As Google Hands Over Collected WiFi Data In Germany, France And Spain, Ireland Tells Google To Destroy It

Police And Courts Regularly Abusing Wiretapping Laws To Arrest People For Filming Cops Misbehaving In Public Places

from the to-protect-and-serve? dept

Fri, Jun 4th 2010 5:45pm — Mike Masnick

Back in April, we wrote about the case of a motorcyclist in Maryland who was wearing a helmet-mounted camera while riding his motorcycle (admittedly, above the speed limit). As he stopped at a traffic light, an off-duty police-officer in plain clothes and an unmarked car jumped out of his car with his gun drawn. All of this was caught on video. No matter what you think of the cop's reaction, what happened later is ridiculous: after the biker, Anthony John Graber III, posted the video from his helmet cam to YouTube, he was arrested for illegal wiretapping, based on Maryland's two-party consent rule for recording. As we explained at the time, wiretapping laws that require all parties to consent were not, at all, designed for this type of situation.

However, apparently this sort of thing is becoming all too common -- and stunningly, many courts are siding with the cops. Gizmodo recently had a good article highlighting how police in states that require all parties to consent to recordings have been using this law against being videotaped in public, and the courts are siding with them. What's really scary is that most of those laws even have clearly written exceptions for recording in public places "where no expectation of privacy" exists.

Yet, the police and the courts both seem to ignore that part of those laws:

The courts, however, disagree. A few weeks ago, an Illinois judge rejected a motion to dismiss an eavesdropping charge against Christopher Drew, who recorded his own arrest for selling one-dollar artwork on the streets of Chicago. Although the misdemeanor charges of not having a peddler's license and peddling in a prohibited area were dropped, Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.

In 2001, when Michael Hyde was arrested for criminally violating the state's electronic surveillance law -- aka recording a police encounter -- the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld his conviction 4-2. In dissent, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall stated, "Citizens have a particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue is that of the police. Their role cannot be performed if citizens must fear criminal reprisals...." (Note: In some states it is the audio alone that makes the recording illegal.)

The selection of "shooters" targeted for prosecution do, indeed, suggest a pattern of either reprisal or an attempt to intimidate.

That last sentence is the real problem here. Two-party consent laws were clearly designed to be used in situations where someone was being recorded privately -- such as over a phone call, or in a private conversation. When police are doing things (especially questionable activities) out in public, we should be encouraging the public to record those incidents and report them. The laws are being abused to try to stop people from whistleblowing on bad behavior by police. That has nothing to do with the purpose of two-party consent laws. It's really scary that the courts didn't immediately throw out these cases.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: abuse, police misconduct, wiretapping

94 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2010 @ 6:01pm

Consent
Does this mean all those people I see on Cops explicitly consented to being recorded? Or do the police get a free pass to record whoever they want from THEIR dash mounted cameras without consent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2010 @ 6:40pm
  
  Re: Consent
  Yes the police get a free pass. This is simply about the loss of control due to the internet making video distribution free and easy.
  
  I've had 4 meetings with police in my life. Twice were traffic violations on my part. No issue there, I was at fault.
  
  Once my car was hit in a parking lot. I called the police. He threatened to charge me with insurance fraud or something or we could just drop the whole thing. I dropped it because I was 19 and stupid.
  
  Once I was pulled over on the way to the beach because I "accelerated too quickly". My wallet had fallen to the foot, and when I reached for it, the police officer pulled his gun.
  
  Ever since the last one, I've wondered how black people could ever get a fair shake with police. I'm sure most police officers are nice guys who simply want to help, but a lot of them are just control freaks who give the rest a bad name.
  
  The good cops need to stop letting the bad ones hide behind them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2010 @ 8:34am
    
    Re: Re: Consent
    The good cops need to stop letting the bad ones hide behind them.
    
