Judge Tosses Out Wiretapping Charges Against Motorcyclist Who Filmed Cop With Helmet Cam
from the good-news dept
Back in April, we wrote about the ridiculous case in Maryland, where an off-duty cop pulled a gun on a motorcyclist, and the whole thing was uploaded on YouTube. While the guy on the motorcycle probably was speeding, the cops later charged him with illegal wiretapping, because he posted the video with audio on YouTube. Through a very twisted interpretation of wiretapping laws, the police and courts have been claiming that any audio recording of police -- even in public places -- can violate wiretap laws. From a common sense standpoint, this is clearly nothing more than an attempt to punish people who expose questionable police activities.Thankfully, in that case in Maryland, a judge has tossed out the wiretapping claims pointing out that there was no expectation of privacy out in public.
"Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public," the judge wrote. "When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation."This seems so obvious that it's troubling it needed to even go this far.
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: helmet cam, maryland, police, wiretapping
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 28th, 2010 @ 8:24am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wiretap this!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wiretap this!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Three bushels of rotten apples make the whole barrel look bad.
An officer who shields corruption and abuse of power is a bad one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Three bushels of rotten apples make the whole barrel look bad.
> about the bad minority? Speak out against them?
I'm a cop and I've spoken out against this misuse of law in many different forums since the issue first arose.
> Arrest them?
Not sure what they could be arrested for. They operating under an official opinion from the Maryland Attorney General that this was a valid use of the law. Until the judge overruled it, there was certainly nothing criminal in following the guidance they'd been given by the state's chief law enforcement officer.
If you think there's a charge that could be brought, feel free to cite it.
> Turn them in to Internal Affairs?
Same answer as "arrest them". How are you going to bring an IA case against a cop for following official AG directives?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Three bushels of rotten apples make the whole barrel look bad.
I'm very glad to hear that (although judging by your comments on the April 21st article, this wasn't one of those forums).
PRMan did not seem to have been referring to this incident specifically, but even in this case the majority response from the police has been to close ranks. I'll happily eat my words if you can point me to a public statement by, I don't know, maybe the Maryland Chiefs of Police Association denouncing the decision to press charges as an abuse of the law. Until then you appear to be in the minority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
On the flip side I know just as many A--hole cops that power trip and pull people over for BS reason and harass people just because they are different. its human nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I know a lot of good cops, I've only met a couple bad ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They will still lie through their teeth for their "brothers".
"there is a minority " From the cops I know 2 state, 4 local, and 1 Homeland Security guy... nah, the minority lies with the good ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good Cops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rodney King Beating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rodney King Beating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Rodney King Beating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Rodney King Beating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Rodney King Beating
> on their grandmothers while shooting at them
> and playing a Justin Beiber album, would justify
> the beating they showed.
Actually, if he had been shooting at anyone, grandmother or not, they'd have been justified in killing him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rodney King Beating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rodney King Beating
> cruel and unusual
It may be cruel, but it's far from unusual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Rodney King Beating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Rodney King Beating
> getting tazed in addition to almost being beaten
> to death is somehow a mitigating factor.
Nice job of misconstruing what he wrote. I think it's quite clear that he was saying the mitigating factor was that King continued to fight back despite being tased and that the taser was having no effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Rodney King Beating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Rodney King Beating
That is absolutely not an accurate account of what occurred. The police actually acknowledged, and the tape verified, that the tazing HAD had an effect. They also continued hitting him once he was on the ground. It was also found that there was nothing to the rumor the police force was circulating that he had been abusing PCP, which was the basis for their saying the tazers weren't having the desired effect.
Sorry, the cops acted horribly wrong in that case. King certainly was no saint, and he was endangering others by driving drunk. Once he was out of the car, that danger was gone. There was certainly no reason to hit the man with batons 56 freaking times before cuffing him. If the officers couldn't subdue him through normal means and cuff him, then they ought not be police officers....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rodney King Beating
> what occurred.
