Now it's illegal to video cops!
Banned
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,662
Likes: 1
From: Long Beach, CA
Originally Posted by Elistan,Jun 7 2010, 04:54 PM
Yeah, but 69.99 million of those will be too busy finding out America's next Idol to do anything about it. The remaining 10k will just go to jail.
Realistically though - those 70 million don't need guns to effect change. They just need to go frickin' VOTE for the candidate that supports their views.
Realistically though - those 70 million don't need guns to effect change. They just need to go frickin' VOTE for the candidate that supports their views.
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 4,605
Likes: 4
From: Irvine, California
I don't understand why everyone isn't going ballistic over this? Aside from the recording itself, the general idea and the reasons behind violates every God given right and presumably spawn authoritarian "laws." I'm actually shaking from reading this.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,766
Likes: 8
From: Queens, NY
Originally Posted by WarrenW,Jun 6 2010, 08:28 PM
Here's one that is happening in MD. Story from WJZ
Debate Sparks Over Video Recording Of Arrests
Several Marylanders face felony charges for recording their arrests on camera, and others have been intimidated to shut their cameras off.
That's touched off a legal controversy. Mike Hellgren explains the fierce debate and what you should do to protect yourself.
A man whose arrest was caught on video faces felony charges from Maryland State Police for recording it on camera.
"We are enforcing the law, and we don't make any apologies for that," said Greg Shipley, MSP.
Video of another arrest at the Preakness quickly made its way online, despite an officer issuing this warning to the person who shot it, "Do me a favor and turn that off. It's illegal to videotape anybody's voice or anything else, against the law in the state of Maryland."
"For the government to be saying it has the power to prevent citizens from doing that is profoundly shocking, troubling, and particularly in the case of Maryland, simply flat-out wrong," said David Roach, ACLU.
Under Maryland law, conversations in private cannot be recorded without the consent of both people involved.
But can that be applied to incidents, such as one caught on tape three years ago where a Baltimore officer arrested a teenager at the Inner Harbor?
"When you tell me to turn it off because it's against the law, you've proven to me that I'm not secretly taping you," said law professor Byron Warnken. "He doesn't have the right to say, if you don't stop recording me, I'm going to arrest you."
The last official interpretation of Maryland's law came from the previous attorney general saying it was legal for officers to record video on dashcams.
Delegate Sandy Rosenberg is pushing the current attorney general for his opinion on whether you can record them, too.
"If he finds that there are circumstances when it's illegal, under existing law, to tape public actions by police or other public officials, then it's appropriate for me to introduce a bill to change that statute," said Rosenberg, (D) District 41, Baltimore City.
At this point, the attorney general has not indicated whether he will issue an opinion clarifying this law.
Debate Sparks Over Video Recording Of Arrests
Several Marylanders face felony charges for recording their arrests on camera, and others have been intimidated to shut their cameras off.
That's touched off a legal controversy. Mike Hellgren explains the fierce debate and what you should do to protect yourself.
A man whose arrest was caught on video faces felony charges from Maryland State Police for recording it on camera.
"We are enforcing the law, and we don't make any apologies for that," said Greg Shipley, MSP.
Video of another arrest at the Preakness quickly made its way online, despite an officer issuing this warning to the person who shot it, "Do me a favor and turn that off. It's illegal to videotape anybody's voice or anything else, against the law in the state of Maryland."
"For the government to be saying it has the power to prevent citizens from doing that is profoundly shocking, troubling, and particularly in the case of Maryland, simply flat-out wrong," said David Roach, ACLU.
Under Maryland law, conversations in private cannot be recorded without the consent of both people involved.
But can that be applied to incidents, such as one caught on tape three years ago where a Baltimore officer arrested a teenager at the Inner Harbor?
"When you tell me to turn it off because it's against the law, you've proven to me that I'm not secretly taping you," said law professor Byron Warnken. "He doesn't have the right to say, if you don't stop recording me, I'm going to arrest you."
The last official interpretation of Maryland's law came from the previous attorney general saying it was legal for officers to record video on dashcams.
Delegate Sandy Rosenberg is pushing the current attorney general for his opinion on whether you can record them, too.
"If he finds that there are circumstances when it's illegal, under existing law, to tape public actions by police or other public officials, then it's appropriate for me to introduce a bill to change that statute," said Rosenberg, (D) District 41, Baltimore City.
