Motorcyclist Wins Taping Case Against State Police 485
stevegee58 writes "Slashdot readers may recall the case of a Maryland motorcyclist (Anthony Graber) arrested and charged with wiretapping violations (a felony) when he recorded his interaction with a Maryland State Trooper. Today, Judge Emory A. Pitt threw out the wiretapping charges against Graber, leaving only his traffic violations to be decided on his October 12 trial date. 'The judge ruled that Maryland's wire tap law allows recording of both voice and sound in areas where privacy cannot be expected. He ruled that a police officer on a traffic stop has no expectation of privacy.' A happy day for freedom-loving Marylanders and Americans in general."
Alright! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's hear it for a sudden outbreak of common sense from the judiciary!
Now, of course, this judge is going to get pulled over every day, even if he walks to work.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Alright! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Alright! (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem however remains that the judge did not sanction the DA or AG who decided that this obvious abuse of the law was a good idea.
And what stops them or the state patrol from doing it again? Just because the charges are dropped doesn't mean there's no penalty. Dude has an arrest record now, even if he gets that expunged, it's still in a database somewhere.
Unless the victims sue and start winning big judgments, this behavior isn't going to change.
Re:Alright! (Score:4, Insightful)
And what stops them or the state patrol from doing it again?
It's called a precedent.
Next time this goes to court, the judge will look at them funny and essentially say "you know this has been decided. Why, pray tell, are you wasting my time?"
Re:Alright! (Score:4, Insightful)
From the Washington Post article:
"Because it is a circuit court ruling, it is not binding on other judges. However, unless it is appealed, said Graber's attorney, David Rocah of the ACLU of Maryland, "it is likely to be the last word" on the matter and to be regarded as precedent by police."
I live in MD, and I'd still like to see the law changed, but this is a good first step.
Re:Alright! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's worse than that.
All this tells the cops is that next time, they need to beat the guy up and break his camera/phone bad enough that the video can't be recovered. That way, they can lie and say whatever they want about what happened, and the video can't contradict him.
We have an asshole cop who has learned a neat "trick" near my house; he parks at a 45-degree angle, the wrong way down the wrong side of a cul-de-sac, and watches for people to go past the stop sign, making sure his dashcam can't see the sign or cars. Then, soon as anyone pulls out, he just pulls forward, cites for a fraudulent "failure to fully stop", and fills his ticket quota for the month.
Until it's a requirement that all police interactions must be videotaped, the fucking pigs will find any way they can to avoid it. They're all corrupt - if you don't believe me, ask yourself how many traffic cops you think are legit, and then realize they ALL start out on a traffic beat learning from the other cops how to get away with fraudulently filling their quota and acting outside the system.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Alright! (Score:5, Insightful)
Then by all means then, get your camera and quit whining. You lose the right to complain when your too freaking lazy to do something about it.
I'm reminded of the phrase 'Evil wins when good men do nothing'. I'm probably butchering the statement, but ignoring an injustice like this doesn't help end it.
Re:Alright! (Score:5, Insightful)
The small risk of danger to fellow citizens and property damage caused by a single instance of speeding is routinely used to justify everything from excessive fines up to felony charges of reckless endangerment. In contrast, the irreparable damage inevitably done to both individual and public well-being, rights and liberty caused by a single act police or judicial corruption certainly merits more severe punishment of those responsible, but in practice is almost entirely unpunished.
Though there are exceptions, even serial killers rarely have more than 15 victims. Over the course of a career, how many criminal cases does one judge try, for how many indictments is one prosecutor responsible, and how many arrests does one police officer make? In total, how many life-times of imprisonment, deprivation and suffering does each of those represent? Of course this is in addition to the actual loss of life due to beatings, cases of positional asphyxia, shootings and tasings administered by police and lethal injections administered by court order.
Further, such acts demonstrate that the offender does not respect the rights of other citizens, which is the fundamental compromise upon which cooperative, mutually beneficial societies are constructed. Persistently ignoring and willfully violating others' rights is the essential core of antisocial personality disorder—a condition for which there is no treatment. Barring major advances in psychiatry, rehabilitation is simply impossible.
There exists no graver crime. There exists no criminal with less hope of reintegration into society. If capital punishment is ever justifiable, it is justifiable in such cases.
Re:Alright! (Score:4, Informative)
Any first year law student can tell you that Rule 11 is a civil rule, not a criminal one.
