Rider video tape. Charged

[buccs40oz]

I remember watching this video on here before. I can't find it now though. Thought you all might want to see it. Here is the clip link.

Police Magazine

 

[fzme]

I remember watching this video on here before. I can't find it now though. Thought you all might want to see it. Here is the clip link.

Police Magazine

Wow. I don't think the charges will stick.

 

[robaho]

I don't think the videotaping charges will stick either. I suspect that the speeding, unsafe operation (wheelie) and other charges will stick though! (watch the extended version of the video on YouTube)

 

[rchamberlain]

There have been many instances of cops being video taped during arrests and other encounters with the public that incriminated them of wrong doing (Rodney King was probably the first of many that I remember). I don't think there is anything wrong with taping a cop in public.

 

[sxty8goats]

As a photographer, I really want to see this go to the higher courts. There are laws allowing filming in public. To exclude officers, especially in a case like this where he is filming leagally up to the point that the officer gets out of the car with no warning, is unlawful.

 

[Motogiro]

It probably won't stick but he was told not to do that (post video) and if they were fair with him on the tickets he would have been smarter to leave well enough alone but instead he needed to show his "Badness" or has taken up against "Blue Team" Again If you watch the entire video you realize he knew he was lit up by LEO's and knows the guy in front of him is unmarked. Some folks need drama......:spank:

 

[sniff6]

Seemed to me that if it had gone to court, the officer would have said the biker was being agressive,so he had to pull a gun on him.But now it makes him look a t**t.It did not even like like a police car or state trooper to me.i'd have zoomed off thinking it was a nut with a gun!!!

Ok watched the full video,yeh he was being a little silly but i've seen worse.What i did find strange though and i'm sure you will agree was those panda's wtf was going on there???

 

[Motogiro]

Seemed to me that if it had gone to court, the officer would have said the biker was being agressive,so he had to pull a gun on him.But now it makes him look a t**t.It did not even like like a police car or state trooper to me.i'd have zoomed off thinking it was a nut with a gun!!!

The officer never pointed the gun at him. He un-holstered it.
If you watch the whole video , you'll see it would be hard to not know what was up and at the point he had endangered other people and had pushed the issue. The courts would probably have no issue with the officers using force to stop him.

The big problem is not the law or what is right or wrong but what combination will play out when you are dealing with human emotion. As human beings, we have animal instincts, some have better instincts than others.
My personal instinct would be, after doing the wheelie passed the bus, speeding, seeing the trooper in the turn-a-round, lights in your rear view mirrors etc, to stop and turn off the bike.
A police officer does not have to identify himself to a criminal, to protect himself or other citizens in immediate danger.

If your a person who thinks and acts like LEO's have to ID themselves and read you your Miranda rights before they can stop you, while you create threatening situations, you will be soon educated otherwise.

No doubt LEO's are human and also have drama issues. At that point in the game the LEO has the drop on him.

I agree the our taxes are being wasted on the video prosecution when we need that energy directed toward other serious issues.

 

[JustinID]

Glad to see the idiots in the Maryland AG office have nothing better to do than start frivolous law suits that have no basis in reality. If you are in a public space, you have no protection from being video taped. Period. As for pulling over the motorcyclist... I'm fine with that, the rider was being reckless.

 

[buccs40oz]

Yeah I doubt they will stick for the tele-tapping.

 

[jrevans]

Wiretapping charges thrown out

Looks like the motorcyclist won the wiretapping part of the case:

Story Lab - Charges dismissed against Md. man who taped traffic stop

Charges dismissed against Md. man who taped traffic stop

A Harford County Circuit Court judge Monday dismissed wiretapping charges against Anthony Graber, a motorcyclist who was jailed briefly after he taped a Maryland state trooper who stopped him for speeding on I-95. Graber used a camera mounted on his helmet, then posted the video on YouTube.

In April, a few weeks after the traffic stop, Harford County state's attorney Joseph I. Cassilly charged Graber, a staff sergeant in the Maryland Air National Guard and a computer systems engineer, with violating the state's wiretapping law. That law dates back to the 1970s and was originally intended to protect citizens from government intrusions into their privacy. If convicted on all charges, Graber faced up to 16 years in prison.

Judge Emory A. Pitt Jr. had to decide whether police performing their duties have an expectation of privacy in public space. Pitt ruled that police can have no such expectation in their public, on-the-job communications.

Pitt wrote: "Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public. When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation. 'Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes' ("Who watches the watchmen?”)."

Graber was also charged with possessing a “device primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of oral communications" -- referring to the video camera on his helmet. The judge disagreed with the prosecutor that the helmet cam was illegal, and concluded the state's argument would render illegal “almost every cell phone, Blackberry, and every similar device, not to mention dictation equipment and other types of recording devices."

Pitt's decision is the first ruling in Maryland to address the legality of citizens taping police in the course of their duties. 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.

No word yet on whether the state's attorney will try to appeal the decision. Graber still faces traffic charges stemming from the incident.

Slashdot News Story | Motorcyclist Wins Taping Case Against State Police

"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."

 

[novaks47]

I'm surprised he won! Especially in Maryland! If he had lost, that would've been ridiculous. Police work for us, not the other way around. Plus, they can tape themselves via dash cams, but we can't record them? Nonsense. Besides, that helmet cam was intended to record his riding, not some cop that he may or may not encounter. lol

 

[sxty8goats]

Judge Emory A. Pitt Jr. had to decide whether police performing their duties have an expectation of privacy in public space. Pitt ruled that police can have no such expectation in their public, on-the-job communications.

Pitt wrote: "Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public. When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation. 'Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes' ("Who watches the watchmen?”)."

That bit right there is the gold. "Expectation of Privacy" is what most of these laws revolve around. Without that clause, you couldn't legally work as a photojournalist. It allows you to photograph freely in public but would not allow you to cross the line of 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. IE no shooting through a bedroom window or up a skirt. It is a good and tested measure and the cops / districts that are banning video taping of police are walking all over your rights.

 

[Smersh]

That bit right there is the gold.

I cannot agree more. I just wish there would be more precedent built - I happen to like snapping pictures of things, and it's amazing what not only authorities, but even private security think they are authorized to do. A couple years ago, some security guard on the steps outside of Borders bookstore at the Penn station was waving his hands and yelling at me simply because I was holding my SLR in my hand (it had a cap on the lens!!!). No earlier than yesterday, I saw two cops from "random" check table on Union Square subway station telling tourists that video is prohibited (it's not - Section 1050.9, MTA Rules of Conduct)

Over, at Airline Reporter, there is an entry about TSA's recent poster that clearly shows their attitude toward photographers.

WHY are authorities making such a big deal of photography? Because it can be used for reconnaissance? I'm no expert in intelligence and counter-intelligence, but with the modern state of technology, the pictures can be taken from literally in front of the LEOs w/o them being aware. The technology is widely available and costs LESS than SLR cameras.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Security" (Franklin).
Ironically, in this situation, we are giving up liberty for illusory security.