9. Re:A sad sad story by Thanshin · 2010-09-27 18:59 · Score: 1
  
  Are we really, really much better off than the poor schmucks in N. Korea?
  You're a fucking retard and I hope you some day get to know in person someone who's been tortured so you get to understand what are "the poor schmucks in N.Korea" going through.
  With my excuses to the rest of slashdotters for having to read this.
10. Re:A sad sad story by 91degrees · 2010-09-27 19:36 · Score: 1
  
  LOL! I know I shouldn't be too pedantic with silly joke comments like this, but have you seen a North Korean traffic cop? They're really not too hard on the eyes.
11. Re:A sad sad story by oldhack · 2010-09-28 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Who you think you are, a N Korean or something? Douche.
  
  --
  Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
You mean the police are not above the law by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 11:57 · Score: 1, Insightful

You mean the police are not above the law... hmmm, i thought some of us are more equal than others. Heaven forbid the police have to act within the law :O
Is it "wire tapping" by dmomo · 2010-09-27 11:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

If the device is out in the open, and you disclose this to the other party? Can the other party actually require that you turn the device off even if it's on your own property? What about in your own car. I think that at some point, "recorded" is going to become more and more fuzzy.
What if I write something down as you're saying it? What if a robot hears and transcribes it for me into text? What if I commit it to memory? What if my memory is enhanced? Where does the line get drawn? Or does it?
1. Re:Is it "wire tapping" by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 13:55 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  If the device is out in the open, and you disclose this to the other party? Can the other party actually require that you turn the device off even if it's on your own property? What about in your own car. I think that at some point, "recorded" is going to become more and more fuzzy.
  What if I write something down as you're saying it? What if a robot hears and transcribes it for me into text? What if I commit it to memory? What if my memory is enhanced? Where does the line get drawn? Or does it?
  For you, the line gets drawn at 2 cups of coffee per day.
2. Re:Is it "wire tapping" by Attila+Dimedici · 2010-09-27 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  In most dual consent states, informing the other party that you are going to record the conversation counts as them giving permission if they continue the conversation. That is why many customer service phone lines have a recording that you hear that says, "This conversation may be recorded for ...". So, no, they cannot require you to turn the device off. All they can do is refuse to have a conversation with you while the recording device is turned on.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
3. Re:Is it "wire tapping" by apoc.famine · 2010-09-27 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, "wire tapping" laws need a 21st century re-do. A CCD soldered to a microprocessor soldered to a solid state drive, all soldered to a battery would be pretty damn hard to qualify under any sort of "wire tapping", for the most general definition of 'wire'. (Yes, I know that 'wire' in this context means "phone line or other communications line". Still...)
  
  --
  Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
No celebrating on forums.officer.com by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 12:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

Majority on that forum wished this stop would've ended in a not so favorable manor for the motorcyclist. That forum seems to hate 'civilians' for some reason.
1. Re:No celebrating on forums.officer.com by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 12:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Holy crap, if ever there was a board in dire need of some epic trolling, it's that one.
2. Re:No celebrating on forums.officer.com by MadMaverick9 · 2010-09-27 16:18 · Score: 1
  
  Why do police officers care about this case?
  I don't see any police officers in the video. I see a civilian coming out of a car (not a police car), drawing a gun and waving it around. This civilian does not produce a badge or other form of id, confirming that he is what he says he claims to be.
Do away with thus judge! by ZDRuX · 2010-09-27 12:06 · Score: 1

This judge supports personal freedoms and accepts that public servants work for us. He's clearly a tea party supporter or a terrorist, I can't be sure - better send him to Guantanomo and put him on the no-fly list.

--
The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re:I can possibly see the future by HermMunster · 2010-09-27 12:09 · Score: 1

I don't care much for anything coming from the US Supreme Court. They have been extremely disappointing of late. When a case can be determined due to the professionalism (or rather alleged professionalism) of the police, even after a long history showing police unprofessional conduct in all manner of cases, I loose faith in their abilities.

--
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Re:I can possibly see the future by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 12:09 · Score: 1, Informative

The irony of this post is fucking STAGGERING.
Really? Really, this is what you want to go with, with that asinine flourish?
Okay, son, try this the fuck on for size: the reason we have no-knock warrants in this country is BECAUSE OF Tony Scalia. Who wrote the god damned opinion. And guess what, this didn't come out of a blog. Just in case you're so busy fantasizing that Tony is the Great White Knight Defender of the Fourth Amendment to read it, here's the Wiki link.
You're the one who needs to be even passingly familiar with the decisions of the justices you defend, kid. Stop being a Pavlovian defender of the indefensible and wake the fuck up.
Incredible. Just incredible.
Well, by hellop2 · 2010-09-27 12:13 · Score: 1

Thank God(s).

--
How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
Oh if only... by NoxNoctis · 2010-09-27 12:23 · Score: 1

Aside from this seriously being a sudden outbreak of common sense, it only affects residents of Maryland. In order to affect the whole of the United States this would have to be a decision made by SCOTUS. Should this go to them? It shouldn't have to. Our state and local governments should be bright enough to figure this out on their own.

--
"You're awefully cute, but unfortunately for you, you're made of meat."
1. Re:Oh if only... by stevegee58 · 2010-09-27 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  Maryland is one of a small handful of states requiring "All party consent" on recording. Most states are "one party consent", so for most states you can record away to your heart's content.
2. Re:Oh if only... by Attila+Dimedici · 2010-09-27 14:27 · Score: 1
  
  Most other "two party" consent states (actually, I believe Maryland is the last such state to have such a ruling) already have had similar rulings by their Supreme Courts (or whatever they call their highest state court, in at least one state the state Supreme Court is not the highest court for that state).
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
3. Re:Oh if only... by NoxNoctis · 2010-09-27 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  The consent rules only apply for communications where there is an expectation of privacy, like a phone call. In a public place there is no such expectation so the consent rules do not apply.
  
  --
  "You're awefully cute, but unfortunately for you, you're made of meat."
Re:I can possibly see the future by blair1q · 2010-09-27 12:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

Antonin Scalia is a constructionalist obstructionist who yet again applied Alice-in-Wonderland thinking in interpreting the Constitution to rule incorrectly as part of a lifetime of putting "individual" rights over "collective" rights, something that he doesn't use to protect you and me, but to protect the few "individuals" (i.e. corporations) who are attempting to turn this country into even more of a de facto fascist state than it already is.
Stevens schooled him in that opinion, even quoting from the case Scalia cited, Katz v. United States, a demurral showing that the deciders of Katz knew there would be exceptions, under which Kyllo eventually fell. Privacy ends where your emissions enter the public air, whether you are emitting noise, radio waves, the odor of a meth lab, photons bouncing off your naked body through an open window, or thermal radiation. The police or your neighbors can receive those emissions passively at a distance and act on the information as reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
The hitch in this case is that having a hot garage is evidence of nothing in particular and gave the police no cause to do anything. Even if the garage is being used as a hot-house, there's no evidence it's a hot-house for illegal plants. They must have had other evidence. The opinion suggests they did the thermal imaging because of a prior suspicion. At the end it says it's up to the original courts to figure out if that evidence is still sufficient to have justified the search. Likely it wasn't, or the cops wouldn't have done the thermal imaging. And whether coupling a hot garage to the other evidence is sufficient is unknowable without knowing what the other evidence is. I get the feeling I'd come down on the side of saying it isn't sufficient and the cops should have just done some more surveillance.
Ya you don't go an abuse judges by Sycraft-fu · 2010-09-27 12:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

They have the ability to make your life difficult. Not even spiteful things like "I'll throw out your traffic tickets." They know they law, they know when you are breaking it and with what you can be charged. Further, they have connections and sway with the prosecutors. They also make rather credible witnesses. If the cops decided to wage a campaign against a judge, good bet they'd wind up on the wrong side of criminal charges. While they may be used to people taking their word of a defendant, wouldn't be the case with a judge. Of course the judge in that case would probably also be sympathetic to their colleague and so on.
Going after a judge would be just about the worst thing the cops could do.
1. Re:Ya you don't go an abuse judges by CyprusBlue113 · 2010-09-27 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  And even all that aside, there's straight up summons and contempt. You can mess with a lot of people, but stay away from judges, and sheriffs, you're just going to lose, and badly.
  