I don't know why I waste my time . . .
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Alright! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ya you don't go an abuse judges (Score:5, Insightful)
They have the ability to make your life difficult. Not even spiteful things like "I'll throw out your traffic tickets." They know they law, they know when you are breaking it and with what you can be charged. Further, they have connections and sway with the prosecutors. They also make rather credible witnesses. If the cops decided to wage a campaign against a judge, good bet they'd wind up on the wrong side of criminal charges. While they may be used to people taking their word of a defendant, wouldn't be the case with a judge. Of course the judge in that case would probably also be sympathetic to their colleague and so on.
Going after a judge would be just about the worst thing the cops could do.
One of his bailiffs (Score:4, Informative)
Something you find out if you look in to it is that there are a lot of different police forces in the US. Cities have their own, counties have their, states have theirs, the federal government has multiple ones.
So if a city police force refused to arrest and turn over a police officer for a lawful warrant, well then another police force would be called in to intervene. It isn't as though everyone would just sit back and say "Oh, well I guess they can just ignore us and do what they want." In that case it would be more than just the officer they were originally after who'd get arrested.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Alright! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's usually a bad idea for the police to meddle in the affairs of the members of the judiciary and/or legislative body. For instance, near my hometown in Cleveland, a cop pulled over one of the members Of the state legislature and gave him a ticket. Said legislator introduced a bill, the next week, requiring that all municipalities in the state must have, in order to patrol the highways within their jurisdiction, x size of population and y amount of highway running through it (something like, greater than a mile or two). The town in question only had a quarter mile of highway. They also realized something like 75-85 percent of their income via speeding tickets...all gone...
Re:Alright! (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is different from the cop with a power trip, who issues you a speeding ticket just because you do something he doesn't like? Both of them are taking their personal grudges out of people, and doing so to the detriment of the people they are supposed to represent and protect. Garbage, all around.
I do know of a town with about a mile of highway and a ton of revenue from tickets. Seeing them unable to enforce the ones that are deserved would be just as distressing as seeing them creating ones that don't exist.
Technically, yes, except .... (Score:5, Insightful)
In this scenario, I'd be happy to see the turn-about, because I'm against the whole concept of cops issuing speeding tickets as it's currently done. The REAL point to the whole exercise is SUPPOSED to be about improving motorist safety. (At least, that's sure what the cops are constantly heard to claim, whenever someone protests the high cost of a ticket.) IF this were really true, the right way to approach the problem would be handling out tickets for unsafe driving practices, period. That means, for example, treating all speed limit signs as "recommendations". Stop the nonsense of automatically ticketing any driver exceeding that posted limit by X miles per hour at the second they went by a radar or laser speed gun! Instead, observe how people are driving. Give out tickets to the people who swerve into a lane of traffic without signaling, or the idiot who slams on his/her brakes on the interstate suddenly, without good reason. And yes, occasionally issue a ticket for driving excessively slow or fast too -- but not JUST because of the sign. If everyone is driving approximately the same speed, whether it exceeds the "speed limit" or not, look for the odd one out who won't drive with the flow of traffic. He or she presents much more of a danger or impedance to the traffic than anyone else in that group! For that matter, it wouldn't hurt to take the type of vehicle into account! (You can't take turns safely at as high of a speed in a large truck or SUV as you can in a sports car. So for one, the speed might be perfectly "safe" while it's not for the other.)
The fact is though, speeding tickets are a big revenue generator (AKA. tax), thinly veiled with the lie about it being for "your safety".
Re:Technically, yes, except .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Technically, yes, except .... (Score:5, Interesting)
Just remove the monetary incentive. Fines are a stupid idea for a punishment even in a capitalist system. They favor the rich and abuse the poor. Instead make the punishment for all minor infractions be community service. What you would see is:
People not speeding so they don't get caught because they don't want to do community service.
Cops not pulling people over that don't deserve it because it doesn't help their quota/benefit them in some way.
Cleaner streets, etc from people doing actual community service that benefits the community (once they run out of "good" jobs to give all the people who want to spend 120 hours reading to kids)
You could argue this benefits the rich even more at least the idle rich since they have more free time for community service, but they are less likely to want to waste their time on it.
