It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Debate Sparks Over Video Recording Of Arrests

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 24 2010 @ 10:00 AM

Debate Sparks Over Video Recording Of Arrests

Several Marylanders face felony charges for recording their arrests on camera, and others have been intimidated to shut their cameras off. That's touched off a legal controversy

A man whose arrest was caught on video faces felony charges from Maryland State Police for recording it on camera.

"We are enforcing the law, and we don't make any apologies for that," said Greg Shipley, Maryland State Police

to prevent citizens from doing that is profoundly shocking, troubling,
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 10:00 AM
Why is it OK for the police to tape their interactions with you, presumably for the purpose of documentation of the interaction, but not OK for the other party to record the event?

The police cameras are on when the officer approaches the car, hence there has been no prior agreement on the part of the person pulled over to allow the taping, it is SOP to record. Now the state of Maryland is saying that it is illegal to record under the law that any and all recording must have the approval of both parties.

The both party thing is reasonable and is the law in many states, but it seems to me that the one-sided thing is wrong and a violation of rights. Very often the person who was pulled over has done nothing wrong, or at least nothing seriously wrong. Why should that interaction be recorded?

Also - why is it that the recorded events of police beatings and abuses of power always seem to come from the camera of an bystander, despite the fact that the police have the interaction on tape.

Finally, those cameras have a fixed viewing zone that is well known by the police and should the situation get a bit rough it is quite easy to pull the party out of range of the camera.

Law enforcement should want each and every interaction with the public taped and recorded.

I don't see how this stands up in court.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 10:09 AM
I'm not sure about the Preakness recording incident, but the traffic stop that was recorded from a helmet-cam should be legal since it was outside in a public place. He was just issued a ticket for speeding initially, but after posting this video on YouTube, a search warrant was issued and he had all his home computers seized. Personally I don't see anything wrong with recording an event that happens outside in plain sight.

Cops don't seem to like getting caught on camera.

Anthony John Graber III of Harford County is finding that out the hard way. His rapid and possibly reckless motorcycle trip up Interstate 95 has landed the systems engineer in more trouble than a speeding ticket.

The 24-year-old Graber is facing criminal charges after the Internet posting of a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during a March 5 traffic stop.

This almost seems to be abridging the freedom of the press. I seriously doubt this law would be upheld if it's appealed to a higher federal level court.

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 10:44 AM
People have not only the right but the duty to record cops. It's been shown over and over again that they cannot be trusted. I've been speculating about when they start saying that it's illegal even thought it's not. That's the next step they take.

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 10:54 AM
A Felony????

that's crazyyyyy

even if it goes to a higher court and the poor guy ends up winning it's still an efficient scare tactic as far as the police dept. are concerned.

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 10:55 AM
I'll have to keep my eye on this thread. I run into this issue on a regular basis and am presently considering a civil suite and criminal charges against several RCMP officers under Canada's "Digital Mischief" law which is used to prosecute those who tamper with or destroy digitally stored information without permission from the owner. They erased an entire drive of files after realizing that I may have incidentally recorded them making an arrest without cause.

I fail to see what separates the police, the media, a typical convenience store or us when it comes to recording in a public environment.

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 11:10 AM
It is imperative that the public be able to video tape these lying cops without fear of malicious prosecution. The story alleges that the rider was backing up the motorcycle while revving the engine above idle, which was justification for the trooper pulling out his gun.

The trooper wrote in charging documents: "The motorcycle operator began to back up while simultaneously revving the engine above idle."

However when you actually listen to the video the engine did not rev. This presents to me that the trooper has falsified his report (as usual) and is trying to find a way to use a completely unrelated law to quell personal freedom. If that cop is unable to determine what an idle is, and what above idle is or what "revving" an engine is, he needs to stop being a cop.

In Canada at least, wiretapping is the recording of a conversation by a third party without the knowledge or consent of the participants of the conversation. If the rider is aware that the conversation he is party to is being recorded, then it isn't wire tapping. I agree that the rider broke the law, and should be fined or penalized based on the laws in place, but the use of a federal statute in this case is both retarded and malicious. The cop should be fired for falsifying his report.


posted on May, 24 2010 @ 11:17 AM
No no no! If the police successfully prevent the public from holding them accountable during their PUBLIC actions then we have entered a POLICE state. This should NOT be held up in court. I will talk to ANY police officer who feels that people should not have the right to video tape them while on duty.

It is the right of this public to make sure that we are treated with respect. And if we don't treat them with respect then we deserve what we get within the extent of the LAW.

Now I do have issues with the video postings where the people only post the segements where the police act out. They always seem to forget to post the segments leading up to what lead the cops to act the way they did.

But in no way should the public be punished for recording the police!

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 12:01 PM

Originally posted by dbates

This almost seems to be abridging the freedom of the press. I seriously doubt this law would be upheld if it's appealed to a higher federal level court.

No lights? siren? uniform or badge? if he had pointed that gun, or been a bit more threatening, the motorcyclist would have justification to defend himself.

In that video, there is no other context., so maybe I am missing something.

