Women faces wiretapping charges after allegedly recording her arrest

page: 1
26
<<   2 >>

log in

join
+4 more 
posted on May, 11 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Springfield, Massachusetts:


When she was about to be arrested, police say the woman activated the voice recording feature on her smart phone, hid it in her purse and surreptitiously‎ recorded the entire arrest. Now she faces the unusual charge of unlawful wiretapping.


www.masslive.com...


Unbelievable. Things like this have to stop. If we as citizens have no right to record the actions of the police then we are living in a police state.




posted on May, 11 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   
It has gotten to the point where we can't trust LEOs to act professionally and honestly. The US Constitution SHOULD protect this right, but apparently they have new ways to circumvent an obvious right of the people.

We MUST be allowed to record our interactions with LEOs for our own protection and safety.
edit on 2014/5/11 by Metallicus because: Clarity



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Our only hope is for GLADD or the NAACP to fight for our right to record police activity. The rest of us suck when it comes to organizing or standing up for anything.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Many states have "all-party" consent laws but Massachusetts is, as far as I know, the only one that doesn't have a provision stipulating that all parties must have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The only other state where people were being convicted for surreptitiously recording police in recent years was Illinois and their law was overturned in March by a unanimous decision of the Illinois Supreme Court.

There should be no reasonable expectation of privacy for on-duty cops — it's just that simple.
edit on 2014-5-11 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Yep. The law only applies to you, not the businesses of the oligarchy. Sound like a perfect law to discuss the impact of jury nullification. The interpretation of that law needs to be judged by the people.

Most law enforcement today is chartered and incorporated. That means it is bound to contract law, and any violation of the charter is breech of contract. Are they violating the terms and conditions of any of thier charter? Go look. Are they violating the supreme law of the land?

If they have at any time in the past, hold public meeting to dissolve the charters, effectively making that business null and void, and without authority. Then claw back salaries and pensions. Use the funding to replace with a public, transparent, municipal law service, bound to uphold Article 6, US Constitution.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
It has gotten to the point where we can't trust LEOs to act professionally and honestly. The US Constitution SHOULD protect this right, but apparently they have new ways to circumvent an obvious right of the people.

We MUST be allowed to record our interactions with LEOs for our own protection and safety.


Actually federal courts agree with you (us). The ACLU sued in Illinois over a similar law and in 2012, a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ordered an injunction against enforcement of the law. This is what they had to say about it:


The Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts a medium of expression commonly used for the preservation and communication of information and ideas, thus triggering First Amendment scrutiny. Illinois has criminalized the nonconsensual recording of most any oral communication, including recordings of public officials doing the public's business in public and regardless of whether the recording is open or surreptitious. Defending the broad sweep of this statute, the State's Attorney relies on the government’s interest in protecting conversational privacy, but that interest is not implicated when police officers are performing their duties in public places and engaging in public communications audible to persons who witness the events. Even under the more lenient intermediate standard of scrutiny applicable to content-neutral burdens on speech, this application of the statute very likely flunks. The Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests; as applied to the facts alleged here, it likely violates the First Amendment’s free speech and free-press guarantees.

source

and the SCOTUS let that ruling stand:


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court refused on Monday to revive a controversial Illinois law that prohibited audio recordings of police officers acting in public places, a ban that critics said violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Without comment, the court on Monday let stand a May 8 ruling by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago that blocked enforcement of the law, which had made it a felony to record audio of conversations unless all parties consented.

source

It's high time for Massachusetts legislators to do their jobs.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
What may have happened is the lady really upset the police and they were looking for any charges they could think of to pin on here. This is common and why you will often see someone with multiple charges when an arrest is made, when this happens there is a much better chance of a conviction. Also I do believe wiretapping is a felony and felony arrests look good on paper.

I attempted to film an arrest once, and a junior cop(i say junior because he had no rank) in about his early 30's saw me and snatched my cellphone from me. He demanded my ID and cellphone number, I gave him neither, he then looked through my cell phone, then threatened to arrest me for "pissing him off." That night there were many cops who responded for that arrest and an older cop(50's+) with some rank stepped in and cleared things up, the older cop was obviously ex-military and gave me the i don't know what his problem look is.

There are still many good cops out there, but too many young ones are overly eager to make an arrest.
edit on 11-5-2014 by jrod because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Dissolve the agency itself. It has failed in is purpose, we the people in good faith, allowed. That is upholding the US Constitution. That is their job. The other part of their job is to NOT enforce unconstitutional laws. That is what their oath is all about. Everything is a social contact.