  --
  a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
2. Re:Ya you don't go an abuse judges by Myopic · 2010-09-27 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  They know they law, they know when you are breaking it and with what you can be charged.
  
  Yeah, but who is going to make the arrest?
  That's mostly snarky but it's also a comment on the separation of powers. A judge can do a lot, but he can't physically enforce the law. But you are absolutely right: he can do a lot.
3. Re:Ya you don't go an abuse judges by The+Snowman · 2010-09-27 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  They know they law, they know when you are breaking it and with what you can be charged.
  Yeah, but who is going to make the arrest?
  That's mostly snarky but it's also a comment on the separation of powers. A judge can do a lot, but he can't physically enforce the law. But you are absolutely right: he can do a lot.
  
  The bailiff will make the arrest. You know, since they work for the judicial branch, not the police department.
  
  --
  24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
4. Re:Ya you don't go an abuse judges by TheLink · 2010-09-27 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  If the cops are not effective, the military get involved, one way or another.
  
  Things get very messy at that point, but that's why cops have to do their jobs properly.
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
5. Re:Ya you don't go an abuse judges by PinkyGigglebrain · 2010-09-27 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately there are other ways a cop could make things difficult for a judge that would not be so easily proven.
  
  Slow response to calls from the Judge's address, harassment of the Judge's friends and "finding" drugs in his wife/daughter/son's car are three that come to mind. I'm sure with a bit more time I could come up with more.
  
  One should never underestimate the ingenuity of someone with a badge, gun and grudge.
6. Re:Ya you don't go an abuse judges by myth24601 · 2010-09-28 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  Bailiff doesn't always work directly for the judge. In my state the Bailiffs are Sheriffs deputies. That said, someone with a warrant outstanding will have a lot of headaches to deal with wouldn't they?
  
  --
  No matter where you go, there you are.
7. Re:Ya you don't go an abuse judges by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · 2010-09-28 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Sometimes it is so blatant it's amazing. I remember one case where a cop had clocked a judge going well over the limit. Case goes to court, cops says he followed judge and clocked him going XX miles/hr over the limit. Defendant judge says "I don't think I was going that fast". Presiding judge finds defendant judge innocent - after all, a judge wouldn't lie, right????
  
  --
  The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
Probably up to the victim in this case by Sycraft-fu · 2010-09-27 12:39 · Score: 1

Since the prosecutors were going ahead with the wiretapping charge, means they probably don't think the police did anything wrong, they aren't going to investigate. Well the victim in this case will have to make something of it. Maybe just a civil suit, but it is possible he could push for something else. It'll be on him though, doesn't look like the prosecutors feel anything was done wrong.
However, it is probably somewhat unlikely. The guy is still facing pretty serious traffic charges. Pretty hard for him to argue against them as he provided the evidence himself. Well what may happen is they say "Ok we'll make all the criminal charges go away. You pay just a civil speeding ticket. In return, you agree not to push the issue against the cop."
Re:I can possibly see the future by interkin3tic · 2010-09-27 12:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

You obviously don't know anything about Antonin Scalia apart from what Moveon.org and the DailKos tell you to "think".
Ah yes, good form old chap. Someone says something you disagree with on the internet, and you respond first with "you're ignorant and influenced by news/propaganda sources I personally don't agree with." Allow me to respond in kind.
(ahem)
You're just brainwashed by faux-news!
No, probalby not by Sycraft-fu · 2010-09-27 12:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

I hear conspiracy theories like this but I've never seen any evidence of it happening. Reason is that the cops would get in trouble. If they follow someone all the time and harass them, that is precisely the kind of thing plenty of lawyers would be happy to take to trial. Also, this particular guy is known to record things. So if you have someone waiting outside his house all the time, following him everywhere he goes to pull him over continuously, well expect in short order to wind up on the receiving end of a lawsuit, or maybe even a federal civil rights suit.
All this is aside from the issue that their captain would probably get pissed off if they were wasting time on this rather than issuing tickets like they are supposed to.
I seriously think some /.ers need to get out a little more, and get some news from places other than online.
1. Re:No, probalby not by AK+Marc · 2010-09-27 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  I hear conspiracy theories like this but I've never seen any evidence of it happening.
  
  I have. Not that any number of tales told by strangers over the Internet will convince you, so I'll leave that alone. But I know more than one person who believed cops were purposefully targeting them for illegal harassment. And I know more than one cop that joked about how they enforced the law unequally in order to cause grief against a specific person who they had prior contact with (never admitting to breaking a law, and "discretion" allows all the harassment a cop wants to give in almost all cases). If you think it doesn't happen, you don't know human nature. I agree that the cop didn't immediately email out a picture of the guy and tell all his buds to illegally harass him. But that doesn't mean that harassment doesn't happen. And quite often.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
2. Re:No, probalby not by sokoban · 2010-09-27 14:03 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I hear conspiracy theories like this but I've never seen any evidence of it happening. Reason is that the cops would get in trouble.
  Uh, no. I was born and raised in a small town in central Kentucky. My mother was the city attorney. One police officer failed to get an oil change or routine maintenance on his cruiser for 20,000 miles (they are allowed to take their cruisers home, but get free maintenance at the city garage). The engine on his cruiser then failed and had to be replaced. As a result, my mom set in motion the proceedings to have the officer fired. The city was unable to fire him, and from there on out he would, whenever he saw me driving around town, follow me and pull me over for minor offenses such as speeding less than 5 mph over the posted limits. Eventually, his wife got a job in another city and they moved.
  The fact of the matter is that it is VERY difficult to have police fired. It used to be commonplace for mayors to come in and fire most of the police department and repopulate it with his cronies, now there are all sorts of laws protecting police officers.
  
  --
  09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
3. Re:No, probalby not by phorm · 2010-09-27 17:56 · Score: 1
  
  I know somebody it's happened to. The hard part is getting the money for the lawyer and enough proof that it's police harassment, but it can be done.
4. Re:No, probalby not by cawpin · 2010-09-27 18:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  whenever he saw me driving around town, follow me and pull me over for minor offenses such as speeding less than 5 mph over the posted limits.
  While I see what you're saying, he was an asshole, all you have to do is not give him an opportunity to BE an asshole by following traffic laws. They aren't that hard to follow and, as a pet peeve of mine, not signaling, on a lane change or otherwise, is one of the most asshole things you can DO on a road. Nobody can read your mind so use the fucking signal.
  
  Thanks.
5. Re:No, probalby not by tehcyder · 2010-09-27 22:26 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  The fact of the matter is that it is VERY difficult to have police fired. It used to be commonplace for mayors to come in and fire most of the police department and repopulate it with his cronies, now there are all sorts of laws protecting police officers.
  