At this point, the attorney general has not indicated whether he will issue an opinion clarifying this law.
Charges Dropped Againsnt YouTube Motorcyclist
Should you be able to videotape a police officer during a traffic stop? It was a question brought to the Maryland courts this year by a motorcyclist wearing a helmet camera.
Kelly McPherson has reaction from the motorcyclist in this landmark case.
A traffic stop on 95 tunred into a YouTube sensation and is now a legal victory for the motorcyclist and others with portable recording devices.
"I was afraid. I thought the person, at the time I didn't klnow it was an officer, was going to shoot me," said motorcyclist Anthony Graber.
Graber filmed his motorcycle ride and traffic stop with a helmet cam. He posted the video on YouTube and a month later the state police charged him with illegally taping an officer.
A county judge, however; ruled that it was legal to record the trooper.
"The judge pointed out that if Mr. Graber could be guilty of that offense based on those facts, then anyone who possessed a cell phone, blackberry, a video camera, a pocket recorder, was also a felon in Maryland," said ACLU Attorney, David Rocah.
Kelly McPherson spoke with Anthony Graber on the phone just hours after he heard the news about the charges being dropped. He told her he is relieved. He doesn't know if he's getting his camera or computer back.
State police stand by their actions.
"They took the information that they had, presented it to the state's attorney and legal advice was obtained from the state's attorney's office who said move ahead with charges," said Greg Shipley, a representative for the Maryland State Police.
The ACLU, who represented graber says this win now opens the door for citizens to record officers in any public setting.
"When police encounter us, they take the position that what we say is not private and can and will be used against us in a court of law, and why shouldn't the same rules apply to the police that apply to you or I?" said Rocah.
State Police are still reviewing this ruling to see if it will impact their procedures. But as of Monday night their spokesperson says nothing will change when it comes to pulling over anyone or when it comes to charging anyone who records police.
The Maryland State Police do not plan to appeal this decision.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 15,323
Likes: 28
From: Longmont, CO
Nice. But -
Eh? So it's legal to record police, but people will get charged for doing so anyway, starting nothing but a dismissed case at taxpayer expense? 
nothing will change when it comes to pulling over anyone or when it comes to charging anyone who records police.
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 5,729
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by Elistan,Jun 7 2010, 06:59 PM
^^ It's a recent Supreme Court ruling about a case involving Miranda rights. I guess the way it works now is that if you explicitly state you want to exercise your right to silence or to have a lawyer present, the police are not allowed to question you. But if you don't explicitly state that, they are allowed to question you for as long as they want, and use whatever you might say against you.
In this particular case, the suspect didn't say a word for three hours of questioning, then answered a single question that was used to convict him.
In other words, you are presumed to have waived your rights unless you specifically request them. (Imagine what the US would be like if the Bill of Rights worked that way.)
In this particular case, the suspect didn't say a word for three hours of questioning, then answered a single question that was used to convict him.
In other words, you are presumed to have waived your rights unless you specifically request them. (Imagine what the US would be like if the Bill of Rights worked that way.)
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 15,323
Likes: 28
From: Longmont, CO
"In other words, you are presumed to have waived your rights unless you specifically request them. (Imagine what the US would be like if the Bill of Rights worked that way.)"
Keep in mind that part of the Miranda v Arizona ruling established that if a suspect retains his rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments, the suspect not only has the right to refuse to answer questions, he has the right to not be questioned at all, and has the right that anything he says, no matter how incriminating, cannot be used against him.
In the Thompkins case, under the old interpretation, Thompkins' statement shouldn't have been able to be used to help convict him because of his 5th Amendment rights. But the Court ruled that he has 5th Amendment rights only if he specifically asked for them.
So imagine if you had 4th Amendment rights, to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, only if you explicitly asked for them. You come home from work one day and find your house ransacked and half your stuff missing. Turns out police thought something was going on there so busted down the door because you hadn't explicitly stated to them you wished to retained your rights under the 4th Amendment, just like Thompkins didn't explicitly state he wanted to retain his rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments. Or imagine being summarily convicted by a judge for some crime, without trial by jury, because you didn't explicitly invoke your 6th Amendment rights.
Keep in mind that part of the Miranda v Arizona ruling established that if a suspect retains his rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments, the suspect not only has the right to refuse to answer questions, he has the right to not be questioned at all, and has the right that anything he says, no matter how incriminating, cannot be used against him.