Claw back all salaries, benefits, benefits and pensions. Charge department heads for civil rights violations, while under color of law. Start demanding the RICO Act is also applied to them.

As soon as you turn on the lights, the rats will flee.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
As much as I've always hated the"Czar"position created I must say if one is needed it would be the police.We obviously need a national group monitoring these ever growing shootings,beatings,tasering etc.
I don't believe the police will ever police themselves willingly.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Ask them If they ever read the US constitution? If they said yes, ask them to quote Article 6, from memory. Then if they even can, ask them what is the penalty for deprivation of civil rights under color of law? If they ask which rights, point of the UN declaration of universal human rights that the US is bound to by treaty per article 6, ChapterXIX Ratification and Signature, Article 110-111.

That will get the blood pumping.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Not Authorized

My experience the only words a arrest happy cop wants to hear from me is confessing to doing something illegal. Anything else I say is irrelevant and I will just be called a smart ass or wannabe lawyer. I will have to remember to ask about Article 6 and the penalty for deprivation of civil rights under the color of law if I ever have a negative encounter again.

Another thing I can tell you from personal experience is if they pull the War on Drugs card on you, then forget about the Bill of Rights.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   
I find it ironic that Law enforcement can record and video you with lapel mic and dash cams but they get bent out of shape if you point a cell phone camera at them.

If they have nothing to hide why should they mind?
edit on 11-5-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 10:47 PM
link   
In today's society, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy anywhere.

Companies and governments record your phone calls, spending habits, etc. constantly and it's considered normal.

This is both in your home and outside of it.

There are cameras on the street corners, in your places of business - Basically everywhere.

If we as citizens have no real right to an expectation of privacy, why should a business or government agency?

Or better yet, individuals working for those companies or government agencies.

Either the laws work for every individual or no-one.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Put up a wifi cam with audio in the car, put a sticker on the
drivers side. When the officer comes up you roll down
the window and says: " Officer, before you ask me any questions
you should now, this car is camera and audio protected, anything
that it records can and will be used in a court of law"
edit on 2014/5/11 by Miccey because: (no reason given)
edit on 2014/5/11 by Miccey because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 05:31 AM
link   


Put up a wifi cam with audio in the car, put a sticker on the drivers side. When the officer comes up you roll down the window and says: " Officer, before you ask me any questions you should now, this car is camera and audio protected, anything that it records can and will be used in a court of law" - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Yup and end up in the tank with assorted bruises. Go for it.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 05:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Many states have "all-party" consent laws but Massachusetts is, as far as I know, the only one that doesn't have a provision stipulating that all parties must have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The only other state where people were being convicted for surreptitiously recording police in recent years was Illinois and their law was overturned in March by a unanimous decision of the Illinois Supreme Court.

There should be no reasonable expectation of privacy for on-duty cops — it's just that simple.



You said it. This would not be part of a private conversation but the recording of an official event. The government wasn't granted right to privacy here constitutionally, the people were.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: spooky24



Put up a wifi cam with audio in the car, put a sticker on the drivers side. When the officer comes up you roll down the window and says: " Officer, before you ask me any questions you should now, this car is camera and audio protected, anything that it records can and will be used in a court of law" - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Yup and end up in the tank with assorted bruises. Go for it.


That link was not Mine was it....?!!? No it wasnt...
And what do you mean end up in the tank??
Do you really think the officer would risk
any charges on him....

The recordings wouldnt be stored IN the car either..
edit on 2014/5/12 by Miccey because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Don't forget cops and some of us use key fob cameras. Rather cheap on eBay usually less than $20 US




posted on May, 12 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

This lady was on a drunken tirade, so bad that her neighbors had to call the building security and when they couldn't calm her down the cops were called.

Then she still would not stop and had to be arrested. Im glad they found more to charge her with.. if you cant handle your liquor then you should not be drinking.


Karen Dziewit of Chicopee was arrested early Sunday morning after neighbors complained that she was screaming, yelling, and generally disturbing of the tenants of her building. When police arrived, she continued her intoxicated rant, leaving them with no choice but to arrest her.


www.rawstory.com...

I hate drunks.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: alienjuggalo

She was charged for her drunker behavior separately. Regardless if she was out an out of control drunk, wiretapping charges are absurd in this case.

It also sets a scary precedent if this case holds up.

What is also insane is the police do wiretapping acts while investigating someone without a warrant and never face wiretapping charges.
edit on 12-5-2014 by jrod because: 2





new topics
top topics
 
26
<<   2 >>

log in

join