15 Years in Prison For Taping the Cops?

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#76
Right, but he is making it look like every asshole with a camera is actually getting sentenced to 15 years (which would be a true outrage), when i can't even find one story of anyone being sentenced to anything.
Every news story ever written acts like defendants are going to get the maximum. As much as I like beating up on Kirk, it really is a common practice of lazy journalists.
 
Oct 8, 2005
1,797
1
0
Reality
#77
So why are cops allowed to arrest people for taping them? Even if they are let go the police already violated someones 1st amendment rights and were able to cover up whatever they were trying to hide. Shouldn't they be fired for false arrest and violating someones rights?

Another Marylander Arrested for Recording the Police

According to state officials, only on-duty cops have a privacy right in public spaces.

The city of Annapolis, Maryland recently received a Homeland Security grant for 20 new surveillance cameras in the downtown area. The city of Baltimore already has nearly 500. According to the watchdog site PhotoEnforced, the state of Maryland has at least 375 red light cameras and 80 speed cameras. Your government is watching you, Marylanders. But don't think for a second that it's going to tolerate you watching back.

On Saturday, Yvonne Nicole Shaw, 27, was arrested by sheriff's deputies in Lexington Park, Maryland. According to the Southern Maryland News, Shaw was cuffed and booked for recording deputies who had come to an apartment complex in response to a noise complaint. Sheriff's Cpl. Patrick Handy's report explained that Shaw was standing about 12 feet from him, and that Shaw "did admit to recording our encounter on her cell phone for the purpose of trying to show the police are harassing people."

Shaw's arrest comes amid continuing national debate over the arrest and prosecution of Anthony Graber, who was arrested in April for posting a video of a traffic stop to YouTube. Graber was pulled over on his motorcycle by Maryland State Trooper Joseph David Ulher, who drew his gun during the stop. Graber was wearing a camera on his helmet. Days later, police raided the home of Graber's parents. Graber was arrested, booked, and jailed. He has been charged with violating Maryland's wiretapping statute, a felony that carries up to five years in prison. He has also been charged with "Possession of an Interception Device," that device being his otherwise perfectly legal video camera.

In yet another video taken at the Preakness Stakes and posted to YouTube last May, a Maryland state trooper tells a video operator recording an arrest, "Do me a favor and turn that off. It's illegal to record anybody's voice or anything else in the state of Maryland."

This seems to be the position of most of the law enforcement community in Maryland. It also happens to be wrong.

There are constitutional arguments to be made in favor of an inherent right to record on-duty police. Shaw was trying to document harassment, which falls under the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. In Graber's case, there's a strong due process argument. If your rights have been violated by a police officer, it's often your word against the cop's. Video or audio documentation of the encounter is probably your only hope of proving your case. There are also basic policy arguments in favor of securing such a right. We tend to behave better when we know we're being watched, an argument policy makers often employ when justifying the use of government surveillance cameras in public spaces.

These are all good arguments to challenge the laws in states like Illinois and Massachusetts, where courts and policymakers have made it illegal to record anyone in public without their permission. Both states have explicitly renounced the expectation of privacy provisions present in other wiretapping laws. The laws in both states are ridiculously sweeping, and there may soon be federal challenges to both.

But Maryland's law isn't nearly as broad. Like several other states, Maryland requires that you obtain consent from all parties to a conversation before you're permitted to record it. But like every other state except Illinois and Massachusetts, Maryland also requires that the offended party have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the recorded conversation. So when Linda Tripp recorded her personal phone calls with Monica Lewinski, she violated state law. Lewinski had good reason to expect her personal calls to remain private.

But state and federal courts across the country have determined that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces. Anyone can snap your picture while you're out in public. And unless you're making obvious attempts to protect your privacy, anyone can also record what you say.

Here's how Maryland's statute makes the distinction between public and private in the definitions portion of the text:

"Oral communication" means any conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private conversation.

