Slashdot Mirror


Once Again, Baltimore Police Arrest a Person For Recording Them

MobyDisk writes: A lawsuit was filed yesterday over a case in which a woman was arrested for recording the police from her car while stopped in traffic. Ars Technica writes, "Police erased the 135-second recording from the woman's phone, but it was recovered from her cloud account according to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City lawsuit, which seeks $7 million."

Baltimore police lost a similar case against Anthony Graber in 2010 and another against Christopher Sharp in 2014. The is happening so often in Baltimore that in 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a letter to the police reminding them that they cannot stop recordings, and most certainly cannot delete them.

Local awareness of this issue is high since the the Mayor and the City Council support requiring police body cameras. The city council just passed a bill requiring them, but the mayor is delaying implementation until a task force determines how best to go about it. The country is also focused on police behavior in light of the recent cases in Ferguson and New York, the latter of which involved a citizen recording.

So the mayor, city council, police department policies, courts, and federal government are all telling police officers to stop doing this. Yet it continues to happen, and in a rather violent matter. What can people do to curb this problem?

6 of 515 comments (clear)

  1. She was really arrested for DWB! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    And if you didn't know, DWB is Driving While Black:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

  2. Soon to be a felony in Illinois by Holistic+Missile · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here in the police state of Illinois, our legislature has passed a bill, which was larded onto another, completely unrelated bill, which makes recording cops and government officials a class 3 felony, with up to 2-4 years in prison. The bill was added as an amendment to the unrelated bill, which passed with over 90% support in both chambers, essentially making it veto-proof.

    It uses the word 'eavesdropping' a lot, so it may be argued that it applies only to audio; however, a chance at having a sentence like this would certainly scare off most people who would try to film the cops.

    It will be interesting to see how this develops - a similar bill was struck down by the state supreme court in March, and the US supreme court has ruled that police have no expectation of privacy when they're in public, and on duty.

    --
    When you're dead, you don't know you're dead. It only affects the people around you. Same thing when you're stupid.
  3. Re:How to stop it? Just stop it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Am I being detained, or am I free to go?"
    "I don't consent to any searches."
    "I wish to remain silent."
    "I want to speak to my attorney."

    These are the only four phrases that you should speak when dealing with Law Enforcement.
    Anything else you say will be used against you. (i.e: STFU! For your own sake!)

    Source: http://www.flexyourrights.org/

  4. Re:its not as if american cops have anything to fe by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes, because every 300lb+ 6ft+ guy resisting arrest should be given candy? The guy was resisting arrest, he was put in a chokehold which is considered a valid police measure, and released as soon as he said he couldn't breathe.

    False, and false. The chokehold is *not* a valid police measure and is in fact specifically prohibited by his department's regulations. He was *not* released as soon as he said he couldn't breathe, and in fact said he couldn't breathe several times.

  5. Re:Fire all the officers? by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 4, Informative

    Considering your comments, would you too side with the cops who run people over in their cars while texting on their personal cell phones and then blame the victim for throwing themselves in front of their cars, all the while perjuring themselves as has also happened recently?

    It's getting a bit off topic but examples of the above have actually happened.

    Well, okay, not the blaming the victim bit, but "immediately before the incident, the Albemarle officer, Gregory C. Davis, was involved in "excessive texting." Furthermore, according to the document, Officer Davis may, under oath, have intentionally downplayed his texting."

    Then there is this story. The officer in question was criminally charged this time, but still got away with a mere 30 months probation (and two years suspended from the job, with pay). The two girls he slammed into, on the other hand, got to remain dead. Anyone else who had committed the same crime would have lost their job (with no pay) and ended up in jail for a long time.

    And this

    Compared to the above, the fact that police illegally delete video from a phone without any repercussions is in no way surprising.

  6. Re:Fire all the officers? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

    Gangsters? You and OP look to be in the same clan when he claims they're doing this "in a rather violent manner". Hyperbole much?

    Did you watch the video? The cops are physically violent, and excessively so. Even if this woman was breaking the law (she was not) there would be no excuse for the way the cops behaved.