Man who Videotapes Police Could Get 16 Years in Prison

[dust1n]

What's the fun of being a cop if you're accountable to the law or the people?

What's the fun of being a district attorney if you can't fabricate evidence?

How dare you suggest we take away fun from the people who handle our justice!

 

[Mister Emu]

There are a very many police officers I am not a fan of, though I will always support the ones that do their job in an upright manner.

That said, should police not have the same protection of law that everyone else does? Maryland's law requires that all recording of private conversations be consented to by all parties. I guess the question is, do the police have the expectation of privacy when performing their duties(pulling someone over for instance)?

 

[Sunstone]

I guess the question is, do the police have the expectation of privacy when performing their duties(pulling someone over for instance)?

That's a good question. Can the police do their jobs without an expectation of privacy?

 

[Father Heathen]

Come on, now. Does pulling a gun on a citizen during a traffic stop on a public road really count as a "matter of privacy"?

 

[linwood]

n undercover police officer pulling a gun on him during a traffic stop.

There`s much more to this story.

Does the highlighted above seem odd?

In my town undercover cops don`t make traffic stops for speeding.

I`ve also never had a gun pulled on me during a traffic stop.

Otherwise I agree with the majority here.

If we citizens have no expectation of privacy in a public venue then neither do the cops.
No one has an expectation of privacy while standing on the side of a public road.

 

[Engyo]

Time Magazine now has a piece on this case:

Should Videotaping the Police Really Be a Crime? - TIME

The wiretap law applies to private conversations. A traffic stop is a public act.

 

[Engyo]

This issue is rearing it's head again...........

This Is The Police: Put Down Your Camera
by Joel Rose
May 13, 2011

There are more than 280 million cellphone subscribers in the U.S., and many of those phones can record video. With so many cameras in pockets and purses, clashes between police and would-be videographers may be inevitable.

Consider what happened to Khaliah Fitchette. Last year, Fitchette, who was 16 at the time, was riding a city bus in Newark, N.J., when two police officers got on to deal with a man who seemed to be drunk. Fitchette decided this would be a good moment to take out her phone and start recording.

"One of the officers told me to turn off my phone, because I was recording them," she said. "I said no. And then she grabbed me and pulled me off the bus to the cop car, which was behind the bus."

The police erased the video from Fitchette's phone. She was handcuffed and spent the next two hours in the back of a squad car before she was released. No charges were filed.

Fitchette is suing the Newark Police Department for violating her civil rights. The New Jersey chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union helped bring the lawsuit.

balance of article at: This Is The Police: Put Down Your Camera : NPR

 

[Jacksnyte]

I think all interactions with police should be required to be recorded by an objective 3rd party, and be available for public review!!!

 

[Jacksnyte]

There`s much more to this story.

Does the highlighted above seem odd?

In my town undercover cops don`t make traffic stops for speeding.

I`ve also never had a gun pulled on me during a traffic stop.

Otherwise I agree with the majority here.

If we citizens have no expectation of privacy in a public venue then neither do the cops.
No one has an expectation of privacy while standing on the side of a public road.

I have had a gun pulled on me during a traffic stop while my infant daughter was in her car seat right next to me.

 

[no-body]

I think all interactions with police should be required to be recorded by an objective 3rd party, and be available for public review!!!

If only. They will fight it tooth and nail.

Does anyone really think dash cams are there to protect the police and citizens ? There is a reason video tapes go "missing" or get "damaged" when something against the police comes up.

 

[TheKnight]

I think all interactions with police should be required to be recorded by an objective 3rd party, and be available for public review!!!

That's completely impractical.

I think that transparency is important in law enforcement, however at the same time I realize that the general public is so misinformed on what cops can and cannot do.

I'm all for audio recording of interactions because that's easy. But video? By a third party?

That's just ridiculous. Cops interactions with people are not planned and careful events. They are usually spontaneous and could be anything from a casual conversation to a gunfight. And who would pay these third party videographers?

The cost alone is enough to shoot down such an idea because there are not enough instances of police corruption where there is video, and the video is used, and the video results in conviction, to justify the cost of having police interactions filmed.

There are also other concerns to consider. For instance, during my time working in law enforcement there was a certain local politician who insisted there was police corruption in the city I worked in. As a result, he and his wife and adult children (he was also a pastor and ran a ministry in town) would drive around filming us (there were only three cars working at peak hours--it was a small city).

Some concerns that were raised were:

1. Often times they felt the need to get involved and offer legal advice even though the advice was usually faulty as neither of them were lawyers or had law-training.
2. Most of our calls were to private property where we were allowed to go on due to being called, but they were not because the property owners did not want them there.
3. The fact that a lot of times the suspects or even just regular people we pulled over for minor things, didn't like the fact that they were being filmed.

Either way, it didn't really bother us or inhibit how we worked or what we did (except for that we probably did spend more time on our uniforms and watch our language more), so I don't really see a problem with videotaping all together.

My problem is with the suggestion that it be mandatory. The department I worked for had over 5,000 sworn personnel and a significant number of those worked patrol. The cost of putting cameras on all the cars (to this day they don't have cameras) would not be worth it. Most cops are aware that, even if they don't like it, they could be filmed. "Work like you're being filmed by defense attorneys" is a popular attitude among most street cops (at least the ones that I know), so if a cop was going to do something corrupt, he wouldn't do it anywhere where he could be watched.

