Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Motorcyclist Wins Taping Case Against State Police

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

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

18 of 485 comments (clear)

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

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

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

    1. Re:Alright! by Whomp-Ass · · 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...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    8. Re:Alright! by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Anyone losing their jobs? Suspensions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

  6. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by StikyPad · · 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
  7. Re:Of course the big irony here is... by blair1q · · 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.

  8. Red light cameras vs. cops. by Animats · · 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.

  9. Re:Technically, yes, except .... by whois · · 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.