In the Thompkins case, under the old interpretation, Thompkins' statement shouldn't have been able to be used to help convict him because of his 5th Amendment rights. But the Court ruled that he has 5th Amendment rights only if he specifically asked for them.
So imagine if you had 4th Amendment rights, to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, only if you explicitly asked for them. You come home from work one day and find your house ransacked and half your stuff missing. Turns out police thought something was going on there so busted down the door because you hadn't explicitly stated to them you wished to retained your rights under the 4th Amendment, just like Thompkins didn't explicitly state he wanted to retain his rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments. Or imagine being summarily convicted by a judge for some crime, without trial by jury, because you didn't explicitly invoke your 6th Amendment rights.
Banned
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,662
Likes: 1
From: Long Beach, CA
Originally Posted by AlX Boi,Jun 10 2010, 07:42 AM
I don't understand why everyone isn't going ballistic over this? Aside from the recording itself, the general idea and the reasons behind violates every God given right and presumably spawn authoritarian "laws." I'm actually shaking from reading this.
My bitching about the abuse of the law and their powers is well founded, speed limits are good when they follow engineering studies and are reasonable for the given situations. The municipalities manipulate speed limits solely to extort the residents then this totally defeats the reason speed limits were established in the first place.
Where will society draw the line? When they tell us how many children we can have, curfews, quartering of police? So much of our constution is just ignored for the sake of increasing the policing powers of the state, why is this ok?
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 5,729
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by Elistan,Sep 28 2010, 03:07 PM
"In other words, you are presumed to have waived your rights unless you specifically request them. (Imagine what the US would be like if the Bill of Rights worked that way.)"
Keep in mind that part of the Miranda v Arizona ruling established that if a suspect retains his rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments, the suspect not only has the right to refuse to answer questions, he has the right to not be questioned at all, and has the right that anything he says, no matter how incriminating, cannot be used against him.
In the Thompkins case, under the old interpretation, Thompkins' statement shouldn't have been able to be used to help convict him because of his 5th Amendment rights. But the Court ruled that he has 5th Amendment rights only if he specifically asked for them.
So imagine if you had 4th Amendment rights, to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, only if you explicitly asked for them. You come home from work one day and find your house ransacked and half your stuff missing. Turns out police thought something was going on there so busted down the door because you hadn't explicitly stated to them you wished to retained your rights under the 4th Amendment, just like Thompkins didn't explicitly state he wanted to retain his rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments. Or imagine being summarily convicted by a judge for some crime, without trial by jury, because you didn't explicitly invoke your 6th Amendment rights.
Keep in mind that part of the Miranda v Arizona ruling established that if a suspect retains his rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments, the suspect not only has the right to refuse to answer questions, he has the right to not be questioned at all, and has the right that anything he says, no matter how incriminating, cannot be used against him.
In the Thompkins case, under the old interpretation, Thompkins' statement shouldn't have been able to be used to help convict him because of his 5th Amendment rights. But the Court ruled that he has 5th Amendment rights only if he specifically asked for them.
So imagine if you had 4th Amendment rights, to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, only if you explicitly asked for them. You come home from work one day and find your house ransacked and half your stuff missing. Turns out police thought something was going on there so busted down the door because you hadn't explicitly stated to them you wished to retained your rights under the 4th Amendment, just like Thompkins didn't explicitly state he wanted to retain his rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments. Or imagine being summarily convicted by a judge for some crime, without trial by jury, because you didn't explicitly invoke your 6th Amendment rights.
My point is that I'm told I have the right to keep my mouth shut, but ANYTHING I say can be used against me. So, I keep my mouth shut.
If I say something, ANYTHING, I should expect it to be used against me. The whole point of the Miranda right is to let people know they have the option to KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
the linked forum to the officer.com had bunch of dbag cops but this made sense
"When the police (or politicians, or doctors, or stock brokers, or accountants...) have a problem with their actions being recorded, something is inherently wrong.
No matter what profession you choose, not doing things which you would be ashamed for the public to know about is generally a good goal to adhere to."
FncK the police!!
"When the police (or politicians, or doctors, or stock brokers, or accountants...) have a problem with their actions being recorded, something is inherently wrong.
No matter what profession you choose, not doing things which you would be ashamed for the public to know about is generally a good goal to adhere to."
FncK the police!!