Police Try To Bring Wiretapping Charges Against Woman Who Filmed Them Beating A Man

from the wow dept

Mon, Aug 15th 2011 8:49am — Mike Masnick

For the past year, we've talked a lot about how police and some courts have been abusing wiretapping laws to go after people who film the police in public. Thankfully, more recently, it appears that more and more courts have been smacking down such lawsuits, and those who are bringing them are regularly being scolded. Not everyone has received the message however. For example, there's police officer Michael Sedergren, who was disciplined for an incident in November of 2009, in which police were caught on video beating a guy named Melvin Jones III. The video was made by a woman named Tyrisha Greene. Jones had bones all over his face broken and became partially blind in one eye.

You would think that Sedergren, who was suspended for 45 days for his actions in the video, would know better and just get on with his life. Instead, he's "filed an application for a criminal complaint" against Greene, saying she violated wiretapping laws in filming him without his permission. Everyone involved knows the law is not intended for situations like this, where an officer of the law is out in public. If this officer's response to being filmed involved in questionable activities is to push for criminal charges against the person who caught him doing it, it seems like he does not deserve to be an officer of the law at all any more. What a massive abuse of the law.

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: beating, melvin jones iii, michael sedergren, police, tyrisha greene, wiretapping

97 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

duffmeister (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 8:34am

What wire did she tap again? So how does a wiretapping law apply? Seems like a stretch to me to be sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 8:37am
  
  Re:
  The wires in the camera were tapped by him. A-DUH!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2011 @ 9:52am
  
  Re:
  so let me get this straight, If I rob a bank and they video tape me does that mean I can get the bank in trouble for violating wiretapping laws?
  
  The officer committed a crime.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2011 @ 10:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    It's only audio that's illegal to "intercept". Most security cameras are video only (and probably for just that reason).
    
    Two party consent wiretap laws exist for one reason. To protect politicians from bribery laws. "Oh, you taped our conversation and now are threatening to release the tapes? Well, if you say anything I'll have you arrested for violating wiretapping laws."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Any Mouse (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 2:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Neither of these statements are entirely true. It depends upon the state you are in. Not all states ban the interception of audio. I did work security, and all of the cameras I was in charge of were audio capable on many, many sites.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous, 17 Aug 2011 @ 9:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    You can also rob a bank, break your leg in the process, and sue the bank.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2011 @ 2:05pm
  
  Re:
  Have you never watched Donny Darko?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ianal but ur dumb, 16 Aug 2011 @ 8:49am
  
  Re:
  Wiretapping laws aren't only about tapping wires, they're about recording conversations. In many two-party consent states you cannot record any conversation unless you have the explicit consent of all parties, whether that is through a phone, or if you're all sitting around a table.
  
  The only exception is usually when the recording equipment is so obvious that the person is aware that they are being recorded, such as a TV cameraman with a full camera pointing it in their face as an interviewer is asking questions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kevin, 18 Aug 2011 @ 6:06am
  
  Re:
  What it is. In certain states you can't record somebody (without a warrant) with out their knowledge of it. That's why when telemarketers call you or when you call like media com or something they make a point to tell you that this conversation could be being recorded.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2011 @ 9:10am

Gosh
I surprised that they didn't charge her with treason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jesse (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 9:30am
  
  Re: Gosh
  The cop should have had a little more than 45 days suspension. The victim is blind in one eye for crying out loud.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Infamous Joe (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 9:32am
    
    Re: Re: Gosh
    That's what I was thinking. He beats a guy blind and gets a vacation? What about jail time? If I beat a guy blind, you *know* I'd go to jail.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Greg G (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 10:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Gosh
      I completely agree. This went way beyond Police Brutality, into the realm of Assault and Battery, and not just a misdemeanor.
      
      I think this guy should go Mr. Melvin should go by the old addage: An eye for an eye........
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Tim K (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 10:36am
    
    Re: Re: Gosh
    If this officer's response to being filmed involved in questionable activities is to push for criminal charges against the person who caught him doing it, it seems like he does not deserve to be an officer of the law at all any more.
    
