Facing 16 Years In Prison For Videotaping Police

  • metta

    Posts: 39091

    Jul 29, 2010 4:59 PM GMT
    Facing 16 Years In Prison For Videotaping Police

    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/07/27/0212232/Facing-16-Years-In-Prison-For-Videotaping-Police
  • geebus

    Posts: 216

    Jul 31, 2010 2:31 AM GMT
    That's just ridiculous! Jesus you guys have screwed up laws. I seriously hope the trooper gets some sort of disciplinary action taken against him.

    *sigh* I feel appropriate to quote Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2010 4:15 AM GMT
    I carry this in my camera bag on every location shoot:
    http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

    Note where it reads:
    "Permissible Subjects
    Despite misconceptions to the contrary,
    the following subjects can
    almost always be photographed lawfully
    from public places:
    ...
    law enforcement officers"

    It comes in handy sometimes. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2010 4:20 AM GMT
    paulflexes saidI carry this in my camera bag on every location shoot:
    http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

    Note where it reads:
    "Permissible Subjects
    Despite misconceptions to the contrary,
    the following subjects can
    almost always be photographed lawfully
    from public places:
    ...
    law enforcement officers"

    It comes in handy sometimes. icon_wink.gif


    thanks for this post. i always carry my camera and my flipcam on me. it's good to know these things. i am grateful, paulflexes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2010 4:23 AM GMT
    Cogitor saidthanks for this post. i always carry my camera and my flipcam on me. it's good to know these things. i am grateful, paulflexes.
    If you have a camera that "looks" professional (aka SLR or DSLR) be sure to research the local laws. That pdf is just a "general rules" thing...some local laws are different.

    But photographing police officers in the line of duty has never been illegal in the US. Some cops just wish it were because they know they're fucking up.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2010 4:29 AM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle saidCops are always abusing their power and/or breaking the law. I am not surprised.


    Very nice statement. You have just slurred alot of hard working honest cops.

    C'mon, that's absurd. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. All an officer can demand is non-interference so that he can carry out his duties.

    I can't imagine a case like this would go to court, or they would be able to get a search warrant based on a video posted on you-tube.

    Either there is more to this story that is not being reported, or this really happened in Louisiana.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2010 4:31 AM GMT
    paulflexes saidI carry this in my camera bag on every location shoot:
    http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

    Note where it reads:
    "Permissible Subjects
    Despite misconceptions to the contrary,
    the following subjects can
    almost always be photographed lawfully
    from public places:
    ...
    law enforcement officers"

    It comes in handy sometimes. icon_wink.gif



    Paul, what type of conduct are you photographing in public?? And since it's public, I expect either copies or negatives from you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2010 4:34 AM GMT
    chocmandms said
    paulflexes saidI carry this in my camera bag on every location shoot:
    http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

    Note where it reads:
    "Permissible Subjects
    Despite misconceptions to the contrary,
    the following subjects can
    almost always be photographed lawfully
    from public places:
    ...
    law enforcement officers"

    It comes in handy sometimes. icon_wink.gif



    Paul, what type of conduct are you photographing in public?? And since it's public, I expect either copies or negatives from you.
    Since you wanna be an ass about it...
    http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/303949/0
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2010 4:46 AM GMT
    I watched the video and I do have a couple of questions.

    Does Maryland have state troopers in plain clothes patrolling in unmarked units? I could not see if that vehicle had any lights to perform a stop.

    The guy on the bike at one point videotaped the speedometer and even noted in text he was going 127 mph. That's a felony folks.

    Now was the officer just following him, or trying to stop him? It may have also been a failure to yield, another crime. The officer didn't point the weapon, didn't know who the guy was or why he was going that fast, and the guy started to move back from him as the officer got out of the vehicle. The drawing of the weapon was not unreasonable.

    Based on what I could see, it appears he had a camera mounted somehow on or in his helmet, and the officer didn't seem to notice it, although the rest of the video would be helpful.

    Now, the law being used is not related to VIDEO being recorded in a public place. It was actually the audio. That law does exist in some states, definitely not all. Some states just require that one person know it is being recorded, l believe that's true in california. Maybe the officer saw the camera, but didn't realize it had audio? I don't know.

    I can't imagine something like that could see up to a 16year sentence, that seems absurd, but I'm willing to bet the District Attorney is pushing for a felony plea and tacked this charge on to pressure them to plea to the reckless driving and they will drop this charge, not an unusual tactic.

    They obviously got the warrant to seize the downloaded video; that is VERY solid evidence for both charges. The jackass videotaped the evidence against himself. That is a good warrant.. too bad for the dumbass.

    Watch, this one is a no brainer. He videotaped himself committing two felonies, then documented it and posted it on the internet. He will plead guilty to reckless driving, they'll drop the recording charge and he may end up doing some jail time.