    A really good cop wouldn't shield a bad one. But almost all cops shield their "brethren". That's why I say there are very few good cops.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - tim, 5 Jun 2010 @ 10:52am
    
    Re: Re: Consent
    The ones that protect their brothers in blue are just as guilty, maybe more so, as they know right from wrong and choose wrong.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BBT, 7 Jun 2010 @ 9:27am
    
    Re: Re: Consent
    Wait, are you complaining that the police officer pulled his gun on you when you suddenly reached into a dark unsuspected location that he couldn't see? WTF were you expecting?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 4 Jun 2010 @ 8:39pm
  
  Re: Consent
  I'm betting that people whose cases were dismissed need to consent (which means, basically, nothing more than that their faces are blurred).
  
  The ones who are convicted are criminals, thus don't have rights.
  
  Kind of convenient, don't you think?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2010 @ 2:20am
  
  Re: Consent
  Yes ALL of those people on Cops explicitly consented to being recorded via paper waiver.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2010 @ 11:41pm
    
    Re: Re: Consent
    only after being recorded
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sam, 5 Jun 2010 @ 8:16am
  
  Re: Consent
  good comment!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2010 @ 11:38pm
  
  Re: Consent
  only if they have a warrant
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Douglas, 3 Jun 2011 @ 10:39am
  
  Re: Consent
  it is because there is sound being recorded, this is why they are using "wire tapping" laws.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2010 @ 6:03pm

@1 and then
make a tv show out of it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2010 @ 6:13pm

@ 1 ONLY reason
they dont like it is cause it shows them most times as great upstanding citizens ......which maybe we should have cameras in all public places THEN when THEY act up its also on record
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ericthegreat (profile), 4 Jun 2010 @ 7:41pm
  
  Re: @ 1 ONLY reason
  Uh yeah cameras in all public places would be the start of something worse. The whole point of the cameras in patrol cars is to protect agencies with frivolous law suits. the laws need to be rewritten to allow public servants to be video taped. But cameras everywhere is just a bad idea.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Cipher-0, 5 Jun 2010 @ 12:23pm
    
    Re: Re: @ 1 ONLY reason
    the laws need to be rewritten to allow public servants to be video taped.
    And here I thought the police mantra was, "If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
lavi d (profile), 4 Jun 2010 @ 6:14pm

Goose and Gander
When police are doing things (especially questionable activities) out in public, we should be encouraging the public to record those incidents and report them. The laws are being abused to try to stop people from whistleblowing on bad behavior by police. That has nothing to do with the purpose of two-party consent laws. It's really scary that the courts didn't immediately throw out these cases.

So what about security/surveillance cameras? Can this evidence be thrown out in court in these same states based on this "two-party" consent thingy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2010 @ 7:42pm
  
  Re: Goose and Gander
  Security and surveillance cameras usually don't record audio. That's what the wiretapping laws are about.
  
  Video taping is still legal anywhere, except in another persons private property - without consent.
  
  If the people who taped the police deleted the audio tracks before approaching the courts etc, they can't be prosecuted. But, then you have to have the camera pointed properly and showing misbehavior without audio cues.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2010 @ 7:55pm
    
    Re: Re: Goose and Gander
    I think the more relevant question is, could the people put it on Youtube without having it taken down? They should absolutely be allowed to, but what are these courts ruling and what would they likely rule?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 5 Jun 2010 @ 11:33pm
  
  Re: Goose and Gander
  > So what about security/surveillance cameras?
  
  There's at least one case in Maryland where a man was charged under this law because his home security camera passively recorded the police responding to his residence based on a noise complaint.
  
  It's apparently okay for the government wallpaper a city with surveillance cameras to monitor *your* every waking moment, but the moment you turn the camera around on them, they shriek like a scalded cat.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2010 @ 7:35pm

These laws shouldn't really apply in public places. Clearly this is an abuse of law by the cops and the courts with judges who know better but are somehow being coerced?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2010 @ 7:53pm
  
  Re:
  Also, they shouldn't generally apply to public officials getting paid with public money either, like cops.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2010 @ 7:36pm

this is absolutely unacceptable, laws against letting the people hold cops accountable for their actions.
seems we might be getting to the second american revolution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2010 @ 8:04pm
  