 

[Magic Man]

"A twenty-five-year-old staff sergeant for the Maryland Air National Guard is facing up to sixteen years in prison for uploading a video on YouTube that showed an undercover police officer pulling a gun on him during a traffic stop. Anthony Graber was initially ticketed for speeding, but once he posted the video, the state charged him with four felonies, including violating Maryland’s wiretap law. State police officers also raided Graber’s parents’ home and confiscated his camera, computers and external hard drives. Graber is one of many Americans facing possible jail time for videotaping police activity. Last week Democratic Congressman Edolphus Towns of New York introduced a non-binding resolution calling for the protection of citizens who videotape cops in public from getting arrested on state wiretapping charges."

From Democracy Now!

Yeah, when I heard about these laws last year, I was shocked. I simply don't understand the justification for this. What is the rationalization for making it illegal to record your interaction with the police?

 

[Vendetta]

Citizens shouldn't videotape cops Unless there is deliberate and excessive varies. The Rodney King video is an example. But I don't think citizens should record undercover cops and post it on Youtube because it jeopardizes the safety of that cop on undercover details. Just because there are nutjob cops doesn't mean we should record everytime.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yeah, when I heard about these laws last year, I was shocked. I simply don't understand the justification for this. What is the rationalization for making it illegal to record your interaction with the police?

Because they realize how many nutjob cops there are out there, who break the law all the time. Reducing evidence of this, reduces their workload of having to deal with it.

 

[Magic Man]

Citizens shouldn't videotape cops Unless there is deliberate and excessive varies. The Rodney King video is an example. But I don't think citizens should record undercover cops and post it on Youtube because it jeopardizes the safety of that cop on undercover details. Just because there are nutjob cops doesn't mean we should record everytime.

What if it's not an undercover cop? And even if it's not necessary to record all our interactions with police, it still shouldn't be illegal.

 

[Magic Man]

Because they realize how many nutjob cops there are out there, who break the law all the time. Reducing evidence of this, reduces their workload of having to deal with it.

Yeah, but I'm looking for the stated justification. What reason can they give for it? They're obviously not going to say this, so I wonder what sham of a justification they offer.

 

[TheKnight]

Because they realize how many nutjob cops there are out there, who break the law all the time. Reducing evidence of this, reduces their workload of having to deal with it.

How many cops do you know of that break the law "all the time"?

And if you do know so many supposedly corrupt cops, then why don't you work with either federal or civil authorities to correct the situation?

 

[gnomon]

The easy solution is that police are held to the same laws as citizens, I hate making that distinction, in regards to public view laws.

In other words, police officer have no more or less expectation of privacy than anyone else when in public.

It's actually quite absurd when you realize that in most places in the U.S. any citizen can be filmed while in public by another citizen, the State can set up video cameras that film you, the police can film you, the State cameras can film the police............but you cannot film the police in some areas. I say some because as far as I know the act of audio/video recording a police officer in public is legal in most jurisdictions.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

How many cops do you know of that break the law "all the time"?

And if you do know so many supposedly corrupt cops, then why don't you work with either federal or civil authorities to correct the situation?

I don't know any, personally. However, I can watch and read news and articles. I know, a novel idea.

And I didn't say "corrupt," I said "break the law." It's not necessarily a matter of being intentionally corrupt, but more a matter that most cops are not highly educated, and they're simply not sufficiently trained to be fully aware of all aspects of the law that they should be. Basically, you have to be aware of your rights, because there's a good chance the cop you're dealing with may not be. Recording interactions is the surest way to clarify any differences of opinion, if the need arises.

 

[TheKnight]

I don't know any, personally. However, I can watch and read news and articles. I know, a novel idea.

And I didn't say "corrupt," I said "break the law." It's not necessarily a matter of being intentionally corrupt, but more a matter that most cops are not highly educated, and they're simply not sufficiently trained to be fully aware of all aspects of the law that they should be. Basically, you have to be aware of your rights, because there's a good chance the cop you're dealing with may not be. Recording interactions is the surest way to clarify any differences of opinion, if the need arises.

Hmm. I would agree with that. However I would argue from experience that most people don't realize exactly what their rights consist of and how those rights are affected by court decisions, etc.

For instance, many feel that it is a violation of their rights if they arrested and not mirandized. What they do not realize is that miranda is only necessary if an officer plans to discuss the incident with the accuse or use statements that the accused makes in making his/her case.

Additionally, people think that it is a violation of their rights to be pulled out of their car for a search. This is also untrue. On multiple occasions the Supreme Court has ruled that you can be pulled out of your, patted down, and your car be searched, without any reason given by the officer so long as the officer had probable cause to pull you over (breaking any law--even if it is a traffic violation--counts as probable cause in this case).

If a cop calls you over to talk to you, you have to listen. Even if you haven't done anything wrong. It is his/her responsibility to provide a court reasoning behind why he did if it should go that far.

Similarly, if you are ordered to stop videoing you should realize that failure to do so constitutes disobeying an order from a peace officer (in some states) and thus is reason to be arrested for that violation of disobedience.

As I said in my first post in this thread, the best thing for everyone would be more education on what peace officers can and cannot do.