Growing Number of Prosecutions for Videotaping the Police

Growing Number of Prosecutions for Videotaping the Police

abcnews.go.com

But it wasn't his daredevil stunt that has the 25-year-old staff sergeant for the Maryland Air National Guard facing the possibility of 16 years in prison. For that, he was issued a speeding ticket. It was the video that Graber posted on YouTube one week later -- taken with his helmet camera -- of a plainclothes state trooper cutting him off and drawing a gun during the traffic stop near Baltimore.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I found this story on reddit.com which is a ranking service for news stories and it is featured by the MSN.

The reason I wanted to highlight it so specifically to ATS users is as a note of caution to those who advocate recording everything. I have seen over the last six months constant posts telling others to record the police, film politicians etc etc. Here is a clear indication to be cautious.

So another issue is this guys behaviour - did he deserve a gun being pulled on him? The video clip in the link seems too short to show us the other iditotic things the motorcyclist was accused of. But a gun for speeding - is this normal?

abcnews.go.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

If this doesn't reek of a police state, I don't know what does. This is actually very angering. They can apparently video tape us, yet we can't video tape them. People wonder why everyone is losing respect for authority these days.

--airspoon

Edit to add:

This is the video in question:



A news clip of the incident:




--airspoon

[edit on 20-7-2010 by airspoon]

This has been posted www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by spacedonk


well i find find the double standards here quite incredible as most police cruisers have cams that are rolling and filming many thousands of motorists day in and day out with out their consents.

now as in the video you connot se what stunt he may have done in order the have a gun drawn on him ...plus there is another police car that pulls up behind him so it was possibly a ongoing chase of some sort..

but that should be the charges only and he should be allowed to film what had occured whether he was in the right or wrong when breaking the law.

why the officer drew his weapon will be upto the courts to decide.

so i think you should still film everything....cause it gives a clear picture of what goes on in this world

and before anyone jumps dowm my throat....(filming someone children should always remain a grey area)

point being if the news,police,goverment,cctv,shops,homes, and everywhere else can film us....we whould be able to film them.

I think I'm going to go on a suing spree.

First up: The police for filming me without my consent.

Next up: 7/11, Wal-Mart, Target etc. for filming me without my consent.

Finally: The city for filming me without my consent.

[edit on 20-7-2010 by Nutter]

reply to post by Nutter


Someone has to...sooner or later they'll try to throw you in jail for looking at them funny.

This insanity and disregard for citizens rights, HAS to be nipped in the bud now, before it get's out of hand.

And i don't even live in the US, but i'm steaming about these arses trying to turn a free country into a prison state.

sigh - please watch the vid again - and read the news story :

maryland law states that : it is a felony offence to make an audio recording of another PERSON without thier consent

it applies to EVERYONE

his alleged " defence " that the camera is obvious is utter twaddle - there are scores of hemet cams that have no audio capability

and as for not seting the freaking big marked ploice car behind him - check your mirrors dumbass

I've seen the video, read the Maryland law and read the various responses on ATS. I don't understand what the problem is. The guy violated traffic laws and a law most states have against audio taping without permission. There is nothing in the law about plain sight, conceiled, etc., so his "defence" that the camera was obvious is a total non-starter. I bet his career in the Air Force reserves is about to get really rocky!

reply to post by spacedonk


I am waiting on the linked page to load, but in every state that I am aware of, it only takes one person to consent to being recorded.

If neither party is aware of the recording, then it requires a warrant. If only one party is aware of it, and that party is willing to approve it and/or testify in court regarding the recording, then the recording is perfectly legal.

This is how they get around the warrant laws when they do sting operations for drugs or prostitution.

The law cannot be applied differently from one case to another. CCTV, Security Cameras, Dash Cameras, are all admissable and legal, so this kids helmet cam is certainly admissable and legal!

This is a bully tactic to get him to not pursue complaints against the department, and it should backfire. If the kid sticks to his guns, gets exposure, and hires good attorneys, then he is looking at a decent settlement I would say.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
maryland law states that : it is a felony offence to make an audio recording of another PERSON without thier consent

it applies to EVERYONE

Well, it obviously doesn't apply to EVERYONE, because it doesn't seem to apply when the rolls are reversed. The police take video and audio of anyone they decide they want to, and any objection is deemed a misappropriation of civil resources, punishable by fines and incarceration.

16 years for recording a LEO? Seems a bit harsh don't you think? I mean, he could have killed someone with his recklessness on the road, but recording the officer's handling of the situation warrants a decade and a half?

It's never been more obvious that the establishment is merely making an example here, out of fear. Fear that the status quo is being abolished by the citizenry. Fear that the public is going to be holding them accountable for their actions.

Yeah, the guy was a jackass, and it's because of punks like him that I'm afraid to ride a motorcycle on the street, but 16 years for recording the cop?

Really... this sounds like some extravagant agenda driven fear mongering piece written by Sorcha Faal, only it's real.

reply to post by ignorant_ape


Yet it is the cops who constantly use this charge. Despite the fact that city attorneys have made memos explaining that it wont hold in court. Most states have it so that in public where there is no expectation of privacy it cannot be upheld.

A dozen states require all parties to consent before a recording is made if there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Virginia and New York require one-party consent. Only in Massachusetts and Illinois is it illegal for people to make an audio recording of people without their consent.

From the linked article. So, in other words you can video tape people in public areas without any fear of arrest or prosecution. There is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" on a public street.