    If this officer beats someone til he's blind in one eye it seems like he does not deserve to be an officer of the law at all any more regardless of whether or not he sues someone afterwards.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David, 23 Aug 2011 @ 7:52am
    
    Re: Re: Gosh
    I agree with this and the line from the summary
    
    "If this officer's response to being filmed involved in questionable activities is to push for criminal charges against the person who caught him doing it, it seems like he does not deserve to be an officer of the law at all any more."
    
    I would seriously question reinstating him as an active officer without some sort of re-training / testing. If I wanted that kind of aggression I would send him to the army, this is not the kind of behavior I would expect from the police. I can understand the beating and the punishment associated, I can't understand his complete lack of remorse in this matter.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your Friendly Neighborhood Librarian, 15 Aug 2011 @ 9:19am

A police officer, not The Police
The headline is a bit misleading...

"Police Sgt. John M. Delaney, aide to Commissioner William J. Fitchet, said Sedergren filed the complaint personally, not on behalf of the Police Department. �If officer Sedergren feels his rights were violated under the law then he has the opportunity to make his case in court, just like everyone else,� Delaney said."

The Police did not file, a police officer filed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2011 @ 9:52am
  
  Re: A police officer, not The Police
  Misleading headlines are part and parcel of the techdirt prime directive to spread FUD.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Infamous Joe (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 9:57am
    
    Re: Re: A police officer, not The Police
    *yawn* 1/10
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2011 @ 12:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: A police officer, not The Police
      Yes, the troll is weak with this one, but I do give it a 1.25 for the use of 'prime directive'.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Spaceboy (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 9:59am
    
    Re: Re: A police officer, not The Police
    At least Techdirt doesn't censor anon cowards like yourself who are too afraid of being found out for the shills they are.
    
    You live up to your name.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2011 @ 10:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re: A police officer, not The Police
      We're not all bad....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - LVDave (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 10:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: A police officer, not The Police
        Well, assuming for a moment that you really ARE a police officer, *you* may be a fine upstanding office of the law, but EVERYTIME you turn your back when one of your brother officers pulls crap like this, this makes you a BAD COP!!
        If you're not part of the solution, you ARE part of the problem..
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Planespotter (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 11:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A police officer, not The Police
        I think he means not all anonymous cowards are bad...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Spaceboy (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 12:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: A police officer, not The Police
        No, just the ones 'like' the one I responded to. There are plenty of legitimate reasons that someone would wish to remain anonymous. But recently it has been pointed out that some of the pro-IP-enforcement blogs don't let any anonymous comments and comments must be approved.
        
        The beautiful thing about Techdirt is that it allows everyone and anyone to post.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous, 17 Aug 2011 @ 9:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re: A police officer, not The Police
      Anonymity is essential to continue free flowing of information. As shown by this case, lack of anonymity can lead to retaliation.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Sep 2011 @ 10:49pm
    
    Re: Re: A police officer, not The Police
    doesn't really matter if the headline is misleading... 1. Cop beat and partially disabled man. 2. he was filmed doing so. 3. intimidating witness/camera person with bogus suit.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greg G (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 10:30am
  
  Re: A police officer, not The Police
  A police officer filed... He IS part of the police force, therefore he is the police, and therefore "The Police" did, indeed, file.
  
  How hard was that to work out?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Your Friendly Neighborhood Librarian, 15 Aug 2011 @ 12:46pm
    
    Re: Re: A police officer, not The Police
    I understand that your comment is incited by anger at the police officers who did this act and those who allowed it to happen. The anger is justified. They should all be held responsible for their actions, and the department should review it's policies (and conscience). But, that was not my point.
    
    If I file suit against someone I deal with at and in the course of my job the headlines shouldn't read "The Library files suit...", because it is me personally doing it. In this action I am NOT representing the library. "A Librarian files suit..." is fine, and accurate.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2011 @ 11:30am
  
  Re: A police officer, not The Police
  Springfield Police Department launches criminal investigation of four officers who beat black suspect
  
  http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/01/springfield_police_department_5.html
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 12:00pm
  
  Re: A police officer, not The Police
  Fucken Scumbag Pigger !!!!
  I hate these kind of cops who have no right to be in a public se4rvice and should never have been passed to do a public job.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MrWilson, 15 Aug 2011 @ 9:20am

What annoys me about this is that it's another situation in which technology allows you to do something more easily that you could already do before.