Not relevant to the issue of how what the original poster said was misconstrued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rodney King Beating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even their own recordings?
Better get to work on Cable News too!!!
Naa, you thugs in government want everything recorded; it IS going to apply to you also.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yep, the full quote....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John 3:20 pretty much summarizes it
Let's face it, bullies with badges will always try to suppress evidence of their abuse of power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: John 3:20 pretty much summarizes it
The ones that do their jobs honorably have no problem with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Call
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Job was already done.
The judge didn't do anything about the huge unjust penalty this person faced and still faces for committing no crime at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Job was already done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Job was already done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Job was already done.
> ever been CONVICTED of a FELONY.' To all other
> questions, you can reply 'no,' as it isn't any
> of their business. The felony question, in fact,
> is only relevant in certain industries, where
> the applicant might be responsible for cash,
> credit cards, checks, or valuable/dangerous
> inventory.
Not true. Appy for my job and you have to disclose any arrest/detainment/encounter with law enforcement you've ever had. I had to even document the speeding tickets I received when I was in high school and college, even though one of them was dismissed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Job was already done.
And most agencies want a listing of every crime you have committed above traffic tickets that you didn't get caught for (such as prostitution, drug use/possession, theft, etc.) and most agencies perform some sort of validation (polygraph/VSA) to try to detect someone lying.
In my opinion, this is a good thing, as the police officer is an extreme example of public trust as they have powers that can be abused more-so than any other public worker can. If a potential police officer isn't willing to come clean on crimes they got away with, they are probably going to continue doing them after they are sworn in. However, if there is one thing most cops don't like, it is a dirty cop; but unfortunately, like you said earlier, without proof that a cop is a dirty, they cannot really act on it.
Now if only we could have our politicians subjected to the same process, since I see them as an example of public trust that can be abused more-so than other public workers can. The old adage, "How do you know a politician is lying? ...his mouth is moving!" seems far more accurate now-a-days with crooked senators getting caught taking bribes or committing other crimes and lying through their teeth for the sake of their paymasters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finally
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmmmm
If the guy was speeding, which may have been the case, then its not unreasonable for an off-duty, out of uniform officer to pull his gun out when approaching a suspect. The cop didn't point his gun at the cyclist and he lowered the barrel after he announced that he was a state trooper. Posting the vid on youtube really didn't "highlight" any misconduct or abuse of power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmmmm
WHAT!
To those of us who live in civilised countries, where the police are not routinely armed, pulling out a gun for a traffic violation seems way over the top and doing it without first announcing "armed police" seems like folly.
If I had been the motorcyclist and if I had been armed myself (I do neither of these things - I like living too much!) my immediate reaction would have been to shoot the guy.
If I were the police authorities then the policeman would have been suspended immediately, pending disciplinary action.
A firearms officer in the UK would have his right to carry a gun revoked immediately if he had done what this cop did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmmmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmmmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmmmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmmmm
Allow me to be the first to say...WAHT THE FUCK?? Are you KIDDING? Jesus Christ, really? According to you, its OK for a cop to pull a gun ON SOMEONE WHO *MIGHT HAVE BEEN* SPEEDING?? REALLY? I hope you arent an American, because if you are, you are a traitor to all that this country stands for. The next time you get pulled over, I hope to hell the cop IMMEDIATELY pulls his gun and shoves it in your face. Then we'll see how "justified" you think this kind of reprehensible behavior is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmmmmm
"Allow me to be the first to say...WAHT THE FUCK?? Are you KIDDING? Jesus Christ, really? According to you, its OK for a cop to pull a gun ON SOMEONE WHO *MIGHT HAVE BEEN* SPEEDING?? REALLY? I hope you arent an American, because if you are, you are a traitor to all that this country stands for. The next time you get pulled over, I hope to hell the cop IMMEDIATELY pulls his gun and shoves it in your face. Then we'll see how "justified" you think this kind of reprehensible behavior is."