In a more private setting, say a hotel room in a prostitution sting, the law varies a little. 12 states require all parties consent, Virginia and New York are fine with 1 parties consent, and Massachusetts and Illinois make it illegal for a third party to record a conversation.

According to the article all of these cases where police have made arrests, prosecutors have refused to prosecute, and at least one settlement was reached for damages over the arrest!

This helmet cam kid had his house raided and equipment confiscated over a youtube video? I see a nice big settlement in his future!!

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
sigh - please watch the vid again - and read the news story :

maryland law states that : it is a felony offence to make an audio recording of another PERSON without thier consent

it applies to EVERYONE

his alleged " defence " that the camera is obvious is utter twaddle - there are scores of hemet cams that have no audio capability

and as for not seting the freaking big marked ploice car behind him - check your mirrors dumbass

Wow - actually the video states that you can not record them without them knowing - not consent - so you are wrong.

Secondly the police car was unmarked - you are wrong again....

Want to try again ?

In Maryland they do have a law that the citizen can not record the police either audio or video, in public or private.

However the police have the right to record the citizen audio or video, in public or private, with or without your knowledge or consent, doesn't even need to be part of an active investigation.

Welcome to the Police State, Comrade

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
sigh - please watch the vid again - and read the news story :

maryland law states that : it is a felony offence to make an audio recording of another PERSON without thier consent

it applies to EVERYONE

I saw a police cruiser pull up behind him. Police cruisers are equipped with video and audio recording devices.

Why aren't the police getting into trouble with the feds for filming and recording (audio) him without his consent?

[edit on 20-7-2010 by Nutter]

Originally posted by brokedown
In Maryland they do have a law that the citizen can not record the police either audio or video, in public or private.

However the police have the right to record the citizen audio or video, in public or private, with or without your knowledge or consent, doesn't even need to be part of an active investigation.

Welcome to the Police State, Comrade

NO WAY! I do not believe it. There is only one "law." There is only one set of statutes. A court may interpret it many ways, but the law is the same for the citizen or the cop. If they can video tape you, then you can video tape them.

I would suspect that there is some stipulation on a Driver's License. We probably all agree to video taping by cruisers when we choose to drive. That is one area for a loophole.

However, it still does not take into account all the millions of security cameras that are operating 24/7 without anybody's consent, and they are still legal and admissable.

Take a look at the roof of your favorite department store as you are walking in next time! If those dozens of cameras are legal, then so is this kids helmet cam.

I cant explain why hes being sued for the video tape itself, perhaps it has to do with the officer who pulled him over being and undercover type deal and his identity was compromised by this tape.

perhaps it was the state law on recordings.

perhaps it was because he recorded himself BREAKING the law.

But again I can't say for sure, but I'm sure it will come out.



As far as the incident itself however, Mr. innocent motorcycle man quotes on his own video at "0:31" that hes doing a "WHEELIE" and its quite clear he is. At 0:38 he quotes in his video his speed which according to M.r innocent motorcycle man "127MPH" so he was riding wheelies and driving recklessly at "ATLEAST 127MPH", for those completely oblivious to anything, this constitutes negligence, and reckless endangerment which can KILL anyone that Mr. innocent motorcycle man would have hit, including himself, as well as the officers who were pursuing him for being a moron who has no regard for the safety of anyone else on that road.

It should be noted that at no point did the officer point his firearm at Mr. innocent motorcycle man, his firearm was drawn from his holster in a ready position facing the GROUND, if you handle firearms you will recognize that the officer made it a POINT to NOT point his weapon as Mr. innocent motorcycle man, but did have his firearm ready should Mr. innocent motorcycle man decide to further risk the lives of everyone on the road including the officer INFRONT of him.

Some people really don't understand how dangerous an idiot like this on a bike can be, they also don't realize that its quite common for said bikers to RUN from police because they know that most squad cars cant keep up and they will likely get away. This officer did what was necessary to STOP a potentially FATAL event from occurring.

I've said it before and I will say it again, if a LEO crosses the line I will be the first to say something but some people here BLINDLY and WILLINGLY IGNORE common sense and FACTS because they WANT the police to ALWAYS be in the wrong REGARDLESS of what the so called VICTIM has done.

Originally posted by C0le
I've said it before and I will say it again, if a LEO crosses the line I will be the first to say something but some people here BLINDLY and WILLINGLY IGNORE common sense and FACTS because they WANT the police to ALWAYS be in the wrong REGARDLESS of what the so called VICTIM has done.

Um. He's getting a possible 16 years for filming the police. Not the crimes he committed on his motorcycle.

Some people here BLINDLY and WILLINGLY IGNORE common sense and FACTS because they WANT the establishment to ALWAYS be in the correct REGARDLESS of what the so called INNOCENT SYSTEM has done.

Originally posted by Nutter
Um. He's getting a possible 16 years for filming the police. Not the crimes he committed on his motorcycle.

Some people here BLINDLY and WILLINGLY IGNORE common sense and FACTS because they WANT the establishment to ALWAYS be in the correct REGARDLESS of what the so called INNOCENT SYSTEM has done.

I have quite a number of posts on this board that contradicts such things, The problem with most people here is that they deal with assumptions and not facts, and as you can see regarding the sentence on the recording itself I assumed by presenting possibilities in the intro of my post but came to no conclusions as we simply have no EVIDENCE to form an opinion, and evidence constitutes both sides and not just a news headline with limited facts.

As far as the actual incident in the footage we have plenty of evidence which favors the officer and not Mr. innocent motorcycle man.