Re:Technically, yes, except .... (Score:5, Interesting)
Having been in a position where I made the rules, I also learnt an important lesson that most people don't ever learn explicitly, but still treasure:
Rules give you certainty. In your examples, I as a driver never know when someone else (a cop) will consider my driving inadequate and cite more for it. With a fixed speed limit, I can glance at the speedometer and know for certain whether I'm good or not.
There have been a great number of interesting studies that show that clear and well-known rules, no matter how nonsensical and arbitrary they are, have a calming psychological effect while uncontrollable external judgement causes constant stress. So if you want to create a society of permanently stressed-out people, then by all means continue pushing for your proposal.
PS:
In my country (Germany), an equivalent of your rule already exists in addition to the usual rules, or rather as its preface. 1 of our traffic laws book says that drivers shall at all times drive cautiously and considerate. You don't easily get a ticket for violating that, but this is what gets you in trouble when you try to argue the sign said "80" in strong winds, heavy rainfall and 10m visibility.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not likely, but maybe the town got all it's revenue from tickets because many people were speeding there.
If large numbers of people are breaking a speed limit, it nearly always means the limit is wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But since that limit was set by the feds, what can your town do?
Re:Alright! (Score:4, Informative)
What? No. All speed limits are set locally. In Michigan, they're set by the county and sometimes by the city, as in the case of home-rule cities (like Grand Rapids and Detroit). Elsewhere it's either the state, county, city, township, etc., depending on state law. It's never set by the fed, and never has been. Even during the 55 MPH national maximum speed limit days, the most the fed could do was take away a state's federal funding for roadwork if the state didn't comply.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's hard to pass a levy on people who don't live in your town.
Unless you issue speeding tickets to all passing through.
Otherwise, if you just charge a fee for driving through, you'll just divert traffic to nearby routes, if you even have the legal authority to charge such a fee.
Re:Alright! (Score:5, Insightful)
>>If you lived in that town you would see the downside. Since they are so small sometimes they have to rely on tickets as a major source of revenue.
That's a travesty, pure and simple. There should never be a major economic reason to issue tickets - it makes a mockery of the very concept of justice.
Re:Alright! (Score:4, Informative)
I know lots of such small towns. One near me (Jamestown, SC) has a population of less than 100 people and much like the OP's stated town, only about a quarter mile of highway going through it. Over 2/3's of their budget comes from traffic infractions. I doubt anybody in the "town" would care if the "town" lost all their revenue. It's not as if it's really providing them social services. It employs a mayor, judge, and 2 cops (for a while it was just one) whose basic sole purpose is the issuance of traffic tickets, which pay their salary so that they can write more tickets. It's basically like the town incorporated just to setup a circular loop for these couple of clowns to have a job. Nothing they do couldn't be handled just as easily (and likely better) by the county sheriff's office, who is patrolling the whole area around their little 1/4 mile stretch anyways. It doesn't work as is. Heck when they're not getting enough revenue they appear to just make up charges. My sister was actually pull there for not stopping at a stop sign for "long enough". The cop acknowledged that she had come to a complete stop, but that it wasn't for "long enough". Even their judge had to throw that one out, but it was still a day wasted going to the court to plead the case. Not to mention it seems like going through that town with an out-of-state license plate is a ticketable offense. They know out-of-state travelers aren't going to come back to dispute it, so they're far more likely to write them tickets.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No way, if theres a group that the police won't fark with, it'd the judges.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
it's not the speeding ticket(the reason he was pulled over in the first place) that was dismissed. It was the wire tapping charge, for wearing a head mounted camera that was. If you remember this was the plain clothes off duty cop that cut the motorcyclist off, then got out of his car with is firearm drawn, and shouted "hand up and get of the motorcycle slowly" a few times and then finally said "get off the bike state police" all while having his badge mostly covered by his shirt. The motorcyclist admitted
Re:Alright! (Score:5, Insightful)
so Slashdot suddenly loves activist judges when they make decisions Slashdot agrees with
"Activist judge" has always been code for "judge who made a ruling we didn't like" for as long as I've been hearing the term. So "activist judge making rulings you like" is nonsense. It's a bit like saying "An enemy of mine who is my ally." Unless you're proposing a change in the meaning of the term "activist judge" to "A judge who does anything." Which I guess makes more sense than what it means now.
Re:Alright! (Score:5, Interesting)
The term is frequently misused, but it really only applies to rulings which go against traditional jurisprudence. A common trait is that applying the logic behind the new ruling would require former cases to be decided differently than they were.