  Re:
  I've come to accept the fact that what we see in mainstream media hardly reflects what really happens in the real world. It's dangerous for the mainstream media to give us a false impression of the real world; the impression that authority is generally good, big corporations are generally good, mainstream media journalists and officials do nothing wrong and they work so hard to serve the common good, societies biggest problem concerns blue collar crimes like bank robberies and whatnot and so we need more authoritarian control over this stuff, etc... and that big corporations abusing the legal system doesn't occur and that judges are generally fair, laws are generally equitable, enforcement is generally good, pharma companies generally innovate to find cures and the legal system we have gives them incentive to find cures, their actions do nothing to prevent innovative cures from entering the market and they really don't put much effort into doing so, the system generally seeks to cure you, not to treat you for the rest of your life and make money off of such treatments, donate your money to these cancer R&D groups they will find a cure (they've been promising it for so long and very few innovation occurs, instead, they take your donated money to obtain patents and prevent others from conducting R&D), the status quo is generally beneficial to the masses, patents and copyrights don't get abused, the patent and copyright laws are equitable (ie: they don't mention 95 year copyright terms), it is the pirates that are bad and causing all sorts of economic loss to everyone, our intention isn't to restrict competition, we just want to promote the progress, etc... when the exact opposite is generally true.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMNTD, 4 Jun 2010 @ 7:38pm

Always one answer..
Everyone does it..then everyone gets to go to court...masses apply asap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Pirate., 4 Jun 2010 @ 7:58pm

Then some people ask why civil disobedience occurs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2010 @ 8:11pm

Never met a cop I could trust, sad really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 4 Jun 2010 @ 8:41pm
  
  Re:
  Hey, don't bad mouth, a good friend of mine is now a cop. They're not all stormtroopers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2010 @ 9:02pm
    
    Karl, unless he is actively stopping his brothers in blue from abusing the system and the law, he IS a part of the problem.
    
    Those who ignore injustice approve of it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Just a thought, 5 Jun 2010 @ 6:55am
      
      Re:
      Is that like the response to the holocaust by the usa?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 5 Jun 2010 @ 7:30am
      
      Re:
      Well, I know he was very critical of those tazer deaths a few years back. I doubt very much that he'd agree with what's going on here.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - tim, 5 Jun 2010 @ 10:56am
        
        Re: Re:
        Then he should join Internal Affairs. Good cops prosecute bad cops, and there are lots of them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 5 Jun 2010 @ 11:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Prosecution
        > Good cops prosecute bad cops
        
        Cops don't prosecute anyone at all. Cops aren't lawyers and can't actually try a case. Only district attorneys prosecute.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2010 @ 6:43am
      
      Re: @20
      What are you doing to stop injustice? I guess you approve of it too. Writing angry messages on an internet board anonymously does not count as trying to stop it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2010 @ 7:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    I came to my opinion about cops because of the way I have been treated. I have no criminal record. I even have clean driving record. I go to work everyday. I pay my taxes. As far as I know I am following all of the laws all the time. Yet somehow I seem to manage to get pulled from my car at gun point then searched and harassed by what seems to be a government sanctioned gang. Then when my house gets burglarized the cops take a report and then proceed to do absolutely nothing. When cops stop acting like a bunch of thugs managing a government shakedown and start doing something useful then I will stop bad mouthing them. Until then, FUCK THE POLICE.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - FuKtHePiGs, 5 Jun 2010 @ 3:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Anonymous Coward has posted the perfect comment. My last encounter with a pig taught me a lot. I was taking my moms car to get an oil change and was pulled over by a complete jerk. This power hungry moron comes up to the car screaming, "what are you doing, you can't be driving this car!" I politely asked him what he was talking about and he pointed to the inspection sticker on the windshield which happened to be a red R. (The red R means the car was rejected for a safety related problem. When the car was inspected a few days prior the state inspection guy told my mom he had to reject the car because the license plate was very old and getting hard to read. She was told she had 30 days to get new plates.) I explained to the cop that there was nothing wrong with the car and why it had the sticker. The cop then told me I was a liar and stated he never believes anything anyone tells him. I then handed him the inspection paperwork to shut him up and then asked him why he even bothers to ask anyone questions if he never believes anything that anyone says. I also told him I'm not going to say another word because it doesn't matter what I say. From now on whenever a cop asks me anything I will either answer with a simple "NO" or "I respectfully decline to answer any of your questions because I know you won't believe anything I say!" Take a look at this related website: http://www.flexyourrights.org/
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ross Nicholson, 5 Jun 2010 @ 11:58pm
      
