Police And Courts Regularly Abusing Wiretapping Laws To Arrest People For Filming Cops Misbehaving In Public Places
from the to-protect-and-serve? dept
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.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.
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.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Consent
[ link to this | view in thread ]
@1 and then
[ link to this | view in thread ]
@ 1 ONLY reason
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Goose and Gander
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 thread ]
Re: Consent
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
seems we might be getting to the second american revolution
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Always one answer..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: @ 1 ONLY reason
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Goose and Gander
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 thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Goose and Gander
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I wonder...
The video speaks the truth about a situation that happened.
BTW, since when did we become 80s USSR?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Consent
The ones who are convicted are criminals, thus don't have rights.
Kind of convenient, don't you think?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I never thought I would see the day !! :)
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 thread ]
Those who ignore injustice approve of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Several really big problems with these laws ...
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 thread ]
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 thread ]
Dash Cam
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Window sticker
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Window sticker
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Consent
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Courts are "stunningly" going along with tyranny?
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stunningly?
Actually, I wasn't stunned to read about a court siding with the cops.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Your choice
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dashcams?
By their own interpretation of the law, wouldnt they need a warrant to record traffic stops, etc?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WOW
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 thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Consent
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Consent
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 thread ]
State police or Police-state?
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Consent
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
Highwaymen
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And they are backed up by the least trustworthy (and most powerful) members of society, lawyers & politicians!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: @ 1 ONLY reason
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Law abuse
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
F the police
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Megalomaniac cruel dumb cops
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Window sticker
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Consent
> 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 thread ]
Re: Goose and Gander
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Prosecution
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 thread ]
Re: Consent
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Rodney King
Because California doesn't have this type of law. Only 12 states do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Consent
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: State police or Police-state?
> 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 thread ]
F THE POLICE!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Keeping out the Light
====================
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 thread ]
Infowarrior
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 thread ]
Re: Re: State police or Police-state?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: State police or Police-state?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We should all sue EveryBody
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Peace Officers and cameras
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: State police or Police-state?
> 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 thread ]
Response
Welcome to the new NAZI GERMANY.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The world today is scaring the hell out of me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: @20
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Car Mounted Phones/Tablets
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Consent
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Consent is a joke
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 thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The courts can't just ignore a poorly written law (unless it's unconstitutional for some reason).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Expectation of Privacy - there is none in public!
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 thread ]
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Rodney King
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: State police or Police-state?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No such thing as a "good cop."
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Also in Massachusetts...
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 thread ]
Re: No such thing as a "good cop."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Consent
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Whitehouse Petition
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/declare-personal-recording-law-enforcement-off icers-constitutionally-and-federally-protected-act/xnGxrXHp
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Motorcycle Attorney Fresno
thanks & regards
[ link to this | view in thread ]