Of course, almost no one bothers to contest a ruling they agree with. Only those negatively impacted by the decision have a strong incentive to look for weaknesses.
Re:Alright! (Score:5, Informative)
I hate to pick on Sonia Sotomayor, but she's the first example that springs to mind. Some firefighters took a test in order to achieve a higher-level promotion. Some of the white guys passed, but none of the black guys so the black guys sued, claiming the test was racist.
That's not what happened. The city decided on its own to discard the test because they feared that it was culturally biased, since many of the minorities who failed that test had easily passed similar tests previously. It was the "white guys" who sued to get the existing test results to stand.
Current Law says the test must be demonstrated to have a bias, due to its content. Mrs. Sotomayor decided to ignore that law and made her own determination that "because no black guys passed" that must prove the test is racist, despite no evidence in the written pages.
Again, that's not what happened. It was actually a lower court that determined that the city was within its rights to not certify the test. Sotomayor and two other judges merely upheld that ruling through a Summary Order, which essentially means that they simply agreed that the lower court did not make any legal errors in reaching their conclusion, and they had no further opinion to contribute to the case. Of course, ultimately, the Supreme Court disagreed, and the lower court ruling was overturned.
Re:Alright! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a case of judicial activism. Judges are supposed to interpret the law, which is exactly what this judge did... the existing wiretap laws in Maryland were (quite rightly) found to NOT cover a police officer who is on duty on a public roadway. An "activist" judgment that Slashdot would agree with would be where a judge rules a computer fraud law unconstitutional because someone that Slashdot approves of (like say.. Wikileaks) breaks the law with a "morally correct" motive (meaning the plebes on Slashdot agree with the ends so therefore any and every means are justified). That is judicial activism, not what the judge did here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would replace 'not tomorrow' with 'probably not tomorrow'. Stuff can happen surprisingly quickly.
Flip side (Score:2, Insightful)
A happy day for freedom-loving Marylanders and Americans in general.
But a sad loss for power tripping pigs.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I got pulled over by a young cop on a power trip for driving too fast through a chicane designed to slow people down. I was probably doing half the speed limit (25 in a 50 zone), and it was about 10:30 at night in a deserted part of town.
Yeah, I had a lot of body roll (older car), so perhaps it looked dangerous. The cop basically had a shout at me, while his co-cop stood there and said nothing, and then drove off to harass someone else.
Where's the good cop in that? The guy doing the shouting was clearly an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I obviously wasn't there during your particular incident, but often, a cop that takes the time to give someone a good ass-chewing IS the good cop. From the cop's perspective, citing and going is easier and takes less time.
Sometimes they'll see that you have a clean driving/criminal record (indicating that you're probably normally a good boy/girl), and figure that a lecture might do as much to prevent a future infraction as a citation, without the permanent consequences for you. (more likely for younge
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't agree that they never have an expectation of privacy, but they certainly don't when they're interacting with the public.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ehm... 'public servant' need not automatically imply 'open for public view'. Examples: court cases behind closed doors (rarely, but sometimes for good reasons), public servants working with privacy-sensitive information (like your tax returns, medical records), etc, etc.
Location where it happens is the deciding factor IMHO. If it can be seen on/from a public road, it's fair game regardless who or what.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Such things don't qualify as being "on-duty," but you probably actually knew that and chose to troll a perfectly legitimate comment anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your response is in pretty much the same vein: short-sighted, lacking the application of sense (common or otherwise), and generally asinine.
In your example, yes, still not technically "on duty." That's not necessarily the same thing as being "off shift," depending on the job. Does he have a duty to get his ass out of the bathroom ASAP? Yes. Is he expected to be actively engaged in his job function while actually on the toilet? No.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't think he's saying that but you have the whole internet at your disposal - it is almost guaranteed that there are sites dedicated to watching middle aged men in bathrooms if that's what floats your boat.
Re: (Score:2)
Department stores, clothing stores, etc already have cameras in the restrooms and changing rooms. Do you not expect privacy there as a customer?
If a cop goes into the restroom and takes drugs or beats up a civilian in the restroom, do you think they should be covered by privacy laws?
The point I'm making isn't to substantiate against your premise, it's just to point out that your premise fails on its face.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with your second paragraph, but have to say that the Walmart superstore in my area has tops on the changing rooms. I was just in one of those rooms a few days ago. The department employee did check on what I brought in and brought out carefully, however, and didn't allow me to take my backpack in, which I thought was reasonable as long as I got it back and it wasn't searched outside of my presence.