    What a dumbass. And the rest of you, quit jumping to conclusions. This isn't about some sort of police state.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2010 5:51 AM GMT
    paulflexes said
    chocmandms said
    paulflexes saidI carry this in my camera bag on every location shoot:
    http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

    Note where it reads:
    "Permissible Subjects
    Despite misconceptions to the contrary,
    the following subjects can
    almost always be photographed lawfully
    from public places:
    ...
    law enforcement officers"

    It comes in handy sometimes. icon_wink.gif



    Paul, what type of conduct are you photographing in public?? And since it's public, I expect either copies or negatives from you.
    Since you wanna be an ass about it...
    http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/303949/0


    Damn, good job!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2010 6:21 AM GMT
    Unfortunate this citizen has to be put through this. No court will ultimately convict him. What I would like to know is: who is bringing this unprecedented charge, on the bogus basis of wire tapping? I'll bet you it's a Republican prosecutor at some level, angling for some higher elective office. Any takers?

    He's being charged under a WIRETAP law, because he videotaped something happening in broad daylight by a police officer? Only a wingnut Republican could fashion such a thing. We'll see how this plays out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2010 6:28 AM GMT
    Read what I wrote and look up the law. It may be under a wiretapping statute, but it applies to hidden microphones. It's about the audio, not the video. I admit, it's a stretch, the DA is just trying to get the guy to plea out and get a better sentence with more charges.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2010 6:39 AM GMT
    sdgman saidRead what I wrote and look up the law. It may be under a wiretapping statute, but it applies to hidden microphones. It's about the audio, not the video. I admit, it's a stretch, the DA is just trying to get the guy to plea out and get a better sentence with more charges.

    So who's the DA doing this? And do you know why? What is the public opinion in Maryland? I haven't seen this case appear nationally.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2010 7:08 AM GMT
    Speeding or not, there was NO badge shown by the police officer; If the approaching police officer needed to make his presence known, he should have shown a badge NOT a gun. Blatant police misconduct.

    What if the motorcycle driver was an off duty police officer and what if he shot the person getting out of the car with the drawn gun thinking it was a potential 'motor-cycle' jacking?

    As far as the 'wiretapping,' if you speak with any photographer / videographer, "waivers" play an important part when it comes to documenting footage; considering this is video footage and the driver/videographer did not mention to the 'police officer' that the encounter was being recored, the jury can find the driver guilty on that one particular count, but considering most members of the jury are disinterested individuals that just want their civil check, i doubt that will fly.

    This is strictly the police officer abusing his power! Gotta love the police officers of the USA!
  • kew1

    Posts: 1595

    Jul 31, 2010 7:10 AM GMT
    Wilton dpreview's news forum had this in June
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=35476756&q=police&qf=m
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2010 7:14 AM GMT
    GBRelentless saidSpeeding or not, there was NO badge shown by the police officer; If the approaching police officer needed to make his presence known, he should have shown a badge NOT a gun. Blatant police misconduct.

    What if the motorcycle driver was an off duty police officer and what if he shot the person getting out of the car with the drawn gun thinking it was a potential 'motor-cycle' jacking?

    As far as the 'wiretapping,' if you speak with any photographer / videographer, "waivers" play an important part when it comes to documenting footage; considering this is video footage and the driver/videographer did not mention to the 'police officer' that the encounter was being recored, the jury can find the driver guilty on that one particular count, but considering most members of the jury are disinterested individuals that just want their civil check, i doubt that will fly.

    This is strictly the police officer abusing his power! Gotta love the police officers of the USA!


    The guy was driving 127 miles per hour! Yep.. the dude should have had a badge or something showing. His bosses could look at the video and find he is in violation of uniform standards.. but that is not misconduct. Had he been involved in a shooting incident, the suspect could have claimed (validly) he didn't know the guy was a cop... that is why I commented about not being able to see if the guy had grill lights or something like that.

    As it happens, you can clearly hear the guy verbally identifying himself as an officer, and as nothing adverse happened, noooo, there is no liability whatsoever for not having his credentials showing. You do not have any idea what you are talking about. The most that will probably happen to the officer might be a verbal or written reprimand for being out of uniform.

    I bet your the type who cusses at a cop and if he responds in kind you start screaming verbal abuse.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2010 7:17 AM GMT
    sdgman said
    GBRelentless saidSpeeding or not, there was NO badge shown by the police officer; If the approaching police officer needed to make his presence known, he should have shown a badge NOT a gun. Blatant police misconduct.

    What if the motorcycle driver was an off duty police officer and what if he shot the person getting out of the car with the drawn gun thinking it was a potential 'motor-cycle' jacking?

    As far as the 'wiretapping,' if you speak with any photographer / videographer, "waivers" play an important part when it comes to documenting footage; considering this is video footage and the driver/videographer did not mention to the 'police officer' that the encounter was being recored, the jury can find the driver guilty on that one particular count, but considering most members of the jury are disinterested individuals that just want their civil check, i doubt that will fly.