      F THE POLICE!
      Is that the ultimate guitar band name or what?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ben, 5 Jun 2010 @ 12:21pm
  
  Re:
  The people who gravitate to police work are largely alpha-male, megalomaniac, cruel and score low on IQ tests and don't do well in school except in sports (of course).
  
  And they are backed up by the least trustworthy (and most powerful) members of society, lawyers & politicians!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2010 @ 12:31pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I disagree, I know good cops and I think most cops are good. Sure, there are bad cops just like in any field but to stereotype all cops based on the few I think is unfair for the good cops out there that work hard to enforce justice.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2010 @ 4:15pm
    
    Re: Megalomaniac cruel dumb cops
    "people who gravitate to police work are largely ..."
    
    "the least trustworthy members of society, lawyers..."
    It's also said that 'young black men wearing hooded sweatshirts are likely to be criminals'
    
    Sometimes a stereotype is true, and sometimes it's not, but regardless of which direction the opinions are flowing ---Profiling = pre-judging = prejudice.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRMan, 4 Jun 2010 @ 8:20pm

I wonder...
I wonder if any of these arrests will make it to the Supreme Court as a 1st Amendment issue.

The video speaks the truth about a situation that happened.

BTW, since when did we become 80s USSR?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Darryl, 4 Jun 2010 @ 8:46pm

I never thought I would see the day !! :)
I actually fully agree with you on this one Mike, thats amazing, and not just recording the police, in Australia there have been some very serious cases where TV reporters and camera crews threaten, intimidate, and force reactions from the person they are trying to film. So they get better footage for the nightly news.

Like calling someone from the middle east a "towel head" and terrorist, to invoke a reaction, that they can film.

I guess I agree with you on this one because it has nothing to do with copyright or patent (IP) laws. But it's actually a civil rights issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 4 Jun 2010 @ 9:15pm

Several really big problems with these laws ...
Red light cameras

Bank ATMs

Cameras in any store you visit

News cameras

Anyone video taping in public

These laws seem to make any video taping in public illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 4 Jun 2010 @ 9:26pm

" The only people who seem prone to prosecution are those who embarrass or confront the police, or who somehow challenge the law. If true, then the prosecutions are a form of social control to discourage criticism of the police or simple dissent."

This is one of those things that makes me believe the government is becoming afriad of technology and the people it is here to serve. The phrase "Public service" seems to have no meaning anymore. To serve the public good has been replaced by, to serve the public warrants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MrFrost, 4 Jun 2010 @ 10:01pm

Dash Cam
So next time I get recorded on a dash cam getting belligerent, I can get the case thrown out for lack of evidence and sue the cop for recording me without my permission on his dash cam?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pixelation, 4 Jun 2010 @ 10:15pm

Window sticker
Place a sticker on your window stating that you are filming and speaking to you is consent to be filmed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 5 Jun 2010 @ 2:09am
  
  Re: Window sticker
  I'm sure that would be a good way to get your camera confiscated and/or destroyed on the spot under threat of deadly force, rather than actually get the footage you're after. Maybe if you have some kind of online hookup where the footage is being uploaded in case of a problem... but then it would probably just make it look like you were going out looking for trouble...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2010 @ 8:29pm
    
    Re: Re: Window sticker
    I wondered why those Gaza Flotilla activists weren't using satellite Internet to broadcast to a remote backup.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2010 @ 2:31am

also, arent copps obligiated, at least while on duty, to consent to being recorded by the public, they are public servants after all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 5 Jun 2010 @ 4:57am

Courts are "stunningly" going along with tyranny?
All I can say is, your views don't seem to be informed by either history or recent trends.