  I'd rather have the laws protecting police officers than a department full of the mayor's cronies, but maybe I'm just not hip and cool enough.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
6. Re:No, probalby not by cusco · 2010-09-28 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  You've never been the new boyfriend of a cop's ex-wife, have you? Former co-irker, who had received three tickets in fifteen years of driving, suddenly accumulated enough moving violations in six months to have his license taken away.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
7. Re:No, probalby not by GodfatherofSoul · 2010-09-28 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  If a cop follows you around for long enough, he'll find something to pull you over for. That's the point. There's a difference between harassment and enforcing traffic laws. Maybe your tire touches a line (swerving), maybe you make a left-hand turn into the right lane, maybe your stop isn't complete. You WILL make a mistake since drivers aren't perfect.
  
  --
  I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Re:I can possibly see the future by dkleinsc · 2010-09-27 12:50 · Score: 1

No, Scalia wouldn't write something that boneheaded. This opinion would be assigned to Clarence Thomas.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Technically, yes, except .... by King_TJ · 2010-09-27 12:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

In this scenario, I'd be happy to see the turn-about, because I'm against the whole concept of cops issuing speeding tickets as it's currently done. The REAL point to the whole exercise is SUPPOSED to be about improving motorist safety. (At least, that's sure what the cops are constantly heard to claim, whenever someone protests the high cost of a ticket.) IF this were really true, the right way to approach the problem would be handling out tickets for unsafe driving practices, period. That means, for example, treating all speed limit signs as "recommendations". Stop the nonsense of automatically ticketing any driver exceeding that posted limit by X miles per hour at the second they went by a radar or laser speed gun! Instead, observe how people are driving. Give out tickets to the people who swerve into a lane of traffic without signaling, or the idiot who slams on his/her brakes on the interstate suddenly, without good reason. And yes, occasionally issue a ticket for driving excessively slow or fast too -- but not JUST because of the sign. If everyone is driving approximately the same speed, whether it exceeds the "speed limit" or not, look for the odd one out who won't drive with the flow of traffic. He or she presents much more of a danger or impedance to the traffic than anyone else in that group! For that matter, it wouldn't hurt to take the type of vehicle into account! (You can't take turns safely at as high of a speed in a large truck or SUV as you can in a sports car. So for one, the speed might be perfectly "safe" while it's not for the other.)
The fact is though, speeding tickets are a big revenue generator (AKA. tax), thinly veiled with the lie about it being for "your safety".
1. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by Apatharch · 2010-09-27 13:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Nice idea, assuming the traffic cops enforce the laws reasonably. If, on the other hand, they're prone to issuing tickets excessively, this would only give them greater latitude to do so.
2. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by luther349 · 2010-09-27 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  yellow speed sign are recommended speed. the ones you see at sharp corners. so that system is in effect. your white signs are your max speed allowed on that road. and speeders crack me up crying bought getting caught. i never had a speeding ticket in my life very simple don't speed.
3. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by whois · 2010-09-27 15:29 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Just remove the monetary incentive. Fines are a stupid idea for a punishment even in a capitalist system. They favor the rich and abuse the poor. Instead make the punishment for all minor infractions be community service. What you would see is:
  People not speeding so they don't get caught because they don't want to do community service.
  Cops not pulling people over that don't deserve it because it doesn't help their quota/benefit them in some way.
  Cleaner streets, etc from people doing actual community service that benefits the community (once they run out of "good" jobs to give all the people who want to spend 120 hours reading to kids)
  You could argue this benefits the rich even more at least the idle rich since they have more free time for community service, but they are less likely to want to waste their time on it.
4. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by Surt · 2010-09-27 15:32 · Score: 1
  
  Those things are hard to prove. Radar guns are cheap.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
5. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by fluffy99 · 2010-09-27 16:12 · Score: 1
  
  yellow speed sign are recommended speed. the ones you see at sharp corners.
  Yes, and the cops like to write reckless driving tickets for exceeding the "safe" driving speed, instead of exceeding the max posted speed limit.
6. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by zeroduck · 2010-09-27 16:28 · Score: 1
  
  I actually really like this idea, and I'm surprised I haven't heard it before.
  But it doesn't solve the problem of what police officers should ticket people for. Exceeding the max speed limit is a real easy thing to prove (radar guns are cheap, and accurate enough). Proving you are driving recklessly is much more subjective and harder to prove with a simple test that can be administered fairly across all drivers.
7. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by Tom · 2010-09-27 17:37 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Having been in a position where I made the rules, I also learnt an important lesson that most people don't ever learn explicitly, but still treasure:
  Rules give you certainty. In your examples, I as a driver never know when someone else (a cop) will consider my driving inadequate and cite more for it. With a fixed speed limit, I can glance at the speedometer and know for certain whether I'm good or not.
  There have been a great number of interesting studies that show that clear and well-known rules, no matter how nonsensical and arbitrary they are, have a calming psychological effect while uncontrollable external judgement causes constant stress. So if you want to create a society of permanently stressed-out people, then by all means continue pushing for your proposal.
  PS:
  In my country (Germany), an equivalent of your rule already exists in addition to the usual rules, or rather as its preface. 1 of our traffic laws book says that drivers shall at all times drive cautiously and considerate. You don't easily get a ticket for violating that, but this is what gets you in trouble when you try to argue the sign said "80" in strong winds, heavy rainfall and 10m visibility.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
8. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 17:42 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  That was me, but it's your fault for having bumper stickers with such a small font.
9. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by xaxa · 2010-09-27 18:17 · Score: 1
  
  In some countries fines are proportional to a person's wealth -- search "largest speeding fine" etc to see some examples of rich drivers being fined huge amounts.
  In this country all fines go to the government's money pot, which removes any incentive to try and make money from them.
10. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by SpeedyG5 · 2010-09-27 20:26 · Score: 1
  
  I think the revenue from the tickets should go to other sources ie schools. The township shouldn't be able to use any funds from these revenue streams. No pulling the "here's money for schools, now we get their other funding" trick either. If you remove the direct incentive the police will start writing tickets for when they are most appropriate.
11. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by Hognoxious · 2010-09-27 21:55 · Score: 1
  
  Proving you are driving recklessly is much more subjective and harder to prove with a simple test that can be administered fairly across all drivers.
  Not if you catch them on camera doing it.
  Er, wait...
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
12. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by antifoidulus · 2010-09-27 22:24 · Score: 1
  
  There have been a great number of interesting studies that show that clear and well-known rules, no matter how nonsensical and arbitrary they are, have a calming psychological effect while uncontrollable external judgement causes constant stress. So if you want to create a society of permanently stressed-out people, then by all means continue pushing for your proposal.
  
  German driving statistics would back you up on that. There are roughly 5,000 traffic deaths per year in Germany for a population of 82 million, or roughly .061 fatalities per year per 1000 population. Now the rules in Germany are VERY complex but basically leave 0 ambiguity. Now compare that to the US where there are about 40,000 fatalities per year with a population of 300 million, or .13(over 2x!) fatalities per 1000 population per year. Now granted there are a lot of other factors involved(Germans actually are tough on drunk drivers, Americans don't give a shit about them), but overall I think the complex system that leaves 0 ambiguity is better than the hodgepodge of laws we have in the states. For instance, in PA the law states that "nobody has the right of way, some people must yield the right of way in certain situations" and really it just comes down to the drivers involved and how they interpret the laws.
  