Previously, nobody would get arrested for publishing an account of what they saw cops doing. But with a video recording, the cops can't argue and say you're lying or mistaken about what you saw.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- someone (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 9:45am
  
  Re:
  They also can not say things like "You don't want any trouble, so keep this between me and you, you know what I'm saying" when you have a video camera.
  
  So instead they try to use the law to intimidate you.
  "Stay out of this or I'll charge you with illegal wiretapping"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2011 @ 10:58pm
  
  Re:
  That's what struck me. And if she's called in as a witness (I don't know from the article that she was), she'd be recounting the whole thing on public record anyway.
  
  She just has an audio/visual presentation to back up her version of events.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheStupidOne, 15 Aug 2011 @ 9:21am

Public Stoning
I think that is the only appropriate response. Of course I mean Michael Sedergren should be the one punished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PlagueSD (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 9:21am

If you're a public figure (especially law enforcement) just assume you're going to be videotaped. The term "law-abiding citizen" applies to law enforcement also. No one is above the law...unless you're in the Steven Segal movie...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
STJ, 15 Aug 2011 @ 9:21am

Again, why is it OK for police to film us, but we can't film them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 15 Aug 2011 @ 9:30am
  
  Re:
  Clearly the solution is for all citizens to become police officers. Then we'd have no criminals and everyone would be above the law (and have decent unionized health care and pension programs). The gun rights lobby would love that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous, 17 Aug 2011 @ 9:01am
  
  Re:
  Because they are the police. No, really. That's the reason.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 9:22am

Well, since he was filmed in public and while on official duty he has no reasonable expectation of privacy. I can't imagine this will go far in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2011 @ 9:36am
  
  Re:
  I can't imagine this will go far in court.
  
  �Massachusetts Wiretapping Law Strikes Again�, by Sam Bayard, Citizen Media Law Project, Dec 12, 2007:
  
  Boston Now reports that Peter Lowney, a political activist from Newton, Massachusetts, was convicted last week of violating the Massachusetts wiretapping statute (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, � 99) and sentenced to six months probation and fined $500. The criminal case arose out of Lowney's concealed videotaping of a Boston University police sergeant during a political protest in 2006. Apparently Lowney was shooting footage of the protest when police ordered him to stop and then arrested him for continuing to operate the camera while hiding it in his coat. As part of the sentencing, the Brighton District Court ordered Lowney to remove the footage from the Internet.
  
  [...more...]
  
  �Was convicted�, �sentenced to six months probation and fined $500�, and �ordered ... to remove the footage from the Internet.�
  
  How far is that?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - rooben (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 10:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    I wonder how much control this judege thinks one has over the Internet, and if theis guy will be found in contemot when they discover that he cannot remove the video from the internet, in general.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Greg G (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 10:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    Political activist.. Massachusettes.. need we say more?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Thomas (profile), 20 Aug 2011 @ 12:56pm
    
    Re: Re: (masssachsetts "wiretapping")
    The mass state supreme court has rules that the law is constitutional and the prosecution and sentence were valid. Other people have been prosecuted under this law. they call it wiretapping since you are recording AUDIO without a person's permission.
    
    Massachusetts cops routinely harass people for videotaping them. You can easily be arrested in Mass for this. Personally, I'd much rather deal with a mugger than a cop in Mass. A mugger will only take your phone and wallet, which is a small loss and not a huge thing. A corrupt cop can arrest you, beat you, have you thrown in jail, and you get a permanent arrest record that will cost you tens of thousands of dollars to fight. I don't trust most of the cops in Mass. They believe themselves above the law and feel they have every right to beat people who annoy them. And they still do not understand why people do not trust them and are afraid of them. The cops view anyone who is not a cop as a criminal either now or in the future.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Thomas (profile), 20 Aug 2011 @ 12:56pm
    
    Re: Re: (masssachsetts "wiretapping")
    The mass state supreme court has rules that the law is constitutional and the prosecution and sentence were valid. Other people have been prosecuted under this law. they call it wiretapping since you are recording AUDIO without a person's permission.
    
