Massachusetts Man Charged Criminally For Videotaping Cop... Despite Earlier Lawsuit Rejecting Such Claims

from the this-won't-end-well dept

Wed, Dec 5th 2012 11:37am — Mike Masnick

You may remember a high-profile, landmark ruling last year in Massachusetts, where charges against Simon Glik -- arrested for violating a state law that said it's "wiretapping" to record a police officer in public without his permission -- weren't just dropped, but the arrest was found to be both a First and Fourth Amendment violation. In the end, Boston was forced to pay Glik $170,000 for violating his civil rights.

You would think that story would spread across Massachusetts pretty quickly and law enforcement officials and local district attorneys would recognize that filing similar charges would be a certified bad idea. Not so, apparently, in the town of Shrewsbury. Irving J. Espinosa-Rodrigue was apparently arrested and charged under the very same statute after having a passenger in his car videotape a traffic stop for speeding, and then posting the video on YouTube. Once again, the "issue" is that Massachusetts is a "two-party consent" state, whereby an audio recording can't be done without first notifying the person being recorded, or its deemed a "wiretap." This interpretation, especially when dealing with cops in public, is flat-out ridiculous and unconstitutional, as the Glik ruling showed.

It's somewhat amazing that no one pointed out to the folks in Shrewsbury how this might play out, but given the Glik ruling, Shrewsbury officials might want to start putting away some cash to pay Espinosa-Rodrigue...

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: first amendment, fourth amendment, irving espinosa-rodrigue, massachusetts, simon glik, two party consent, wiretapping

34 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Atkray (profile), 5 Dec 2012 @ 11:46am

1. Drive around Massachusetts filming cops.
2. Get arrested
3. ???????
4. PROFIT!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Designerfx (profile), 5 Dec 2012 @ 12:21pm
  
  Re:
  exactly. I almost want to drive to Massachusetts just to exploit their incredibly retarded police department.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - henry hope, 8 Aug 2014 @ 3:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    If your looking for some quick cash by way of police misconduct ya may want to come to Sturbridge MA, We've got a Police chief here, who's a real piece of work when it comes to the old saying about something to do with a ( Box of Rocks ) If you follow my meaning.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
god reign, 5 Dec 2012 @ 11:46am

i see money in this mans future. and no new boots for the police department.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2012 @ 1:36pm
  
  Re:
  And the Massachusetts Tax payers picking up the bill.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - tqk (profile), 6 Dec 2012 @ 7:49pm
    
    Re: Re:
    
    i see money in this mans future. and no new boots for the police department.
    
    And the Massachusetts Tax payers picking up the bill.
    
    Every time I see this "Oh, the poor taxpayers!" argument trotted out, it makes me think that those poor taxpayers ought to have expended a bit more effort deciding who to put in charge. DAs and judges are elected there, yes?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
SolkeshNaranek (profile), 5 Dec 2012 @ 11:47am

Videotaping Cop
Perhaps they have a huge excess of money and this is a clever ploy to help them dispose of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rikuo (profile), 5 Dec 2012 @ 11:48am

"Irving J. Espinosa-Rodrigue was apparently arrested and charged under the very same statute after having a passenger in his car videotape a traffic stop for speeding,"

In what way is Irving liable for the actions of his passengers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 5 Dec 2012 @ 11:59am
  
  Re:
  In what way is Irving liable for the actions of his passengers?
  
  For what it's worth, the video apparently does show that he was coaching her how to film it...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 5 Dec 2012 @ 12:18pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Thanks. Having a slow bandwidth day at the moment, so I didn't bother trying to watch the video.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PRMan, 5 Dec 2012 @ 2:47pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So... He was arrested instead of her because...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2012 @ 10:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The brilliant police saw him in the video, checked the ticket to confirm it was him (did I mention they're brilliant) and arrested him.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Arsik Vek (profile), 5 Dec 2012 @ 12:26pm
  
  Re:
  In what way is Irving liable for the actions of his passengers?
  
  Conspiracy to Commit a Lawful Act.
  
  We should add this to Felony Interference in a Business Model.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 5 Dec 2012 @ 11:57am

Finaly sentence needs a slight change
'It's somewhat amazing that no one pointed out to the folks in Shrewsbury how this might play out, but given the Glik ruling, Shrewsbury residents might want to start putting away some cash to pay Espinosa-Rodrigue...'

Given that any fine that results will come out of the police budget, which is paid for via taxes, the police themselves won't be paying a dime, it's the residents that are getting hosed here.

This also explains why the police in many states continue to not care about rulings forbidding actions like this, it's not like they are getting punished at all or have to pay the reparations.

Now, if you started taking the money out of the pensions/pay of the officers involved... then they might start to care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2012 @ 12:08pm
  
  Re: Finaly sentence needs a slight change
  Of course the police union will step in to protect the officer from any baseless accusations. After all, they are the thin blue line, protectors against the criminal element. If officers are held accountable for their actions how will they be able to recruit young men and women willing to abuse their athority and trample over the citizens rights?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
derek, 5 Dec 2012 @ 12:04pm

It's SAAPP
First we had Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

Now we have Strategic Arrest Against Public Participation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2012 @ 12:18pm

Surveilance Cameras
By the reasoning of the police, all security and surveillance cameras are illegal, as the people filmed have not been asked if they agree to the filming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 5 Dec 2012 @ 1:36pm
  
  Re: Surveilance Cameras
  These laws usually refer to the audio component only, which surveillance cameras typically lack.
  