Have a definition I think apropos, starting with the old "A conservative is a liberal who got mugged." -- "A libertarian is a conservative who got mugged by the government." -- And it goes yet further: "A populist is a libertarian who got mugged by the rich." -- Though, the latter label may also be anarchist, socialist, communist, or so on, point is to oppose the people who are actually in power, and it ain't *you*.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 5 Jun 2010 @ 4:57am

So, why didn't LAPD just get the Rodney King tape thrown out? Fairly sure those officers wouldn't have consented to being recorded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 5 Jun 2010 @ 11:40pm
  
  Re: Rodney King
  > So, why didn't LAPD just get the Rodney King tape thrown out?
  
  Because California doesn't have this type of law. Only 12 states do.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - slander (profile), 12 Jun 2010 @ 11:38pm
    
    Re: Re: Rodney King
    Because California doesn't have this type of law.
    Yet.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rob, 5 Jun 2010 @ 6:53am

Stunningly?
"However, apparently this sort of thing is becoming all too common -- and stunningly, many courts are siding with the cops. "

Actually, I wasn't stunned to read about a court siding with the cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
justjoeindenver, 5 Jun 2010 @ 7:16am

Your choice
I guess we can carry cameras or we can carry guns. It's your call, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Proffer (profile), 5 Jun 2010 @ 7:29am

dashcams?
Wait, so it's illegal for you to video record in public, since you don't have consent of both parties, YET it's perfectly legal for cop's dashboard cameras to record everything without consent?

By their own interpretation of the law, wouldnt they need a warrant to record traffic stops, etc?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WammerJammer (profile), 5 Jun 2010 @ 7:39am

WOW
When I was a young boy my Mama took me to the side one day and taught me the most important lesson of my life.
She said son there are 3 types of people you have to stay away from.
You can never ever trust them, because they lie for a living.
They are 'Lawyers, Politicians and Police'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sam, 5 Jun 2010 @ 8:13am

posts such as this one will provide the general public with the courage needed to confront this abusive behavior with these recorded documents- keep up the good work!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marc, 5 Jun 2010 @ 10:13am

State police or Police-state?
I think it's high time that police officers were removed from the direct payrolls of municipalities and states, and probably the federal level as well. The wild west wasn't nearly so wild as Hollywood would have us believe. It was relatively calm in the towns that sprouted up along the way. And the police force was generally a private individual or contractor who was given a stipend or payment to perform the role of a sheriff or policeman. In our nation today, we tend to regard uniformed law enforcement officers as being the LAW. And that's another problem. . . There are no more "peace officers" that exist to "Serve and Protect". No, sir. In the past few decades they have become "LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS". An odd analogy might be that of the useful and rightful employment of "clone warriors" (by the Republic in the Star Wars movies I, II, and III) which became the "Storm Troopers" of the Empire (in movies IV, V, and VI).

Anyone entrusted with such power and authority SHOULD be held in check by a populace who have the right of self determination.

The government on all levels has run amok with the Huns!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 5 Jun 2010 @ 11:44pm
  
  Re: State police or Police-state?
  > I think it's high time that police officers were removed from the direct
  > payrolls of municipalities and states
  
  I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying we should still have police, but just not pay them? 'Cause if that's the case, they won't be around for very long, just as I'm sure you wouldn't keep showing up to work if they announced they weren't going to pay you anymore.
  
  If you're saying we should do away with police altogether, well, that's certainly one approach, but I have a feeling you'd come to regret it rather quickly-- probably the moment you heard the glass break downstairs at 2:00 AM and you reached for the phone to call 911 and then realized there wasn't anyone to call anymore.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2010 @ 2:30am
    
    Re: Re: State police or Police-state?
    let me fix that for you... If you're saying we should do away with police altogether, well, that's certainly one approach, but I have a feeling the CRIMINAL would come to regret it rather quickly-- probably the moment you heard the glass break downstairs at 2:00 AM and you reached for your FIREARM and informed him of his mistake
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 6 Jun 2010 @ 3:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: State police or Police-state?
      > the CRIMINAL would come to regret it rather quickly-- probably
      > the moment you heard the glass break downstairs at 2:00 AM
      > and you reached for your FIREARM
      