  --
  Monstar L
13. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by turbidostato · 2010-09-27 23:25 · Score: 1
  
  "but this is what gets you in trouble when you try to argue the sign said "80" in strong winds, heavy rainfall and 10m visibility."
  And rightly so. Under such circumnstances you should drive slower.
  On the other hand, you are German, so what about the fact that the autobahn has no speed limit for tourisms and yet it seems as safe as segments with controlled speeds (and safer than other types of roads)?
14. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by Anonymous+Cowpat · 2010-09-27 23:35 · Score: 1
  
  Most human beings on this planet live with uncertainty and need to accept consequences of poor personal choices
  Good idea, now, how do we establish that a given choice is a poor one before we make it? Oh, we can't.
  The courts under a common-law system operate more like quantum mechanics than classical mechanics, and that's really not good for anyone.
  
  --
  FGD 135
15. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by DwySteve · 2010-09-28 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  Just remove the monetary incentive. Fines are a stupid idea for a punishment even in a capitalist system.
  Perhaps the system could be fixed significantly if the money from the ticket didn't go immediately back to the town in which the ticket was written, instead perhaps being given to the state and channeled equitably to the various towns and areas with police forces.
  
  --
  http://angryee.blogspot.com
16. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by Endlisnis · 2010-09-28 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  What about tickets issued in a location far from your home? Like, you are on vacation across the country and you get a speeding ticket. Should you have to spend thousands of dollars to return to the city of the 'crime' to do 5 hours of community service?
17. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by Just+Some+Guy · 2010-09-28 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  So you want governments - specifically, the same corrupted governments who were already over-issuing tickets for financial gain - to be able to impose forced servitude for minor traffic infractions? I'd much rather pay Judge Bumpkin $100 for doing 36 in a 35 than work for his brother-in-law out at the quarry.
  You've seen "The Shawshank Redemption", right? Unlimited free labor is the ultimate financial incentive.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
18. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by Just+Some+Guy · 2010-09-28 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  German driving statistics would back you up on that.
  That might be, but you didn't demonstrate that. What are the number of miles driven per average German and American? How many people drive daily in each country? For instance, if those 5,000 German fatalities are out of a total of 10,000 German drivers, then it's a pretty dangerous place to drive.
  While that's clearly an exaggeration, I'd stake money that a higher percentage of Americans than Germans drive themselves to work each day. The number of accidents in each country is meaningless without that sort of context.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
19. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by operagost · 2010-09-28 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  Now granted there are a lot of other factors involved(Germans actually are tough on drunk drivers, Americans don't give a shit about them)
  
  Well, that's certainly not true. The legal limit is already dangerously low (as in, hard to distinguish from a false positive using field equipment), the federal courts gave away our right to not be detained without probable cause in 1980s because of the drunk driving "emergency" (sobriety checkpoints), and DUIs get their licenses suspended with the first offense in most areas.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
20. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by wvmarle · 2010-09-28 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Your idea gives rise to highly arbitrary ticketing. Who decides you're going too fast? Too slow? It's becoming arbitrary. That's why we have those signs. Then it's clear to the motorist when they go too fast. And then there are situations that are not regulated - e.g. when it's misty, it's still legal to go 120 km/h on the motorway (or in Germany even faster), however everyone will agree it's a stupid thing to do, and if you are involved in an accident you've got big problems ahead after you recover from your injuries.
  And if you don't like that speed tickets are such a great tax revenue, how about paying attention to the speed limit, and making sure you do not exceed it? It's that simple. Now if everyone does that I'm sure traffic accidents decrease drastically.
  That the government loses some income is definitely offset by the less cost in medical care, police support at accident sites, tow truck, cleaning and repairs of roads/sidings damaged in accidents, etc.
21. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by misexistentialist · 2010-09-28 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  Your proposal might be too soft on the idle poor. While they may often find work abhorrent, their time is worth nothing, unlike a middle-class offender who might be missing work, and who also might suffer more physically and mentally from menial labor.
22. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by IndustrialComplex · 2010-09-28 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  In this country all fines go to the government's money pot, which removes any incentive to try and make money from them.
  Except of course, the incentive for the government to raise revenue from fines...
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
23. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by tompaulco · 2010-09-28 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  If it is about safety, then every time they issue a ticket and collect a fine, they should then pull someone over randomly for driving safely and give them the fine they collected from the unsafe driver.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
24. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by Tom · 2010-09-28 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  Nice attempt at provocation, but missing the argument by a wide margin.
  Having rules formulated clearly and unambigiously so you know for certain whether you are breaking them or not gives you assurance.
  Blindly following every rule no matter what it is is not only not the same thing, it is probably not even in the same chapter in the book of life. On the contrary, a lot of people in this world knowingly and intentionally break rules to make a point - see the jewish blockade runners of today. If they hadn't known the rules, or if the rules had been so soft that nobody were able to say what exactly it was that they were doing, the whole action would have lost a lot of its impact.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
25. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by Tom · 2010-09-28 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if your speedometer is broken, you also can't tell if you are speeding or not. But the difference is that this is your problem and your responsibility to fix.
  For alcohol, there are breathalyzers available. Some clubs even have them installed in my city, so you can check. Or you can simply play it safe and not drink and drive. The fact that you don't know your alcohol concentration is entirely your problem and how you deal with it as well.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
26. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by Tom · 2010-09-28 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  The Autobahn works because it was built with no speed limit in mind, so it is usually straight and curves are long, sometimes very long. In fact, we used to have something called "Richtgeschwindigkeit", roughly "recommended speed" set at 130 km/h (80 mph). It works because people expect you to be driving at speeds like that and above, and drive accordingly. Nobody who is sane would change into the leftmost lane at low speeds without making very certain that the road behind is empty.
  I'm not a fan of speed limits, I enjoy driving at 240 km/h (150 mph) which is the top speed of most of the cars I rent. So I personally believe that lower speeds don't make driving safer. But you have to have the environment - the road must be built for it, the car must be built for it, and the driver must be used to the speed (things like keeping enough distance at speeds like that, etc.)
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
27. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by Tom · 2010-09-28 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, and you just about summed up what's been wrong with Germany for centuries: instead of taking personal responsibility and dealing with uncertainty, Germans want to have things spelled out for them as rules they can follow blindly and without having to think for themselves.
  It's funny how only the A Cowards bring that argument.
  Knowing what the rules are and blindly following them are not the same things and one does not necessarily follow the other. If you see them in such close proximity, that says a lot more about you than about 21st century Germany.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
28. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by Tom · 2010-09-28 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  Which is why traffic courts allow for tolerances and take the possibility of measurement errors into consideration.
  Next.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
29. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by Anonymous+Cowpat · 2010-09-29 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  Then it doesn't look like we're going to agree on this one. It you will have rules, then having them clearly defined with no room for taking a chance as to whether X action will break them is a good idea.
  When I'm driving I don't want to have to guess at what someone else is going to do, I want there to be rules which we both understand and which if we both obey, will result in us not crashing into each other. Similarly, I don't want my actions second-guessed as to whether I 'did good' by someone else's judgement, I want to be able to point at the highway code where it says "second exit on a roundabout should be approached in the left hand lane with no indicator" and there be no room for someone to tell me that I should have approached the roundabout differently when going for the second exit.
  The German problem is not being willing to consciously break the rules when the outcome of obeying them would be unacceptable, not the desire to have clear rules in the first place.
  
  --
  FGD 135
30. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by th3rmite · 2010-09-30 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  If the fine for speeding was $200 and a wealthy individual was pulled over and fined, all he would have to do is pay the $200. That's $200 the local government has to use for programs such as assistance for the poor. Now, if the punishment was community service, that would HURT the local government and assistance programs. It would also HURT the economy as the loss of that person's productivity, not being able to manage their company during that time, not being able to invest in stocks, etc. I'm sorry, but until the system is completely overhauled, the wealthy are the only ones who provide jobs.
Overturned on appeal by PPH · 2010-09-27 13:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Law enforcement has their head so far up their ass they do have an expectation of privacy.
Can you hear me now?