  Of course, how you can be charged with wiretapping when there's no wire to tap is still a bit of a mystery.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Claiborne (profile), 6 Dec 2012 @ 8:34am
  
  Re: Surveilance Cameras
  To take this a step further;
  
  If every police car is equipped with video surveillance, then every police officer who fails to ask permission will now be guilty as well.
  
  If an officer plays this out right they might earn enough to retire in just a few stops.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
OldMugwump (profile), 5 Dec 2012 @ 12:26pm

Videotape? They still sell that?
Who buys it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2012 @ 12:43pm

Ridiculous Indeed
"This interpretation, especially when dealing with cops in public, is flat-out ridiculous and unconstitutional, as the Glik ruling showed."

It's ridiculous when dealing with cops or anybody else in public, especially when one of the parties concerned is aware of the recording. It's also ridiculous when none of the parties know about the recording, provided there's otherwise no reasonable expectation of privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2012 @ 12:43pm

Let me get this straight... Espinosa-Rodrigue was arrested because he instructed a female passenger in his car to videotape the traffic stop. Why wasn't the passenger arrested, since she was the one doing the videotaping?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2012 @ 1:20pm
  
  Re:
  Why wasn't the passenger arrested, since she was the one doing the videotaping?
  
  From the Shrewsbury Daily Voice story:
  
  The beginning of the video showed Espinosa-Rodrigue allegedly instructing the female passenger how to use the recording device.
  
  I can think of a theory under which it would be proper to charge Espinosa-Rodrigue for the act, but I really want to see the charging papers rather than publicly speculating on the prosecution's theory.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - anon, 5 Dec 2012 @ 3:55pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I would be investigating as to whether there is any connection between the arresting officer and the defendant as this sounds like a money making racket, arrested on a charge that has previously earned the victim $170 000, I am sure the cop would be happy with just $70 000 of that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matthew Cline (profile), 5 Dec 2012 @ 1:16pm

Maybe their hoping to re-try the issue and have a different judge overturn the ruling by the first judge? IANAL, so I don't know if that would be possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SilverBlade, 5 Dec 2012 @ 1:19pm

This guy is about to get really rich really soon...lawsuit in 3..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Clay, 5 Dec 2012 @ 1:42pm
  
  Re:
  This guy's lawyer is about to get really rich really soon...
  
  Fixed
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 5 Dec 2012 @ 1:39pm

Cops firmly believe..
that they are above the law. They talk big about "if you haven't done anything you have nothing to worry about". but when the tables are turned they don't agree.

Even the cops in Boston still go after people who dare to film them, despite the huge lawsuit loss.

I would not dare to point a videocamera or phone at a cop - I want to stay out of jail and don't want to be thrown down, beaten, and tased.

Trusting a cop is like trusting a politician.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dviant, 5 Dec 2012 @ 2:04pm
  
  Re: Cops firmly believe..
  By your logic it looks like they've already won.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 5 Dec 2012 @ 2:13pm
  
  Re: Cops firmly believe..
  I am from Lynn, Mass and I am not afraid of Boston Cops.Yeah they are big and they are tough but that never stopped us guys from doing the things we wanted to when we wanted to.
  I would film them.I did time before and Jail is not a scary place for me.Would be scary for a lot of others.
  Film the Cops.Do it and let them take away your Camera, ETC as you will be able to Sue them for a lot of Cash.If your Lawyer is your friend you will actually see a bunch of it.
  Even if you don't it will still be good to be one of those who sued and won and helped in the End to stop the Cops from their illegal behavior.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Real Michael, 5 Dec 2012 @ 2:24pm
    
    Re: Re: Cops firmly believe..
    It doesn't matter if you sue them because it's all at the taxpayer's expense, not the police. And although you'd think a precedent was set previously with Simon Glik having won his case, that still hasn't stopped the police from arresting Irving J. Espinosa-Rodrigue for the exact same thing. They're violating people's Constitutional rights and they don't care. This is a clear-cut case of abuse of authority.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DH's Love Child (profile), 5 Dec 2012 @ 2:55pm

Just curious
Since it has already been well established in Mass that this is a violation of constitutional rights, can't Espinosa-Rodrigue sue the policeman personally? This WOULD hit the cops individually and perhaps make them think twice before actually violating the very laws they're supposed to be enforcing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2012 @ 4:40pm
  
  Re: Just curious
  Pretty sure that the answer here is yes. Of course, the lawyers always want to go after the department because that's where they can get the most money.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
velox (profile), 5 Dec 2012 @ 9:27pm

Glik, Esq
Irving Espinosa-Rodrigue should look into whether Simon Glik is available to represent him. Glik happens to be a criminal defense lawyer himself, and obviously has uniquely personal experience with this type of case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]