Doing some google searches I see quite a few hits for lawsuits involving Walmart and b
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I stole a bunch of steaks from WalMart once, in early spring. They'd just gotten a shipment of employee caps in, so I snagged one of those and put it on. I grabbed one of those aprons, too. Then I went out to the garden center where the grills were, and fired one up (nice of them to keep the charcoal and lighter fluid nearby). Then I told one of the employees that we were running a promotion and aske
Of course the big irony here is... (Score:3, Insightful)
... that cameras are not allowed in many/most court rooms.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
... that cameras are not allowed in many/most court rooms.
It's not ironic because there is an expectation of privacy in a courtroom. Hypothetical: I accuse you of being a pedophile, procure tons of evidence against you, which I display in court. Sure, the case gets thrown out (maybe I face charges myself, but I'm reckless that way), but someone videotapes the proceedings, edits out the juicy bits and puts it up on youtube without context. Pretty sure your life's ruined.
If my fate's being determined, that's between me, the lawyers, the defendant/plaintiff, and
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this the basic script for court cases now.
only the reporters just take a sketch book and take notes.
Re:Of course the big irony here is... (Score:5, Informative)
No, there's no expectation of privacy in a courtroom (in the US) except in certain circumstances, usually involving a minor. The proceedings are open, anyone may attend, and transcripts are public record. The ban on cameras in most circumstances has more to do with maintaining decorum -- so people aren't playing to the cameras -- than with preserving non-existent expectations of privacy.
Re:Of course the big irony here is... (Score:5, Informative)
there is an expectation of privacy in a courtroom.
No, there isn't.
Exactly the opposite, in fact.
Everything that transpires in a courtroom is public knowledge. It's against the law for the public to be excluded completely*. Reporters, sketch artists, and members of the general public can all sit in the gallery during a trial.
Technological means of recording are a tiny fraction of the age of the legal system, so the legal system does not yet (and probably never will) consider them necessary implements to be used in informing the public, so the use of them is at the court's discretion.
* - there are exceptions where there are statutory claims of privacy, such as when the evidence is classified or the defendant is a minor.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not only that, it should be pointed out that the public nature of a criminal trial is enshrined in Sixth Amendment.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Of course the big irony here is... (Score:5, Funny)
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Like rain on your wedding day?
a police officer on a traffic stop? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"a police officer on a traffic stop", or "a non-uniformed police officer on a traffic stop using a non-labeled vehicle, not identifying himself as police before pointing a gun like a crazy man"?
We can only hope for the answer to be "both".
Re: (Score:2)
"a non-uniformed police officer on a traffic stop using a non-labeled vehicle, not identifying himself as police before pointing a gun like a crazy man"?
I'm not completely sure but I think that someone pointing a gun at you in a public place has already waived their right to privacy, be they police office or generic crazy person.
That said, if someone points a gun at you, hasn't identified themselves as a police officer, and asks you to put the camera away, i think it's probably best to comply. There are no outcomes in such a situation that are going to be a win for privacy.
Re:a police officer on a traffic stop? (Score:5, Insightful)
-- No badge
-- No uniform
-- Gun drawn
-- Charging me telling me to get off my vehicle
-- Put hand on bike yelling at the driver
-- Closes to 2-3 feet from driver
As he has not yet identified himself as a police officer one would assume he is a crazy/road rage civilian, or a carjacker (motorcycle thief), that is charging me with a deadly weapon drawn.
If you are a cop (or identifiable as such), then I would not defend myself, nor would I expect you to use your gun offensively.
If you are not a cop (or not identifiable as a cop), I assume you're a thief and are using the gun as a weapon to deprive me of life and/or property
At the first opportunity (in this case, when you were 2 feet away from me with a gun drawn, not pointed at me) I would have attacked you, as you are currently identified (to my mind trying to decide fight/flight) as a thief and/or really pissed off civilian... and you presented me with an opportunity to defend myself from you and get away... Probably harming you and/or myself in the process... It may not be the 'right' choice, but It is what you (police officers) preach (as in, self defense), and I'm a full supporter of that.
Anyway, Any cops that read this, please keep this in mind when you charge a civilian with your gun out... Identify yourself as an officer... Otherwise, everything your department tells civilians to do is "to run away, or defend your life if you are unable to run"
No Wire (Score:2)
How can you prosecute under a wiretapping statute if there is no wire involved where a conversation is being intercepted? Clearly, the judge got the right idea.