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:I can possibly see the future by demonlapin · 2010-09-27 13:10 · Score: 4, Informative

I'm more inclined to like Scalia than not, based on general principles, but in the area of interactions with the police my touchstone is Hudson v. Michigan, in which he gutted the Fourth Amendment protections against violations of knock-and-announce while praising the "increasing professionalism" of police forces. Increasingly militarized, yes. Professional? Nope.
ready to fire by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 13:21 · Score: 1, Interesting

should the "cop" be charged with something for his reckless behavior? He pulled out a gun pointed at him when no one's life was at risk, and he didn't even identify himself first as an officer. This is completely unacceptable behavior by someone who is supposed to be protecting citizens, not pointing guns at them.
Re:I can possibly see the future by DurendalMac · 2010-09-27 13:37 · Score: 1

Honestly, around here, his opinion, while biased, is a bit refreshing as the whole "Faux News" bit has been done to death. It's nice to get a little bias from both sides as the truth often lies somewhere in between.
Mod -1, idiot by DesScorp · 2010-09-27 13:41 · Score: 1, Flamebait

A happy day for freedom-loving Marylanders and Americans in general.
But a sad loss for power tripping pigs.
Pigs. Cute. How very 70's revolutionary of you. Are you wearing bellbottoms, or do you always talk like some dumbass caricature of the Weathermen?
I think this ruling is fantastic, because I think it properly rolls back police power. But I also think that people that consider cops "pigs" are morons. There are good cops and bad cops, and there are far more of the former than the later. I'm a staunch advocate of minimal government and self defense, and I've even gone to court to (successfully) fight a traffic ticket, but I'd hate to live in a society without police.

--
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
1. Re:Mod -1, idiot by shermo · 2010-09-27 14:36 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I got pulled over by a young cop on a power trip for driving too fast through a chicane designed to slow people down. I was probably doing half the speed limit (25 in a 50 zone), and it was about 10:30 at night in a deserted part of town.
  Yeah, I had a lot of body roll (older car), so perhaps it looked dangerous. The cop basically had a shout at me, while his co-cop stood there and said nothing, and then drove off to harass someone else.
  Where's the good cop in that? The guy doing the shouting was clearly an asshole, but the other policeman who just stood there was also culpable. If your 'good cops' are sitting passively by while bad cops abuse their good name, they're not really good cops are they?
  
  --
  Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
2. Re:Mod -1, idiot by Moryath · 2010-09-27 15:11 · Score: 1
  
  Get it through your head.
  There is no such thing as a "good cop" any more. They're either corrupt and lying, or they are corrupt and protecting the lying ones.
3. Re:Mod -1, idiot by shermo · 2010-09-27 15:38 · Score: 1
  
  Did you read my post or did you just scan through and notice the phrase 'good cop'?
  I quite clearly ask the rhetorical question "they're not really good cops are they?" which implies that no, they're not good cops.
  
  --
  Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
4. Re:Mod -1, idiot by fluffy99 · 2010-09-27 16:19 · Score: 1
  
  I got pulled over by a young cop on a power trip for driving too fast through a chicane designed to slow people down. I was probably doing half the speed limit (25 in a 50 zone), and it was about 10:30 at night in a deserted part of town.
  Yeah, I had a lot of body roll (older car), so perhaps it looked dangerous. The cop basically had a shout at me, while his co-cop stood there and said nothing, and then drove off to harass someone else.
  Where's the good cop in that? The guy doing the shouting was clearly an asshole, but the other policeman who just stood there was also culpable. If your 'good cops' are sitting passively by while bad cops abuse their good name, they're not really good cops are they?
  Wait. You were driving like a moron and you're upset that all you got was a warning? Would you have been happier if he calmly gave you a road-side sobriety test and then wrote you a reckless driving ticket?
5. Re:Mod -1, idiot by ChromeAeonium · 2010-09-27 16:32 · Score: 1
  
  Pigs, not cops. If they're on a power trip, as the one in this case clearly was, guess which one, by definition, they must be. Of course a proper society needs some sort of law enforcement, no one is saying otherwise. What it doesn't need are assholes with radar guns raking in money with various types of bullshit speed traps, who have no qualms about ruining lives because someone grew the wrong plant and cover for their buddies when they themselves get caught doing wrong. Protect & serve = cop. Harass honest citizens = pig. Whichever a cop is more likely to be doing, whether they're more likely to be helping people & society with a real issue, or just getting in the way and being a predatory parasite, determines which they are.
6. Re:Mod -1, idiot by shermo · 2010-09-27 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  Actually yes I'd rather I didn't get verbally abused. The guy was young and obviously had issues with not being taken seriously, so his way of dealing with it was being overly-aggressive.
  I would have had no problem if he'd breath-tested me.
  And he didn't write me a reckless driving ticket because I wasn't driving recklessly.
  
  --
  Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
7. Re:Mod -1, idiot by haruharaharu · 2010-09-27 17:15 · Score: 1
  
  I got pulled over by a young cop on a power trip for driving too fast through a chicane designed to slow people down. I was probably doing half the speed limit (25 in a 50 zone), and it was about 10:30 at night in a deserted part of town.
  Yeah, I had a lot of body roll (older car), so perhaps it looked dangerous. The cop basically had a shout at me, while his co-cop stood there and said nothing, and then drove off to harass someone else.
  Where's the good cop in that? The guy doing the shouting was clearly an asshole, but the other policeman who just stood there was also culpable. If your 'good cops' are sitting passively by while bad cops abuse their good name, they're not really good cops are they?
  Wait. You were driving like a moron and you're upset that all you got was a warning? Would you have been happier if he calmly gave you a road-side sobriety test and then wrote you a reckless driving ticket?
  Who's being a moron? Body roll doesn't mean skidding, it means body roll, and taking a chicane at 25 sounds downright conservative compared to how I drive.
  
  --
  Reboot macht Frei.
8. Re:Mod -1, idiot by fluffy99 · 2010-09-27 17:39 · Score: 1
  
  Lots of body roll usually implies going too fast. You yourself said you were driving too fast. Where the heck do they put chicanes in a 50 mph zone anyway?
9. Re:Mod -1, idiot by haruharaharu · 2010-09-27 17:42 · Score: 1
  
  No it doesn't, it implies lateral Gs and possibly soft swaybars. I never claimed to drive too fast, just that I like to drive aggressively, which is different. As for the chicanes in a 50 zone, who knows?
  
  --
  Reboot macht Frei.
10. Re:Mod -1, idiot by DaemonDazz · 2010-09-28 00:06 · Score: 1
  
  That's likely to be 50kph, which is close enough to 30mph. The speed limit here in South Australia is 60kph on 'main' roads and 50kph on suburban streets.
11. Re:Mod -1, idiot by eth1 · 2010-09-28 02:11 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Well, I obviously wasn't there during your particular incident, but often, a cop that takes the time to give someone a good ass-chewing IS the good cop. From the cop's perspective, citing and going is easier and takes less time.
  Sometimes they'll see that you have a clean driving/criminal record (indicating that you're probably normally a good boy/girl), and figure that a lecture might do as much to prevent a future infraction as a citation, without the permanent consequences for you. (more likely for younger individuals that are probably being stupid rather than malicious)
12. Re:Mod -1, idiot by shermo · 2010-09-28 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I agree with that.
  I would have taken it better if the guy wasn't younger than me. If he'd been more my father's age then it might have been an effective 'talking to', but as it was he just came off as an aggressive prick.
  