      All well and good so long as you live in a city or state where that's allowed. Even in DC, post-Heller, they still require you to keep your gun unloaded, disassembled and locked away. Fat lot of good that'll do you if you need to use it in an emergency.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - slander (profile), 12 Jun 2010 @ 11:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: State police or Police-state?
        Even in DC, post-Heller, they still require you to keep your gun unloaded, disassembled and locked away.
        And who will enforce those laws?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2010 @ 2:30am
    
    Re: Re: State police or Police-state?
    let me fix that for you... If you're saying we should do away with police altogether, well, that's certainly one approach, but I have a feeling the CRIMINAL would come to regret it rather quickly-- probably the moment you heard the glass break downstairs at 2:00 AM and you reached for your FIREARM and informed him of his mistake
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sama, 5 Jun 2010 @ 11:07am

Last summer I was stopped by a police officer while giving an intoxicated friend, who was completely passed out, a ride home. Though sober and obviously better suited to drive home than my friend, who owned the car, I was not a licensed driver. That is why I was careful to obey to the speed limits. The officer told me that I had a brake light out, though the lights were fully functional when I checked later that night. The fact that I did not have a driver's license didn't seem to bother him too much. The officer noticed my drunk friend and asked me to step out of the car. He proceeded to give me a field sobriety test, which I passed. He then informed me that my vehicle smelled like marijuana and searched through my purse. He found a glass pipe, and then had me lay over the hood of the car so he could pat me down. It took him almost ten minutes to pat me down, and when he was done he began to remove my pants. I am, by the way, a woman. I called him out on trying to illegally strip search me and asked for his name & badge number. At that point he told me to drive home...and he let me go with my pipe.

If I had video footage of that cop, I would have pressed charges. Hell, I probably should have either way. But the fact of the matter is this: some cops are immoral; some break the law, and some will take advantage of us. Some may even beat the crap out of us. If we can video tape them in order to keep them in line, then that's perfectly fine with me. There are other ways to protect ourselves...

Guns are cheaper than good cameras, anyways!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hey there, 6 Jun 2010 @ 7:49pm
  
  Re:
  That pisses me off...that mother fucker should be shot in the face for attempted sexual assault.
  
  The world today is scaring the hell out of me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Charlie Potatoes (profile), 5 Jun 2010 @ 12:04pm

Highwaymen
I lived in the deep south of Texas, on the Mexican border. I tried to help some of my Mexican friends learn English. They called the state troopers "highwaymen" I tried to get them to say "highway patrol". After being in the car with some of them, and being rousted at gun point, I realized that they were correct and I was the one in error.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, 5 Jun 2010 @ 12:59pm

Law abuse
Sounds suspiciously like the UK police's idea of over-stepping the mark and harassing amateur photographers under the pretext of section 44 of the anti-terrorism act, despite clear, written instructions from their "superior" (I use the word loosely) officers to lay off. They have, quite literally been making up new laws as they go along to suit themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
charlie potatoes (profile), 5 Jun 2010 @ 1:09pm

Re:
A police officer is required by oath and by statute law to act when he sees a felony in progress. For a good officer to witness a felony assault, or any any other similar action by a bad officer, and then fail to stop it or file a report, makes the good officer a bad officer. There are no good officers, just some that are less bad. But the fact that I can say this with no fear of reprisal gives me some hope... Be right back, someone is at my door.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Thomas (profile), 7 Jun 2010 @ 11:41am
  
  Re: Re:
  enjoy your time in prison!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
thornintheside, 5 Jun 2010 @ 1:23pm

F the police
They turn the cameras on us, we don't like it. We turn the cameras on them, they arrest us. People, keep videotaping the pigs and release it to anonmyous sites like Wikileaks. Protect your anonymity from the pigs who seek to control free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
robert, 5 Jun 2010 @ 1:41pm