First of all, I am American, and one of the rare one's who has actually served in the military. I doubt you even understand the definition of treason. Please respond in detail and explain to us all how expressing an opinion makes me a traitor to what this country stands for.
With that said, secondly I'm black and live in a major city. I think I can say that what that motorcyclist experienced was mild in comparison to what I've experienced on "routine" traffic stops. I seriously doubt that you have any concept of what reprehensible behavior from the police actually is.
And as a side note for the Brit who lives in a civilized country (LOL). When I stop laughing at that comment, I'll respond.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmmmm
Someone already said it above, but in this situation, I think that if the cyclist was armed, he could have justifiably shot the cop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too much power, not enough accountability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too much power, not enough accountability
The next 100 years is going to be hell if the world as we know it still exists...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The more egregious
I suspect that the guy will now sue the city for this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The more egregious
> wiretapping it's ultimately the prosecutor ie
> the district attorney who prosecutes the case.
Good point. Everyone's comparing this to the Rodney King case as an example of police misconduct, but the two cases have very little similarity to each other.
The King case was an instance of cops clearly violating the law and dispensing a bit of street justice to someone they thought deserved it.
In this case, the cops were not violating the law as it stood when the incident happened. They had the state attorney general's opinion that the law covered these types of citizen encounters, they had prosecutors telling them they'd prosecute the cases and issuing indictments, and they judges signing search warrants and arrest warrants based in support of this interpretation of the law.
The only problem I saw with the police conduct in these cases is the selective enforcement of the law-- where they only chose to make an arrest when the citizen's recording portrayed them in a negative light. That sort of content-based restriction on speech cannot stand.
The larger issue-- the blame for inappropriately applying this law in the first place-- I don't place on the police. They're not constitutional scholars. They're (usually) not lawyers. They shouldn't be held to those standards. No, the blame for that falls with the people who *are* lawyers and should have known better-- the judges, the prosecutors, and the attorney general himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The more egregious
When that happens, the COPS should be blamed for bringing the charges in question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The more egregious
> the charges in question.
The police to don't bring charges against anyone. The police just make arrests. The district attorney brings the charges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not surprising
Which of course sets up an obvious hypocrisy. The authorities can record us without consent, "for our own good" but refuses to allow themselves to be recorded similarly. Looks at police interrogations; police have been resistant to having interrogations filmed. Why? Obviously to avoid any appearance of impropriety on their part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not surprising
> resistant to having interrogations filmed.
Not sure where you get that from. I always film my interrogations. It's shut down many a defense attorney's attempt to plant false insinuations with the jury about coercion, lack of Miranda, etc.
And giving the jury the ability to watch the defendant confess in his own words on TV in the courtroom is a heck of a lot more powerful and persuasive than me just testifying to what he said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not surprising
Why? Because they had a reasonable assumption that with the interrogation methods used, the person could be coerced into saying they were guilty when they actually were not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it would've been a weird case
On the one hand, they expect us to buy it that we should have no expectation of privacy in public places, with all those cameras around us. and then, on the other hand, the police would have had an expectation of privacy in the same place?
But I'm glad the judge made the, in my view, wise decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The cops hope that someone will not challenge these things
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The cops hope that someone will not challenge these things
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The cops hope that someone will not challenge these things
> will settle so that it will become a 'precedent'
> and therefore will be damned hard to overturn
> at a later date
You can't "settle" a criminal case. The D.A. might give you a plea bargain for a lesser charge but that's not a settlement as the term is used in the legal profession. Only civil cases can settle.
And even so, a plea-bargained case has absolutely no precedential value whatsoever. A person faced with being prosecuted for videotaping a cop and who then later plead out to a lesser charge would not set any precedent for future cases or make them harder to fight. Even trial court decisions have only very limited precedential value, mainly because trial court judges in most states only issue unpublished rulings, rather than published opinions. Only the published decisions of appellate courts are generally considered binding precedent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]