    Massachusetts cops routinely harass people for videotaping them. You can easily be arrested in Mass for this. Personally, I'd much rather deal with a mugger than a cop in Mass. A mugger will only take your phone and wallet, which is a small loss and not a huge thing. A corrupt cop can arrest you, beat you, have you thrown in jail, and you get a permanent arrest record that will cost you tens of thousands of dollars to fight. I don't trust most of the cops in Mass. They believe themselves above the law and feel they have every right to beat people who annoy them. And they still do not understand why people do not trust them and are afraid of them. The cops view anyone who is not a cop as a criminal either now or in the future.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 5:10am
  
  Execpt it has.
  A number of cases of this have gone to court in different areas. One person actually got convicted on this. It only got overturned by the state supreme after the appeals court had upheld the conviction. I think it was in Maine.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jim Norcal, 17 Aug 2011 @ 10:50am
  
  Re:
  @Steve
  
  I can't imagine this will go far in court
  
  It depends on the judge. We've seen all too many times that there are judges who care only for the winning of police officers even if that winning violates all laws and ethics that exist. We really need new laws that require mandatory prosecution of police, DAs and Judges who act in such disregard for law and civil rights.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2011 @ 9:31am

Its personnel
The officer did not loose his job over this incident, but the black mark he recieved on behalf of the public and the police force has forever tainted his chances of advancing his career. He will be stuck in his position for who knows how long, while he watches cop after cop get promoted ahead of him. He is just being bitter cause he is now stuck where hes at with little or no hope of moving forward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- LVDave (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 10:22am
  
  Re: Its personnel
  Don't count his career being tainted.. I'm gonna bet he winds up being chief in that department. And yes, the increasing number of bad cops give the ever decreasing number of good cops a bad name. Which is why I will never willingly give a police officer more than I'm legally required (name/address).. I'm not taking a chance that the cop is one of the good ones...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- LVDave (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 10:26am
  
  Re: Its personnel
  They NEVER do lose their jobs over these incidents.. The "thin blue line" protects them... The only way these incidents are going to stop is for people to capture these incidents on video, and youtube them, AND that "thin blue line" is legally erased..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PandaMarketer (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 10:33am
  
  Re: Its personnel
  If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
  
  He's going to spend a lot of time at the bottom of the totem pole because he got caught.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PrometheeFeu (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 11:46am
  
  Re: Its personnel
  So what you are saying is that we should feel somewhat reassured that this violent criminal will still be on the streets carrying a gun and with significant authority but he will never be promoted? That's not enough.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hang Loose, 15 Aug 2011 @ 2:15pm
  
  Re: New grammar/math (aint it grand?)
  Naw... He didn't loosen up. Nor did he lose anything (except his dignity, perhaps, assuming he ever had any).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2011 @ 5:59pm
  
  Re: Its personnel
  Except he's done similar things before, and it didn't harm his career. He did eventually get fired. ONE DAY before being awarded a generous pension.
  
  So the one bad apple / justice has been done arguments are bullshit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2011 @ 6:32pm
  
  Re: Its personnel
  Not good enough. Cops who do this crap and abuse and betray public trust SHOULD lose their job and be black listed from ever working in any sort of law enforcement or security related position ever again. Period.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tom, 16 Aug 2011 @ 7:53am
  