The article ignores the even broader problem of the extent to which the courts are in bed with cops and the district attorneys. As revealed recently in the Los Angeles Times, in California Judges receive a yearly stipend directly from associations representing prosecutors and police to encourage them not to return to private practice. The 75% -100% conviction rate that prosecutors typically enjoy has way more to do with this type of relationship with judges than it does so called justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2010 @ 2:51pm
  
  Re:
  So true. I've seen cops lie through their teeth in court. I've never seen one prosecuted for perjury - even when its been proven through evidence that they lied under oath. It also strikes me that cops never make mistakes in the eyes of the court, their words are always taken as fact or truth until evidence shows otherwise. No evidence, then the cop is always right no matter what. Kangaroo court.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
btr1701 (profile), 5 Jun 2010 @ 11:17pm

Consent
> 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal
> unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording
> is underway

Seems like by making this exception for TV reporters, they've given everyone an out. All you have to do is make it obvious that you're recording. Just shout, "Everyone present is on notice that this encounter is being videotaped!"

Of course they still haven't explained why it is that the police are allowed to record *you* without your consent (dash-cams, etc.) but you're not allowed to record them. The law itself (at least in Maryland) makes no such distinction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dohn Joe, 6 Jun 2010 @ 12:35am

Keeping out the Light
prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.

====================

Evildoers prefer the cover of darkness...hence why politicians crafted laws this way. It is my personal opinion that all the activities of Government should be recorded and reviewable by the public to which they are accountable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 6 Jun 2010 @ 1:21am

Infowarrior
I was a long time infowarrior and i think one of the articles reference you mike, been a fan ever since.

Incidents such as these have been going on long long time before Alex Jones predicted and I might add "on the record" The events and target and patsy of 9-11. I did have my URL for a while to infowars.com I guess its time to put it back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert Fortin, 6 Jun 2010 @ 8:31am

We should all sue EveryBody
Surveillance cameras have become ubiquitous, albeit not to the same degree as in London.
Any person in a public place has no expectation of privacy. Walk into any Dunkin' Donuts, and You're On Candid Camera!
My workplace has two surveillance cams, one pointed directly at my desk, and the other is a panoramic capture device which surveys a large area. If you enter this 'public place' you're being filmed.
The bottom line here is that the government should have no expectation of privacy. The government is US, for chrissakes. Unless the government has become something different than 'us'.
Which shall it be, justice? Is the government (and by government, I mean explicitly the arm of government known as the police) The People, or is it some privately held firm? If it is Us, then transparency is AbsoLUTEly necessary so that we don't bend ourselves over and f**k ourselves.
If it's a private entity, then the Constitution should be re-packaged as Charmin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chase, 6 Jun 2010 @ 10:07am

You can use QIK.com to upload cameraphone footage live to the internet. So, if a cop steals your camera from you, you'll still have the evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peter Keenan, 6 Jun 2010 @ 11:15am

Peace Officers and cameras
Two words: Rodney King
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2010 @ 11:40am

look up cop wacth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
michael, 6 Jun 2010 @ 4:56pm

Response
Well, it just goes to show that we are allowing fascism to completely control our actions and allow the state to completely dictate our every move.

Welcome to the new NAZI GERMANY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2010 @ 7:55am

I read through 75 comments and no one mentions Whistle-blower laws. Seriously? None of these 12 states have whistle-blower laws? Not one lawyer in any of these cases tried using whistle-blower laws as a defense? Sad. Really sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Improbus (profile), 7 Jun 2010 @ 8:29am

Car Mounted Phones/Tablets
Some time in July I will purchasing an Android Phone/Slate/Tablet and I will have a car mount for it for use as a navigational aid and car phone. This device will also have front and rear facing cameras. If I get pulled over by the police I WILL be using it to record the incident and using an app like Qik (http://qik.com) to save the video to the Internet. If they want to put me in jail fine. I could use a vacation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 7 Jun 2010 @ 11:35am

Consent is a joke
The spirit of Heinrich Himmler lives! The Gestapo is back!
The courts will quickly decide that the police have a perfect right to video anyone, while citizens have no right to video anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2010 @ 11:45am

If you live in a state with one of these laws, write your representatives to get an exception written into the law.

