It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Motorcyclist films cops stopping him and Prosecutor to charge cyclist with "invasion of privacy of

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Found on Jalopnik.com

jalopnik.com...

Prosecutor Defends Traffic-Stop Privacy...For Police
Anthony Graber is the 25-year-old Maryland motorcyclist charged with invading the privacy of a state trooper he filmed during a traffic stop. The prosecutor behind the charges says police have a right to privacy that he's willing to enforce.

Graber's case has become a national cause among libertarians. The Maryland National Guard sergeant admits he was speeding in April down Interstate 95 on his Honda CBR 1000RR. A man in a grey sweater jumped from his car in a traffic stop and pulled a gun on Graber, ordering him off the motorcycle. He then identified himself as a Maryland State Police trooper Joseph Uhler.

Graber was recording the stop with a camera mounted on his helmet. After posting the videos on YouTube, police raided the home Graber shared with his parents, taking four computers and eventually arresting him on a charge of violating Maryland's wiretapping law for recording the trooper's voice without his consent. The maximum sentence is 16 years in prison.

-----

Now, when did one set of rules apply to LE and another set apply to the populous? I care not who you are, if you wear a uniform or not the second you step out of your front door there is zero expectation of privacy as you are in the public domain. This gun wielding fool could've murdered a cop, stole his clothes, stole his car, badge and gun with the intent to cause a ruckus. If you are on a public road or sidewalk the 4th Amendment does not apply as it only applies behind closed doors and in cases where your privacy is guaranteed, and not a publicly tax dollar financed street.

In an unrealted item I was walking home from a friends house about 2 yrs back and came upon an intersection, saw a marked car approaching to my left and when I went to draw back and slow down because I was unsure what the cop was going to do he turned right (against a one way) and approched me. He then preceeded to shine the spotlight on me and had the audacity to yell at me when I looked past the beam. I had no idea who dude was or what his intent is. I told hime simply, "I'm a fastwalker and when I saw you I drewback because I was unsure what you were doing" to that all he said was, "No problem, enjoy your day". Idiot thought I was drunk but here's the kicker, I've been liq free since Feb 03 and the entire department knows about it.


[edit on 14-8-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]




posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   


Police State anyone?



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


An off-duty cop in a public place has no privacy rights to protect him from being filmed. Neither does a on-duty offficer for that matter. The 4th amendment was enacted to protect the PEOPLE's privacy rights, not the government's. For God's sake, they are filming us, why can't we film them?

All these blatantly unconstitutional laws being passed under the umbrella of the unconstitutional Patriot Act are insane, and should be voided. Furthermore, does the oath to "protect and serve" mean anything to law enforcement anymore? I have the utmost respect for law enforcement who take their oaths seriously, they put their lives on the line every day, but more and more I see evidence of what amounts to unwarranted and unchecked police brutality against ordinary citizens.

People are becoming more afraid of police than they are criminals, it seems. It is a sad state of affairs when a prosecuting attorney, who should know better,. files invasion of privacy charges against a citizen who has the AUDACITY to film an off-duty cop who pulls a gun on him for no reason.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by gaiagirl
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


An off-duty cop in a public place has no privacy rights to protect him from being filmed. Neither does a on-duty offficer for that matter. The 4th amendment was enacted to protect the PEOPLE's privacy rights, not the government's. For God's sake, they are filming us, why can't we film them?

All these blatantly unconstitutional laws being passed under the umbrella of the unconstitutional Patriot Act are insane, and should be voided. Furthermore, does the oath to "protect and serve" mean anything to law enforcement anymore? I have the utmost respect for law enforcement who take their oaths seriously, they put their lives on the line every day, but more and more I see evidence of what amounts to unwarranted and unchecked police brutality against ordinary citizens.

People are becoming more afraid of police than they are criminals, it seems. It is a sad state of affairs when a prosecuting attorney, who should know better,. files invasion of privacy charges against a citizen who has the AUDACITY to film an off-duty cop who pulls a gun on him for no reason.


The 4th only applies in exclusive cases where you can guarantee privacy but is nullified during a traffic stop hence how a cop can pull you over for a busted taillight and wind up taking you in for narcotics and weapons.

In cases like this whereas the stop is filmed is a protection to the person being pulled over to prevent them from becoming a victim of police brutality.

Patriot Act only applies to international terrorism and cannot apply during a local traffic stop as there are already laws and procedures on the books to handle that.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   

All Law is Contract; Every Interchange Between People is Contract; All Commerce is Contract; Contract Makes the Law



I too am a motorcyclist and I feel for this guy and the current situation. Cops generally don't like Motorcyclists.

I had once had an incident of speeding on my bike. I hired a lawyer, a good one at that, who told me whilst in court to NOT SAY a THING !

And now I understand why...it has to do with jurisdiction and mainly contracts. If I had said something now I was under jurisdiction of the court. My Legal Representation was being paid to represent me and handling the issue for me.
Hence why we pay attorneys so much.

But back to this guy's case, This just typifies the flagrant abuse of the law. I had said this before, this guys needs better legal representation. And/or study the law himself.

This is a a traffic stop, on a PUBLIC thoroughfare, plain and simple.

No privacy matters, as in wiretapping or communication between him and the officer has been infringed upon and/or violated.

What this really represents is how corrupt our system of justice really is.

The defense attorneys want to remain employed and under threat of disbarment in their state, they are intimidated in fighting for the defendant and going against the revenue generation squad's kangaroo court system.

Plain and Simple.

These Traffic Kangaroo Courts are just the biggest corrupt system of injustice imaginable.

Why ?

First of all they are unconstitutional, in that the Prosecutor and the Judge are both paid to represent the same party, Namely the State of Maryland, so we have a conflict of interest, which constitutes breach of contract AND as a result of this, the defendant is being denied his constitutional right to a fair trial because of it.

If this guy were smart he would begin reading up on the law.

Specifically the Uniform Commercial Code. Which he is subject to, and as to why all court flags are trimmed in gold fringe. This represents Maritime or Commercial law.

When in a court and you are asked to state your name AND you reply by answering, you in essence are signing your own death certificate as now signing contract between yourself and the court as well as being under the Judges jurisdiction.


He, the defendant can refuse contract with the court by not answering the questions posed to him, but instead asking if he is being contracted by the court in answering the questions.

Which might lead to contempt, but it is better than 16 years in prison.

But by not answering ,This prevents the Kangaroo court from having jurisdiction over him.

As long as he doesn't answer any of the queries, he has not relinquished jurisdiction to the Kangaroo court and his case cannot be tried, judged and/or prosecuted.

The case WILL be Thrown Out if the court hasn't legal Jurisdiction over him.

And...

He can also, not accept the judgment imposed upon him by clearly stating "With all due respect Judge SoandSo I do not accept your sentence."

The Judge will attempt to lure you into answering by asking another question. "Well you speeding motorcyclist, what if I were to sentence you to 10 years in prison ?"
Still , do not respond, and only state your case of not accepting the judges sentence.

This translates to checkmate. The Judge has been mated and will have no other option than to throw the case out.


I wish him the best. But he really needs to educate himself or find an attorney who can give him some useful legal advice. Because he is being railroaded.




[edit on 14-8-2010 by nh_ee]



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
This has already been posted and discussed to lenght. Not sure about the url's thought.



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


So he can pull me over and video tape me without my consent, but I cant video tape him without his? I dont think so



posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I never said anything about the case in this thread. I just said it is burried somewhere here and if someone finds it post url's.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join