  Re: Its personnel
  Oh give me a break!!! Unfortunately most Americans just love torture beatings and mahem. As long as whites are making their $10.00 plus an hour they could care less about what happens to a black guy in an American state. Look at all the people Bush/Cheney (our CIA and military) tortured at Gitmo prison (still not closed BTW). Americans LOVE !!KILLING!! people. Who are you killing. Look at all this reality TV now. The MORE drama and fighting the more money you win on TV. It's awful. Obama PROMISED over and over again that no troops would be left in Iraq. He lied!! Now there will be. How many innocent CIVILIANS have we murdered in Pakistan with the CIA's drone strikes? Still no American outcry. After STEALING all this land from the native American Indians and then instituting SLAVERY on black people (and fighting a civil war based on slavery - hey slavery is in the bible so it must be ok right?). Americans just ABOSULTELY LOVE TORTURE, KILLING AND MURDER. As long as our government tells us "it's only the terrorists we're killing". Police state America. If MASSIVE protests were held here in America (for whatever reason), you don't thing that our police force wouldn't be out there BEATING American citizens? Unfortunately it's the OLD Farts in America who usually vote and they're so old, frail and scared of everything (not to mention very comfortable getting Social Security) that they will vote EVERY time to increase the police state mentality.
  
  YOUNG PEOPLE GET OUT AND VOTE FOR A SMALLER, SMALLER FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 9:09pm
  
  Re: Its personal
  And he thought this would make the situation better rather than worse?
  
  Yeah I have no sympathy for this dirt bag cop.
  
  Just for this stupid legal stunt I genuinely hope his career is so well ended andover he won't even be able to get a job licking AIDS invested toilets clean in a Tiajuana whorehouse.
  
  Never mind whether should ever be allowed to work for any position of authority in the public or private sector ever again. That's an obvious no and the public to keep tabs on him from now on to hound him out of any such job he ever gets again.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2011 @ 12:09am
  
  Re: Its personnel
  Can he still see out of both of his eyes? I'm sorry but a black mark on his record is unacceptable. How much prison time would be given had the situation been reversed and the officer was blinded?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jimbo, 15 Aug 2011 @ 9:33am

he was on duty and supposed to be upholding the law. that surely doesn't include beating someone so badly that he 'had bones all over his face broken and became partially blind in one eye', does it? he over stepped the mark, got caught, now wants revenge. why should he get anything from her? all she did was video atrocious behavior, yet again, by a police officer. considering what he did, did he have to pay compensation to the victim? he should be grateful he kept his job!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 10:00am

Sedergren

Can we use that term somehow? This guy's name should live on..

Perhaps now when some public official tries to make their job 'non-public' for purposes of corruption, we could say they are "pulling a Sedergren".

Just seems oddly fitting. Obviously, there's no other real good explanation for a 'servant of the public' - while on public duty, paid by taxpayers would have to think his job is in anyway private.

After hours or in the context of an investigation, it would be different - but not in this case. This should be as public as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2011 @ 10:40am

When someone beats him no one will record it and there will be no witnesses. Will serve him right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
joseph (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 10:45am

"he's "filed an application for a criminal complaint" against Greene, saying she violated wiretapping laws in filming him without his permission."

If filming him without his permission is violating wiretapping laws then he him self is violating wiretapping laws every time he turns on his dash cam as he is filming people without their permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2011 @ 10:46am

Think about all the other times he never got caught.
how many false drug convictions did this guy manufacture.
If the number of criminals charged is part of a cops pay review process or as a negotiating lever for contracts, corruption will rule and liberty suffers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2011 @ 10:46am

Police officer Michael Sedergren
Based upon what I've read here, and in my own personal opinion, I think that police officer Michael Sedergren is a loser. I think that police officer Michael Sedergren is an idiot. I think that police officer Michael Sedergren broke the law. I think that police officer Michael Sedergren deserves to go to jail for breaking the law and violating the public trust. I think that police officer Michael Sedergren doesn't understand the meaning of wiretapping. I think that police officer Michael Sedergren is a loser idiot who got caught breaking the law and deserves to go to jail.