David Rocah, who is handling Anthony Graber's case for the Maryland ACLU elaborates: "To charge Graber with violating the law, you would have to conclude that a police officer on a public road, wearing a badge and a uniform, performing his official duty, pulling someone over, somehow has a right to privacy when it comes to the conversation he has with the motorist."

According to state law enforcement officials, including Harford County State's Attorney Joseph Casilly, who is prosecuting Graber, not only is a cop permitted to pull a gun on you for a misdemeanor traffic offense, but the officer's privacy rights prevent you from documenting the encounter. State Police spokesman Greg Shipley defended Graber's arrest to TV station WJZ, explaining, "We are enforcing the law, and we don't make any apologies for that."

But they aren't enforcing the law. They're enforcing a tortured, absurd interpretation of the law that no court to date has endorsed. No Maryland court—and from what I can tell no court in the country—has ruled that a police officer has a right to privacy in his on-duty interactions with the public.

It actually gets more absurd. In 2000, Maryland Attorney General Joseph Curran, Jr. was asked to issue an opinion (PDF) on whether a plan by the Montgomery County Police Department to install recording devices on patrol officers would violate the wiretapping statute. To date, Curran's opinion has not been modified or changed.......
This Gerber guy was let go by a judge but nothing happened to the cops for arresting him, throwing him in jail, and then raiding his parents home just because he taped them. If you don't see a problem with that then you are crazy. And the cops will continue to arrest people for taping them until the higher ups start to get fired, A few people lose their jobs and arrests for laws that don't exist will go away.
 
Aug 11, 2005
27,637
4
528
#78
Long overdue

[video=youtube;1M8vei3L0L8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M8vei3L0L8[/video]
 
Oct 8, 2005
1,797
1
0
Reality
#79
Tell me something honestly, Kirk: which do you think is more likely, that Alex Jones makes shit up to get hits on his website, or that the entire government and MSM are conspiring to enslave the world?
I know the MSM (except for FOX) isn't covering one of the biggest scandals since Watergate. Do you think its just a coincidence that they all gave more attention to a trivial think like Weinergate but ignore a story about government selling guns to drug cartels that got Americans killed?
 

mascan42

Registered User
Aug 26, 2002
19,154
5,903
848
Ronkonkoma, Long Island
#80
I know the MSM (except for FOX) isn't covering one of the biggest scandals since Watergate. Do you think its just a coincidence that they all gave more attention to a trivial think like Weinergate but ignore a story about government selling guns to drug cartels that got Americans killed?
Yeah,
it's a
major
coverup,
maaaaan.
:rolleyes:
 

mikeybot

SPANAKOPITA!!!
Jul 25, 2005
19,320
3,602
623
philly
#82
So, comment from Chicken Little?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-woman-acquitted-of-criminal-eavesdropping-of-police-20110824,0,7262030.story

Woman acquitted of criminal eavesdropping on police

A Cook County jury today acquitted a woman of criminal eavesdropping charges after she had secretly recorded an interview with two Chicago police internal affairs investigators.

Tiawanda Moore testified she decided to record the meeting when the investigators tried to talk her out of following through on her complaint of sexual harassment against a patrol officer who had come to her home on a domestic disturbance.

The Criminal Court jury took less than an hour to acquit Moore, 20, a former stripper, on the two felony counts. She had faced up to 15 years in prison if convicted.
Seeing as there is now a precedent for this, the other to IL cases are likely to end with the same result.
 

mikeybot

SPANAKOPITA!!!
Jul 25, 2005
19,320
3,602
623
philly
#83
Bumping to make sure annoying jackass sees this
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
50,025
38,177
628
In a porn tree
#87
Bumping to make sure annoying jackass sees this
What do you know, slave? Your brain is riddled with aspartame and estrogen.

Power to the sheeple!

The Kirk is dead. Long live the Kirk!
 

NuttyJim

Registered User
Feb 18, 2006
14,148
6,428
638
#89
What do you know, slave? Your brain is riddled with aspartame and estrogen.

Power to the sheeple!

The Kirk is dead. Long live the Kirk!
I'm gonna go to the closest high rise or billboard and spray paint "Kirk 182!" in his memory!