The courts can't just ignore a poorly written law (unless it's unconstitutional for some reason).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Katie, 7 Jun 2010 @ 6:59pm

Expectation of Privacy - there is none in public!
It appears that what is happening in relation to encounters with the law enforcement where the helmet cam owner happens to catch the cops doing something not quite right is now bordering on civil rights abuses. What's good for the goose (the cops) is NOT good for the gander.

What to me is egregious about this story is that legal precedent has been that being out in public is, well, public. There is no expectation of privacy by any party and the courts have held that time and time again. You can be photographed, eavesdropped upon and arrested the minute you step out the door if cause exists. The 'no expectation of privacy in public' thing has used for decades by law enforcement to carry out their duties.

Now people are being prosecuted for posting You Tube videos made in a public place regarding a public interaction. This state of affairs sorely needs some higher judicial review and/ or Congressional review quickly!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2010 @ 5:40am

On 3 January 1997, Dateline NBC aired a T.V. show titled "LA. Law."

Dateline installed five hidden video cameras on a rental car (including one on the driver), and drove through a particular county that the Interstate passes through. Another car followed with a camera as well. Although 30,000 cars use thar road every day, "Dateline's" car was pulled over on the very first day of the experiment. The car was driven with the cruise control set below the speed limit, and the video cameras confirmed that no traffic violations had occurred. After passing a cop parked in the median, the cop pulled out to follow them. Thirteen miles later, after careful, normal, safe driving, the cop got frustrated and turned on his flashing lights, and ordered the news crew to pull over. The cop ordered the driver out of the car.

This was a great episode...look it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2010 @ 10:48pm

The government is getting to strong,take up arms and fight."For the people by the people".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paulette, 19 Sep 2010 @ 8:30am

No such thing as a "good cop."
The problem is that the so called "good cops" will stand by and allow ou to get raped, beaten and you civil rights violated. THEN they will complain how "bad they felt" whild watching it. If I stood by and watched a coworker beat someone almost to death or ee to death, or deliberately violate their civil rights, as a private citizen I am called an "accessory." With cops there is an expectation of no accountability: put on a badge, get a gun and you get a free license to break the law and allow the law to be broken by other cops.

When I see a video of a cop stopping another cop from committing a crime against a private citizen, then I will beleive there are good cops. I have not ever seen them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Thomas (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 1:00pm
  
  Re: No such thing as a "good cop."
  That will also be the day a flock of pigs flies down the street and there is peace in the Middle East and Afghanistan. No cop will stop another cop from beating a citizen or violating the citizen's civil rights.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2010 @ 9:01pm

Glad I'm in Ohio. What happened to freedom of the press-citizens can report news on the internet-blogging?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 12:57pm

Also in Massachusetts...
People have been prosecuted for videotaping the police.

The police say on one hand we want you to help us, but on the other hand they will prosecute you if they feel like it. Rodney King's beating would have been covered up in Boston since none of the evidence would have been legally obtained since there was no court order authorizing the videos.

I would trust the police to protect in my town within limits, but once I leave my town line, I'm more worried about the police than muggers. At least if a mugger grabs you and tries to take your wallet you can fight back, but if a cop pulls you over and beats the s**t out of you for not "cooperating" you are out of luck. Give a mugger your money or watch and they will leave you alone, but annoy a cop and you can get several years in a nasty prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike L, 23 Sep 2011 @ 8:04pm

Whitehouse Petition
Click it, Sign it, Share it:
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/declare-personal-recording-law-enforcement-off icers-constitutionally-and-federally-protected-act/xnGxrXHp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jan 2012 @ 4:55pm

Home security cameras can catch more than just thieves, that's for sure!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
selvam, 11 Aug 2014 @ 11:44pm

Thanks for your nice post . I hope I will see this type of post again
Motorcycle Attorney Fresno
thanks & regards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]