Police officer Michael Sedergren meet the Streisand Effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 10:50am

This cop should be in jail himself for at least 40 years for his crime not suing the person who filmed him. I cant find a copy on line of the video just a fuzzy still from it any one know where it it is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom Landry (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 10:55am

Gotta love how Law enforcement will give a million reasons why having cameras on every street corner is a good idea (and "if you've got nothing to hide.....") yet they don't seem to equate citizens filming them in a similarly positive light. Doing so looks to mean only one thing to LE, disrespect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 5:20am
  
  Problem is they do have something to hide
  Ever notice how they only seem to object when someone films them doing something illegal?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 15 Aug 2011 @ 11:14am

Po-lice
Generally, the police are a bunch of dull boys. They are the rough equivalent of "Hall Monitors."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2011 @ 11:50am
  
  Re: Po-lice
  Hall Monitors that can legally kill you
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PrometheeFeu (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 11:41am

Wait what? 45 days suspension for that? How about 45 years in jail instead? Instances of rights violations by police officers or other public officials should be met with unyielding severity. As a general rule, I oppose the death penalty. But I'm willing to make an exception for public officials who abuse their power and violate individual rights and freedoms. If you are a public official and you hurt someone in such a clear way, a public execution would be the best response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ian (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 12:06pm

Old saw, new twist.
It's long been the case that the most certain way to guarantee you get criminal charges is to be a victim of police brutality.

It's done to cover their asses. If the police beat someone, that person had better be doing something wrong. It also lets them attack the person's character in the media. Charge big, and pretend you've got a sure case. After the media furor dies down, you can drop the charges or reduce them to something reasonable.

The new twist is that merely witnessing police brutality can now be treated the same way by misapplying wiretap laws, or obstruction of justice laws, or whatever else they think they can make stick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2011 @ 12:19pm
  
  Re: Old saw, new twist.
  ...merely witnessing police brutality...
  
  �Snitches get stitches.�
  
  �
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rob, 15 Aug 2011 @ 2:06pm

Pulic video of police
Anyone can sue anyone else; read "frivolous lawsuit". A cop, doing his job - that is 'to protect and serve', is a public employee doing his job for the public. As such they have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" and therefore cannot complain when someone catches them permanently disabling on of the public whom they are bound to protect.

Yeah, sure, sometimes a culprit or suspect will try and push a cops' buttons, and sometimes it works. The cops have what they call "circle of force" wherein they respond to a situation using only that amount of force to resolve the conflict, and no more....Most cops are good, and trustworthy, but at times, some pass through unnoticed, until they get caught.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PrometheeFeu (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 4:25pm
  
  Re: Pulic video of police
  I think that's a fair assessment. The only addition I would have is that when they get caught, the bad ones should be thrown into a tank filled with sharks. Maybe I'm going overboard, but 45 days of suspension for beating someone blind is absurd. That is not a cop. That's a dangerous criminal and he deserves harsh punishment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2011 @ 2:29pm

The officer's suit is obviously
1) retalatory conduct
2) unbecoming of a peace officer
3) frivilous
The woman should countersue.

And I can't wait until a Judge tells the officer that if he has nothing to hide, then he has nothing to lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2011 @ 5:30pm

If the cop video tapes a criminal without a warrant, it's illegal. But if a citizen does the same, it's legal. It's silly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 15 Aug 2011 @ 5:53pm
  
  Re:
  "If the cop video tapes a criminal without a warrant, it's illegal"
  
  In public? I call BS.
  
  "But if a citizen does the same, it's legal. It's silly"
  
  In public - right? I think you're silly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2011 @ 6:13pm
  
  Re:
  Yep that about sums it up. A cop is video taping you because he wants to arrest you. You video taping a police altercation can be for several reasons:
  
  1) You could be doing the police a favor thinking in case something happens I'll have proof of what I saw not have to try to remember it a couple years from now.
  
  2) It might be cool and you just want to put it on You Tube.
  
  3) It might be a family member and you figure: lets keep some evidence so if they treat my kid improperly we can prove they screwed up the arrest.
  
  Regardless rarely is the camera on because people are suspecting the cops will do a crime. Probably more of trying to catch them making an error in the process so the case can be overturned against their friend/family member, or just general that's cool "I don't see cops making an arrest every day".
  
  As mentioned several times: cops are doing things in public so shouldn't have any expectation of privacy. Often when cops are filming you they want to sneak cameras into your house/work, hide them on themselves while they try to make a buy, etc etc. They are both moving into the private realm and often setting up the scenario that would lead them to witness something illegal not just being passive bystanders.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 Aug 2011 @ 5:54pm

Maybe its time we get "The Government�" to pass a law at the Federal level that finally points out the simple fact that a police officer, in public, working has no expectation of privacy.