    This is strictly the police officer abusing his power! Gotta love the police officers of the USA!


    The guy was driving 127 miles per hour! Yep.. the dude should have had a badge or something showing. His bosses could look at the video and find he is in violation of uniform standards.. but that is not misconduct. Had he been involved in a shooting incident, the suspect could have claimed (validly) he didn't know the guy was a cop... that is why I commented about not being able to see if the guy had grill lights or something like that.

    As it happens, you can clearly hear the guy verbally identifying himself as an officer, and as nothing adverse happened, noooo, there is no liability whatsoever for not having his credentials showing. You do not have any idea what you are talking about. The most that will probably happen to the officer might be a verbal or written reprimand for being out of uniform.

    I bet your the type who cusses at a cop and if he responds in kind you start screaming verbal abuse.


    he was driving 89 mph when he passed the cop...

    either way, he pulled a gun instead of a badge.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2010 7:22 AM GMT
    He was not in violation of any firearms policy. He can easily articulate why he was fearful enough to draw a weapon. I assume you are not and never have been in law enforcement so you are speaking from a position of (understandable, I'm not attacking you here) ignorance.

    You have no idea how a situation like that can blow up, and not because of what the officer did.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2010 7:28 AM GMT
    sdgman saidHe was not in violation of any firearms policy. He can easily articulate why he was fearful enough to draw a weapon. I assume you are not and never have been in law enforcement so you are speaking from a position of (understandable, I'm not attacking you here) ignorance.

    You have no idea how a situation like that can blow up, and not because of what the officer did.


    I understand and appreciate your view. DRAWING your gun though? Understandable he is an off duty / under cover officer... but come on, even 'secret agents' and FBI officials show badges before drawing weapons.

    I work for the City Department the majority of my family are either police officers, fire fighters or paramedics, there is no logical reason for me to disrespect police officers and there is no reason for you to "bet" how i would react in the presence of a police officer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2010 7:34 AM GMT

    Clearly the motivation here is intimidation to stop the pubic frm witnessing and video taping incidents like...........

    [url][/url]

    However you feel about the subject or what took place you have to admit to watch the video is like watching your tax money go dwn the drain. Not all cops are bad and most certainly not all are good and stopping any image that might shine a negative lite will cease to exist under this law.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2010 7:41 AM GMT
    All of the following is minus whatever felonies the guy videotaping committed:

    As long as you are perfectly in public space that is accessible by anyone in the general public (sidewalk, the street) you are free to shoot away at whatever you want.

    This is a perfect example of when police officers overstep their boundaries and use their intimidation in their favor.

    Really pisses me off when I see them intimidate like this or tell media or people with cameras to back away while allowing everyone else to stay put who's watching.

    If no one is keeping watch, who will make sure things are kept in check?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2010 7:45 AM GMT
    Perhaps the guy should stop bitching about the police and be grateful he didn't end up like this.

    (Image of fatal motorcycle accident withdrawn)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2010 7:46 AM GMT
    Buckeye988 saidAll of the following is minus whatever felonies the guy videotaping committed:

    As long as you are perfectly in public space that is accessible by anyone in the general public (sidewalk, the street) you are free to shoot away at whatever you want.

    This is a perfect example of when police officers overstep their boundaries and use their intimidation in their favor.

    Really pisses me off when I see them intimidate like this or tell media or people with cameras to back away while allowing everyone else to stay put who's watching.

    If no one is keeping watch, who will make sure things are kept in check?


    The officer didn't charge him, the DA did. and unless he was a detective, he more than likely didn't conduct the followup investigation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2010 7:46 AM GMT
    Mil8 saidPerhaps the guy should stop bitching about the police and be grateful he didn't end up like this.

    fatal_car_accidents_029.jpg


    Ughh..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2010 7:48 AM GMT
    GBRelentless said
    sdgman saidHe was not in violation of any firearms policy. He can easily articulate why he was fearful enough to draw a weapon. I assume you are not and never have been in law enforcement so you are speaking from a position of (understandable, I'm not attacking you here) ignorance.

    You have no idea how a situation like that can blow up, and not because of what the officer did.


    I understand and appreciate your view. DRAWING your gun though? Understandable he is an off duty / under cover officer... but come on, even 'secret agents' and FBI officials show badges before drawing weapons.

    I work for the City Department the majority of my family are either police officers, fire fighters or paramedics, there is no logical reason for me to disrespect police officers and there is no reason for you to "bet" how i would react in the presence of a police officer.


    You obviously don't understand. The officer felt threatened. I'm sure he articulated it in his report. Look at the video, he pulled it out and kept it by his side. He didn't point it at the guy. I once got "hot stopped" by cops who pointed their guns at the back of my head. I cooperated, it was mistaken identity and I didn't have any hard feelings. It's reality folks, it's dangerous out there.