I have been in one situation with a federal law enforcement officer who did not properly identify himself, and I did what I had to do to defend myself. I wish I had a video camera rolling on that one. Show me your badge, gun in the other if you want, identify yourself clearly as law enforcement and I will comply, otherwise you are nothing more than a threat to my personal safety.

Video is okay when it captures a crime in progress, as long as law enforcement isn't involved in the crime, then the video itself is a criminal act... Is that what is really going on here?

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 04:11 PM
That's pretty ridiculous considering EVERYTHING about an arrest is public record. It's done in public, it's documented on the internet and in the public records, the court proceeding are public.

The cops tape it. The COPS show can tape it. Reporters can tape it. So why can't the person getting arrested or a bystander? There is nothing private about an arrest.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and the only excuse they could possibly have is to continue their shady ways without getting caught.

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 04:31 PM
I would be interested to know exactly what law was apparently broken. Does anybody here know what they have been charged with?

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 04:32 PM
reply to post by Fractured.Facade

That video is INSANE!

I wonder if that cop was even on duty? I wouldn't imagine he was. Could you imagine what a girl like me would think if some "cop" without a uniform and not in a marked vehicle stopped her on the side of the road? That's how some women have been kidnapped, raped, and/or murdered for Christ's sake. I would have NO OBLIGATION to obey that man.

Regardless of sex, I can't believe that cop came out of the car like that and whipped out his gun.

I'm stunned.

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 04:49 PM
reply to post by dainoyfb

Wiretapping. Althought the courts have never uphold these laws. In theory they can charge with that and it's a felony. There is no court that will hold it because it's in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy to begin with. Also recording in public is protected by the 1st.

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 04:50 PM
The Short Version:

When I was 17 my friend Nick and I where being chased by this guy in a V6 mustang. I pulled along side Nick to see what our plans where and he took off like a bat out of hell. I followed like a not quite so out of hell bat. We where turning a corner and he did a power slide after us. We had no choice but to run. We thought he was some crazy mofo after us.

Anyway a long story short we pulled into a parking lot to confront this guy. He jumps out of his car, threatening to beat us, pulls out a gun, screams some more and then after about 3 or 4 minutes tells us he is a City cop. No lights, no sirens, off duty and in his personal vehicle.

The police department mailed us each about a dozen tickets (all of which he wrote later, and one of which was for not yielding on a train crossing. There where no train crossings even close to that area.), one of which was for running from him which gratefully was dropped.

Kinda glad we didn't record it, wouldn't want to become a felon.

Sick system we live in.

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 05:23 PM
What is going on here!!? I was WTF, then at the end there is another trooper in a marked car with lights on.

Plain Clothes had a lot a gall hopping out and drawing a gun as he did, although delayed, he did identify himself, but only after arming himself.
Leads me to believe they thought he was going to flee from them.
We don't know why this guy was pulled over, could be anything from a high speed chase to not using a turn signal.
If he had that bike rapped out tight, ya, they probably are going to pull a gun on ya, and off duty cops that are close are probably going to help out.

Unfortunately, only a part of the whole scenario was in the clip. Before I pass my judgement on this, I need to know a few more details.
I feel citizens have every right to record anything on public grounds no matter the participants. However, if this dude was doing something that asked for the way he was treated, those cops aren't going to be too savvy with him making sure they are in a beauty shot for his helmet cam before they secure the scene.
The question is, if another passing car were the one filming this incident instead of the driver, would the state still be pursuing charges?

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 05:31 PM
reply to post by PsykoOps

I certainly hope they give it a good fight for all of our sakes.

I've seen a few instances where officers have slapped a remotely related charge on someone just to get a problem out of their hair for the moment. Looks like this may be the case here.

The problem is its usually no skin off the officer's back to do so despite the injustice of it.

For the person that gets charged there is the legal costs and the stress of wondering whether or not they are going to end up with a criminal record for months while they wait for it to go to trial.

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 12:44 AM

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:06 AM
So whatt he purpose then of INternal affairs? It sounds like in some states, the cops, lawmakers are trying ot get rid of internal affairs...they themselves,t he cops committ crimes and wanna get away with it* thats what it sounds like
supose yuo had a witness with you in your car, and a bad cop made yuor day bad. are witnessess to be made illegal too?>

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:26 AM
reply to post by stirling

As I said, it's wiretapping. The fact is that there is some states which are two-party consent states which means that when 'wiretapping' both parties must agree to it. Illinois however is the only one who allows these to be used for arresting people. Other states throw out cases where police or anyone else doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Marrr
Plain Clothes had a lot a gall hopping out and drawing a gun as he did, although delayed, he did identify himself, but only after arming himself.
Leads me to believe they thought he was going to flee from them.
We don't know why this guy was pulled over, could be anything from a high speed chase to not using a turn signal.

You can find the full clip on YouTube. He was just speeding (popping wheelies, rapid lane changes, etc). He was confronted when he exited the highway and stopped at a traffic light. He wasn't running from the police.

new topics

top topics


log in