Mind you I doubt this would gain much traction, given how much the concept of transparency has been colored over with sharpie in this country.

I find it appalling, from reading the article, that another officer (with a long history of "alleged" police brutality) involved was fired - but they waited for his disability pension to kick in first.

While it is nice the Government wants to back the officers, they should also take into account the idea that blindly supporting them just adds to the contempt people feel for the police as a whole. The systems in place to deal with the bad apples obviously are not working correctly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2011 @ 7:50pm

just to clarify the officer who did the beating, Jeffrey M. Asher, is no longer on the police force, and was fired, and faces criminal charges.

Michael Sedergren was one of the charming officers, that stood back and watched, and did not stop their fellow officer from beating a man half to death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2011 @ 7:56pm

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/08/videographer_of_alleged_melvin.html

supposed unedited version of video in question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
chris, 15 Aug 2011 @ 10:06pm

Police Try To Bring Wiretapping Charges Against Woman Who Filmed Them Beating A Man

The police should just license music to play during arrests, then they could team up with the RIAA to go after anyone who records them for music copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), 16 Aug 2011 @ 8:49am
  
  Re:
  Ingenious.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cusanus, 15 Aug 2011 @ 11:29pm

This is the New World Odor
This is the New World Odor, baby. Bend over and take it like a man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 4:28am

Copblock.org Vids and articles dedicated to filming cops on the job.

RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
TAKE THE POWER BACK!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 16 Aug 2011 @ 5:13am

Certainly there are ways to obtain and post material anonymously. If the courts allow such persecutions to continue I doubt the result will be the one they intended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frank Zentura, 16 Aug 2011 @ 7:12am

If the can film us whenever they want...
we should be able to do the same to them. Otherwise, we should be able to use wiretapping charges against them when we're filmed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Martin G, 16 Aug 2011 @ 9:51am

Wow... how low can you go when a "police officer" does BAD things and get's caught that he needs to actually sue because he got caught on camera. My only thing... this cop needs to loose his job, get thrown into jail with with all the other criminals (because he is a criminal himself for doing what he did) and get a beating of his own... Really? Yeah Really...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
drew, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:59pm

Freedom of the Press applies. Intended to allow the creation of public awareness of excessive government power and force. press card is not a requirement. Do lawyers even know this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt Redmond, 17 Aug 2011 @ 3:18am

This cop should be hung by his neck. Literally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nunnya (profile), 17 Aug 2011 @ 9:01am

Wiretapping charge
Isn't this retaliatory/malicious prosecution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2011 @ 11:31am

this isn't new, this kind of things is happening more and more every where. we need to wake up and put a stop to this abuse and Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws.
not saying there arn't good cops but far and few of them between.
we all need to start using our camera's and video alot more.
hope that person get their eye sight back.
glad the cops are here to protect us.f...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Aug 2011 @ 4:59am

Uhh
All that crap from the USSC about no privacy in public applies to the police too, not just to cops searching random people they've pulled over. They have no more, and arguably less, of an expectation of privacy when compared to the general public. In that respect Sedergren is doing everyone a favor, because he's going to lose badly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Graham (profile), 21 Aug 2011 @ 4:02pm

video
here's the link:-

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/08/videographer_of_alleged_melvin.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2011 @ 10:14am

another punk ass cop, tell him to apply at walmart
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2011 @ 7:09pm

What a douche...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aonymous LEO, 25 Aug 2011 @ 8:26pm

As a law enforcement officer, I don't have a single problem with being video taped during the performance of my duties.

Would be videographers should be aware though, when one video tapes a crime it turns the media the video was saved on into evidence. Whether the video supports the police's position or not, it should be seized as evidence and held until trial.

Don't freak out and complain that this is just another means for the police to harass. Any good defense attorney would agree with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 24 Jan 2012 @ 11:42am

asshole
[ link to this | view in chronology ]