  --
  Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
Re:I can possibly see the future by interkin3tic · 2010-09-27 14:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

My point was that was an ad hominem attack. I expect better from slashdotters.
Manners aside, I'm not convinced that slashdot actually has a liberal bias any more than I'm convinced CNN does. Furthermore, if there is bias, I'm of the opinion that the answer is not intentional bias in the opposite direction, since obviously I'm not convinced Fox has done anything beneficial for cable news with that same approach.
Red light cameras vs. cops. by Animats · 2010-09-27 14:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

One of the more amusing camera issues has been red light cameras photographing cops running red lights. The processing of the images is usually outsourced and automated, and the company doing the work handles the process. The cops have to either pay up or go to court. There is much whining about this.
Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw writes to other police departments: "Please advise your members if they are captured on camera in their vehicles running the red light at these intersections, they will be cited. The only remedy for relief will be through the traffic court system. All law enforcement personnel must understand the high standard of conduct is applied to them in order for the public to have confidence in their departments and the officers."
Somebody gets it.
1. Re:Red light cameras vs. cops. by alexo · 2010-09-28 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  Somebody gets it.
  No, he doesn't.
  From the link you posted:
  According to Chief Daugherty, "If my people have a reason to be speeding, I will excuse them. On the other hand, if they don't have a reason, I won't.
  If "his people" have a reason to be speeding, they should have their sirens and flashing lights on. Otherwise, they *are* breaking the law and (according to official rhetoric) endangering lives. There should be no discretion unless the same reasoning is applied to the population at large.
  So unless I can give Chief Daugherty a "reason" and be "excused", I'd say he is as corrupt as the rest of them.
2. Re:Red light cameras vs. cops. by PMuse · 2010-09-28 21:26 · Score: 1
  
  Translated: When they have you on camera, I (and my department) cannot 'fix' it for you like we usually do. The citizenry would catch us.
  
  --
  "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
next issue by luther349 · 2010-09-27 14:42 · Score: 1

now that the bs wiretapping case is tossed now he needs to go after that cop for how he acted and he has it on video not to much the cop can say bought that.
Once they know your face and car it's time to move by HornWumpus · 2010-09-27 14:45 · Score: 1

I've avoided it so far.
If the patrol cops in my area know me at all they know me for stepping between my drunk ass neighbor and his girlfriend (and costing them a felony conviction that they really really wanted).
But if the cops in your neighborhood get to know you and your car in a bad way it is time to move into a different jurisdiction.
It cost a lot to move.
It costs much more to never get away with anything.
You know it's true.
The only thing the local cops have on me is that I am friends with one of their brothers. Which makes me kind of shady.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
One of his bailiffs by Sycraft-fu · 2010-09-27 14:52 · Score: 3, Informative

Something you find out if you look in to it is that there are a lot of different police forces in the US. Cities have their own, counties have their, states have theirs, the federal government has multiple ones.
So if a city police force refused to arrest and turn over a police officer for a lawful warrant, well then another police force would be called in to intervene. It isn't as though everyone would just sit back and say "Oh, well I guess they can just ignore us and do what they want." In that case it would be more than just the officer they were originally after who'd get arrested.
Re:I can possibly see the future by wxjones · 2010-09-27 15:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

My point was that was an ad hominem attack. I expect better from slashdotters.
You must be new

--
My SIG is a P226
Re:Sucks to be him, though by MadMaverick9 · 2010-09-27 15:21 · Score: 2, Informative

When the cop stopped him ...
What cop ??? I see a civilian coming out of a car (not a police car), drawing a gun and waving it around. This civilian does not produce a badge or other form of id, confirming that he is what he says he claims to be.
Why wasnt the officer charged w/ breaking the law? by SonicSpike · 2010-09-27 16:06 · Score: 1

Now you could perhaps argue that Casilly and the police department violated Maryland law unknowingly. But given their positions, that their responsibility as public officials is to enforce Maryland law, and that there isn't a single court case that interpreted the Maryland statute in the way they did to justify their pursuit of Graber, I find it far more persuasive that they either knew they were breaking the law, that they were willfully ignorant of the law, or that they were pretty severely negligent in their duties.
Now consider the consequences under each scenario:
Had Graber unknowingly violated state law in a manner that caused very little actual harm to anyone else, he at the very least would have had felony record. He could have gone to prison for several years.
Instead, we have public officials who violated the law, who should have known they were violating the law, and who caused significant harm to someone else in the process.
So what will be their punishment?
SOURCE:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/27/maryland-judge-tosses-the-felo

--
Libertas in infinitum
Pulling the gun was justified by fluffy99 · 2010-09-27 16:06 · Score: 1

The guy was running from the cops, weaving in-out of traffic at high speed and otherwise jeopardizing every other driver on the road. The cop in front might have been simply overly cautious, pulling his weapon if he thought the motorcyclist may try to ram him. It also looks like the cop realized that he didn't identify himself and corrected that right away. Besides, with two cop cars behind him with their lights on it was pretty obvious he was with the cops. If this was an asshat in a car, would you be surprised if the cops stopped him with weapons drawn?
The motorcyclist was a jackass and an idiot. I do think the MD cops were waaayy out of line trying to supress the video though. Instead they should have embraced it, and taken it to court as evidence that this guy should never get a license again.
1. Re:Pulling the gun was justified by ender89 · 2010-09-27 19:13 · Score: 1
  
  The guy was on a motorcycle, he probably wasn't aware that the cops were behind him ... the mirrors are below his line of sight, out of his peripheral vision, next to his hands. he was driving recklessly, and I believe I read in the original articles that he didn't contest the ticket. I think the real issue at hand here is that an unmarked car (undercover? the difference is a car with the spotlight and lights vs basically a consumer car) with a plane clothes officer shouldn't be involved with traffic stops unless its part of an obvious police presence. The motorcyclist might have not over reacted to a car blocking him in driven by a gunman, but thats a dangerous situation. if he was licensed to carry, there was ample time for him to get out a gun. or to just run him over with the bike - it really doesn't matter, it could have been dangerous for the officer and the biker. and lets be honest here, I want plain-clothes officer tracking down drug dealers and the like, not slapping a biker on the wrist.
2. Re:Pulling the gun was justified by ledow · 2010-09-27 20:10 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, but I live in a country where the policeman would go to jail if he drew a weapon on a traffic stop unless the guy on the bike had already drawn a weapon and/or tried to use his vehicle as a weapon against someone (and in which case they would not be doing a gentle stop and it would be quite clear he was about to be taken down). Even blatant disregard for traffic rules isn't adequate for a weapon production even by one of the (few) trained officers over here. For armed officers, failing to identify immediately is virtually a disciplinary offence for the reasons other posters have described (the guy might well think he's in life-threatening danger from someone other than a police officer and thus could do anything). He was a stupidly dangerous risk to pedestrians, (if any, possibly), but he wasn't much of a risk to cars except from the view of property damage and his own safety.
  "Not seeing" a cop car can be a lot easier than you think, and not hearing one is extraordinarily easy if you have certain equipment / habits. That's not an excuse for the motorcyclist but it is something that any experienced cop should know and take into account. There's nothing wrong with being virtually deaf and driving in some countries, for instance, it's not classed as a necessary driving skill for a lot of places. Now imagine for a moment that the guy had been having a bad morning, wasn't really paying attention, was rushing, etc. maybe he couldn't hear, wasn't checking his mirrors, his mirrors were out of line, etc. (all things that SHOULDN'T affect his driving but also all things that don't necessitate his being shot at) - the first thing he knows is that someone stops his bike and points a gun at him. As a police officer you do NOT want that to happen, because he can do anything that he thinks is necessary to protect his life, and quite reasonably.
  Your view of when a gun is justified varies enormously depending on your upbringing, local community and local laws. Personally, someone even *carrying* a gun scares the crap out of me but fortunately, I've only ever seen armed officers in airports and even then only occasionally.
  But your last paragraph was spot-on. He was a jackass, no doubt about it, and trying to suppress video or audio of that is basically destruction of evidence / miscarriage of justice.
3. Re:Pulling the gun was justified by tehcyder · 2010-09-27 22:47 · Score: 1
  
  "Not seeing" a cop car can be a lot easier than you think, and not hearing one is extraordinarily easy if you have certain equipment / habits.
  
  If you are not aware of a police car with flashing lights and siren behind you, you are at the very least driving without due care and attention (UK) and in my opinion should be charged with dangerous driving.
  
  Now imagine for a moment that the guy had been having a bad morning, wasn't really paying attention, was rushing, etc. maybe he couldn't hear, wasn't checking his mirrors, his mirrors were out of line, etc.
  
  There is no excuse for this, sorry. If you're that incapable of taking in your surroundings, stick to a fucking bus.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
4. Re:Pulling the gun was justified by KillaBeave · 2010-09-27 23:32 · Score: 1
  
  It is very easy to not see or hear a cop behind you. Last year I was pulled over on my bike for a crazy low speeding violation (+4mph ... serisouly? I'd never felt "profiled" before then). I'm a big proponent of ATGATT (all the gear all the time) and thus even wear ear protection 90% of the time. The small mirrors on a sportbike make it very hard to notice the flashing lights unless they are right behind you. The hearing protection along with the wind noise (that the ear plugs are protecting me from) make it nearly impossible to hear the sirens unless they are fairly close behind.
  
  The officer that stopped me ended up grabbing my shoulder in my garage as I was walking in my house. Had no idea I was being followed and the officer said they were about 10 car lengths behind. Luckily the officer that grabbed me (probably a bad idea) was saying "license and registration" as he did so ... kept me from thinking I was being robbed in my garage (which happens more than you would think).
  
  That guy probably wasn't running from the cops. Just because the cop had a hard time catching him, doesn't mean he was trying to evade the officer. Being hard to catch just means you're riding way too fast and being an ass ... it doesn't mean you're running. Besides, any modern 600cc class sportbike will do 0-60 in 3 seconds flat in first gear (and there are 5 more gears to go). The officer's Malibu isn't even remotely in the same performance ballpark. I'd expect the Chevy to have trouble catching a sportbike just as I'd expect most people on slashdot would have trouble catching http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usain_Bolt
5. Re:Pulling the gun was justified by ledow · 2010-09-28 00:10 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. The point of my post is not that - it's that the use of a gun is not "justified" in such situations.
6. Re:Pulling the gun was justified by Doctor+Faustus · 2010-09-28 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know... what's Usain Bolt driving?
  BTW, he was a lot of fun on Top Gear as a "Star driving a reasonably-priced car."
7. Re:Pulling the gun was justified by fluffy99 · 2010-09-28 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  The guy was on a motorcycle, he probably wasn't aware that the cops were behind him ...
  I do agree that the plain-clothes cop shouldn't have been involved. MD likes to run plainclothes, unmarked cars on 95 and the BW parkway, profiling for drug cars. They then call ahead for a regular cruiser to pull them over for some other charge (invented or not).
  You can clearly see the camera view dipping downwards as he periodically looks at his side mirrors the whole time. He damn well knew he was being followed by three cop cars.
Varies with jurisdiction by Sycraft-fu · 2010-09-27 16:08 · Score: 1

Not everywhere has the same law. Maybe there they allow for unmarked cars to make traffic stops. They shouldn't, but they might.
This is something to check on your local laws with. Either way, stopping for an unmarked car is a bad idea, particularly if it just has a single light or something simple. Get out of the way, of course (that's why they have them is to allow them to move quickly in traffic needed) but don't pull over. If they do try to pull you over, go to the side, put on your blinkers, and drive slowly. Call 911 and tell them you have an under cover unit requesting pullover. Ask them to either verify this is correct or send a black and white.
Here it is the case that all stops have to be done by marked vehicles. They have cars that aren't black and white and are something other than Crown Vics that they use for taking speeds on the highways, but they are fully marked front, sides and top. I've never heard of any undercover vehicle trying to pull someone over, probably because of the law and the problem with cop pretenders.
Who knows in this case? I get the feeling form the way he was acting he's an asshole cop who doesn't even know if there's a rule about it. However, maybe Maryland does allow for that kind of thing. If so you Maryland voters need to get on your legislature to change it.
1. Re:Varies with jurisdiction by Reziac · 2010-09-27 17:57 · Score: 1
  
  I vaguely recall that there was a lawsuit against the California highway patrol a few years ago, which determined that HP cars shall be black-and-whites, period. The logic went something like the public has a right to know when the cops are watching them.
  Lately I've been seeing plain-whites -- marked cars (just on the doors), but not obviously so until you get right up to it. I'm wondering what happened to the previous court decision.
  
  --
  ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
2. Re:Varies with jurisdiction by multipartmixed · 2010-09-28 00:51 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  > Call 911 and tell them you have an under cover unit requesting pullover.
  That is *extremely* difficult to do safely on a motorcycle.
  Riding with only one hand on the controls is impractical - either you can't use the throttle or your clutch - and a proper helmet makes hearing the conversation difficult at best.
  
  --
  
  Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
3. Re:Varies with jurisdiction by greed · 2010-09-28 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  It is possible to have a helmet speaker/microphone rig that ties in to your cellphone; wired or BlueTooth. (Mine's a mix: wired to my Zumo GPS, which then uses BlueTooth to talk to the phone.)
  Then all you need to sort out is dialling; again, if you've got the right kind of GPS or a from-the-factory comm setup, it's not too hard. I wouldn't want to be in heavy traffic, but I'd be willing to hit "menu", "phone", "9", "1", "1" and "DIAL"--the Zumo is set up for left-hand use, so your right can stay on throttle and brake. Or take a chance with the stupid voice activated thing working for once.
  Only thing is, the type of bikes that have those comm setups are heavy touring machines (ST1100/1300, Gold Wing, full dress Harleys, Concours, and so on) which are seldom found going more than 30% the posted limit.
4. Re:Varies with jurisdiction by multipartmixed · 2010-09-28 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  I have yet to see the helmet that fits properly that will allow me to use any kind of an earbud without putting me in total, excrutiating pain.
  The earphones used for the HJC chatterbox aren't too bad, although I find that they aren't really loud enough to compete with my earbuds.
  I'm hoping to try one of those native bluetooth helmets in the near future. Funny name... Headcase? I don't know how good their crash protection, is, though.
  
  --
  
  Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
Re:Justice concept by ShakaUVM · 2010-09-27 17:31 · Score: 1

>>The "concept of justice" in this country has been a mockery, now, for quite awhile, at least since the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, etc., if not for considerably longer. What wonderful Utopia have you been in these last several years?
Still. No reason to encourage bad behavior.
Re:Why wasnt the officer charged w/ breaking the l by Reziac · 2010-09-27 18:06 · Score: 1

Since ignorance of the law is no defense for private citizens, why should it be a defense for the police??

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
forums.officer.com supports decision by bradley13 · 2010-09-27 18:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why do you say forums.officer.com needs trolled? As far as I can see, most posters there agree with the decision, and also say that the cop was an idiot for pulling his gun.
There are idiots in any group. Most cops are reasonable folks. The problem is only: you never know which kind you have...

--
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
one step closer.... by ender89 · 2010-09-27 19:02 · Score: 1

Excellent, now how much longer until they decide that an on duty police officer has no expectation of privacy whatsoever? Because there is word for police with privacy - the Gestapo
Cops always enjoyed this privilege by ananthap · 2010-09-27 19:17 · Score: 1

Cops always enjoyed the privilege of taping these conversations. Given this fact, it should be the basic right of every person to have their own version of a recorded conversation with policemen.
Re:I can possibly see the future by orzetto · 2010-09-27 20:49 · Score: 1

Wasn't Scalia the guy who defended torture in Abu Ghraib with the argument that it was not "cruel and unusual punishment", because it was no "punishment", rather an interrogation technique?
It is tragic that such a fascist became a Justice. This guy belongs in a federal pound-in-the-ass prison, and if someone complains about rape being an illegitimate punishment, well, it is punishment, it is cruel, but it is not unusual, so by Scalia's argument it is just fine.

--
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
What about the gun? by Crock23A · 2010-09-27 22:09 · Score: 1

Who cares about the wiretapping. Isn't the real issue the fact that the cop pulled a gun BEFORE even identifying himself? IANAL but in my opinion, that is a big NONO. And he got caught on video. Why does this guy still collect a paycheck of tax-payer money? Skip to 3:10 and watch for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK5bMSyJCsg
Absolutely the right decision... by wantobe · 2010-09-27 22:45 · Score: 1

and I'm sure someone has pointed this out already, but of course there is no expectation of privacy when you are in the public square. So why do people get all up in arms about "privacy violations" when municipalities want to put up cameras in public areas for safety/security? It works both ways, right?
Fuck you. by Moryath · 2010-09-28 00:24 · Score: 1, Insightful

Now that you've finished raving like an idiot, let the grownups tell you how the world REALLY works.
In the REAL world, cities pull funding from traffic ticket money. This has come to the point where even giant metroplexes rely on month-to-month ticket and fine monies for their operating budget - for a stellar example, look at the news from a couple years go from the city of Houston (3rd largest metroplex in the US) when then-mayor, now governor-candidate Bill White stood up in a city council meeting and tried to blame the city's entire budget shortfall on "the police not writing enough tickets."
Since they require this revenue, the pigs are given ticket quotas for each month. By hook or by crook they are ordered to meet these minimums. If they don't, they get written up. If they get written up enough, they theoretically get either fired, or denied promotion. So the pigs have every fucking incentive to be as corrupt as they need to be to write the tickets up. And by the time they graduate out of traffic detail (the lowest rung on the ladder), any semblance of honor or honesty they may once have had is long fucking gone.
THAT is the reality.
It's impossible, though. by BetterSense · 2010-09-28 00:31 · Score: 1

Well, I don't see how you could make abuse of authority it a capital crime within the system itself, because it would be paradoxical for an abusive system to indict itself for abuse.

I think this is where the 2nd ammendment comes in.
"Community service" == free labor for the state by Andrew+Cady · 2010-09-28 02:17 · Score: 1

"Community service" means doing for free what the state would otherwise have to pay minimum wage to have done. The economic incentive is still there.
Your 'reading to kids' scenario is a myth (an exceptional sort of thing that might result from negotiated plea bargains involving high-priced lawyers). For the masses, "community service" is just forced labor.
1. Re:"Community service" == free labor for the state by misexistentialist · 2010-09-28 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt it would save the state any money to have basic work done by unmotivated people under extensive (and well-paid) supervision.
2. Re:"Community service" == free labor for the state by Andrew+Cady · 2010-09-28 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  The inmates (ahem, volunteers) are motivated by the contract they sign which allows them to be put in jail for failure to satisfy their supervisors (or, if not put in jail, then at the very least put to work for another day).
  
  It's not dissimilar to the incentive system at work behind minimum-wage employment. It works.
  
  (What are you basing your 'doubt' on, anyway? You seem unfamiliar with the system. Are you?)
3. Re:"Community service" == free labor for the state by misexistentialist · 2010-09-29 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  No, it just seems rather implausible in my city, which loves its expensive consultants and contractors (on top of an ever expanding salaried workforce). I guess if you've got bosses like Sheriff Joe in place, though, such programs could work...
Re:Sucks to be him, though by cusco · 2010-09-28 02:38 · Score: 1

What do you want to bet the cops have already sold all of his confiscated computer equipment?

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:Legislation by toastar · 2010-09-28 02:53 · Score: 1

Except my State(TX) Doesn't really allow a voter initiative, Changes pretty much have to start at the legislature.
Re:I can possibly see the future by al0ha · 2010-09-28 03:33 · Score: 1

I'm happy to find the Right Wingers managed to whip up their counterparts on /. and make sure my original post was modded Troll - too funny especially based on the subsequent replies to the first reply; well said people.

Yesterday my original was, at one point at least, modded +4 insightful, but by today it is Troll - awesome, I love politics on the Internet.

--
Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
Re:Legislation by agbinfo · 2010-09-28 04:58 · Score: 1

Write it up, get it sponsored or submit it as an initiative so your fellow voters can decide whether or not they agree enough to back your POV.
You are suggesting that people that are not fluent with the legal system start writing legislation? And then have people that know even less about it should vote on it? I don't believe that's a good idea. Just think of the trouble with the people that voted to restrict the rights of homosexuals in California just to have the judges declare this unconstitutional after spending lots of money and denying the freedoms of homosexuals all the while.

-- The price of liberty is active participation, not whining...
There are many ways to participate. Voting, writing to your representative, and whining on public forums are all valid forms.
Re:I can possibly see the future by blair1q · 2010-09-28 06:08 · Score: 1

What he says isn't what he does. That's why he was picked by those he serves.
video of "traffic stop" in question by boss_hog · 2010-09-28 07:01 · Score: 1

I know I'm a day late to the conversation, which means it's probably dead. I know someone mentioned this briefly, but it's really worth watching the biker's video of the stop:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHjjF55M8JQ
If you watch the video you'll see how off-base most of the comments in this discussion are. I know, I know, slashdot, new here, etc. but those of you who think this was some regular traffic stop by a uniformed officer should now be able to see just how far FAR different it actually was from anything reasonable or sane.
1. Re:video of "traffic stop" in question by boss_hog · 2010-09-28 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  and in typical slashdot fashion I posted the first link I found. here's his whole 3-4 minute long video, that shows his ride prior to the cop pulling him over.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK5bMSyJCsg&NR=1
Or.... by EvilBudMan · 2010-09-28 07:53 · Score: 1

When someone is put on double secret probation.
complete public record by frovingslosh · 2010-09-28 08:05 · Score: 1

Actually, that's not the case at all. If it were then there could be no objection to cameras in the court room. The truth is that the public record is far from complete. You can learn a lot by witnessing the process first hand and seeing so much that never makes it into the public record. The irony of a judge ruling that the motorist had a right to video the police officer because he had was preforming as a public official, and not having his ruling filmed should not be missed by anyone.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
1. Re:complete public record by harl · 2010-09-28 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Are you referring to things that the judge strikes from the record? Can you give a specific example of what you mean please?
  
  --
  I find being offended by me offensive.
Harford County AG just doesn't get it by Alex+S+from+VA · 2010-09-28 16:06 · Score: 1

http://www.wbaltv.com/news/25195725/detail.html Apparently he still thinks that a police officer can have a private converstion with another person in the middle of the street. Just makes no sense, WTF?