Consequences for the Cops (Score:5, Insightful)
What about the asshole cops and prosecutor that put this sick joke of a "wiretapping case" on the taxpayers tab?
Anyone losing their jobs? Suspensions?
If this isn't malicious prosecution, what the fuck on earth is?
If we all just walk away from this without going any further, expect another case just like it next week, and another the week after. The point is intimidation, after all. Plus eventually they'll get some idiot judge who agrees with them.
Re:Consequences for the Cops (Score:5, Insightful)
I would like to think the cop gets convicted of assault as well for brandishing a weapon before properly identifying himself, especially since it was supposedly a traffic stop. The police aren't supposed to make citizens fear for their lives over a traffic stop. They're actually supposed to stop other people from making citizens fear for their lives.
Re:Consequences for the Cops (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know about Maryland, but in my part of the country police NEVER make a traffic stop with an unmarked vehicle. There have been problems with women being assaulted by fake officers. But depending on the situation (it's not possible to determine when the patrol car arrived), if someone in an unmarked car like that cut me off, then jumped out and pulled a weapon, quite likely they would be removing my bike from his teeth.
The apparently off duty officer never should have been involved since there were uniformed officers in marked patrol cars present. This should be a training film on how to do something incredibly unprofessional and stupid that will get your ass fired.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> Call 911 and tell them you have an under cover unit requesting pullover.
That is *extremely* difficult to do safely on a motorcycle.
Riding with only one hand on the controls is impractical - either you can't use the throttle or your clutch - and a proper helmet makes hearing the conversation difficult at best.
Re:Consequences for the Cops (Score:5, Interesting)
Until he identifies himself as a police officer, he's just some guy waving a gun.
The big reason the police wanted the guy under the jail is that he had actual video evidence [youtube.com] (You might want to skip to the 3:00 mark) of the police detectives dangerous and unprofessional behavior. The officer was entirely indistinguishable from a crazed road-rager. No lights, unmarked car, no uniform, no badge, just a gun. Notably, he claims it was a traffic stop, but no ticket book either!
It certainly looks a lot more like he was angry at being passed and thought waving a gun around was the answer. That's EXACTLY the sort of person we DON'T want carrying a gun in public.
The department's subsequent actions in working with the AG to twist a wiretapping law into a pretzel trying to go after the motorcyclist sure seems to be an indication that they were well aware of the problem. If they actually believed the detective's actions to be appropriate why wouldn't they publicize the video themselves?
As for the DC detective, note that his actions were not considered appropriate either. In fact, an internal affairs review recommended [policeone.com] a 10 day suspension for his actions.
Police do have a bit more latitude in law and in practice are granted still more, but not THAT much, particularly when they fail to identify themselves first.
It's a Pyrrhic victory (Score:5, Insightful)
He'll spend a lifetime in that county getting pulled over for crossing the yellow line and not signaling on lane changes.
Re:It's a Pyrrhic victory (Score:4, Insightful)
He'll spend a lifetime in that county getting pulled over for crossing the yellow line and not signaling on lane changes.
Which still seems a helluva lot better than being convicted of a felony.
No, probalby not (Score:3, Insightful)
I hear conspiracy theories like this but I've never seen any evidence of it happening. Reason is that the cops would get in trouble. If they follow someone all the time and harass them, that is precisely the kind of thing plenty of lawyers would be happy to take to trial. Also, this particular guy is known to record things. So if you have someone waiting outside his house all the time, following him everywhere he goes to pull him over continuously, well expect in short order to wind up on the receiving end
Re:No, probalby not (Score:4, Informative)
I hear conspiracy theories like this but I've never seen any evidence of it happening. Reason is that the cops would get in trouble.
Uh, no. I was born and raised in a small town in central Kentucky. My mother was the city attorney. One police officer failed to get an oil change or routine maintenance on his cruiser for 20,000 miles (they are allowed to take their cruisers home, but get free maintenance at the city garage). The engine on his cruiser then failed and had to be replaced. As a result, my mom set in motion the proceedings to have the officer fired. The city was unable to fire him, and from there on out he would, whenever he saw me driving around town, follow me and pull me over for minor offenses such as speeding less than 5 mph over the posted limits. Eventually, his wife got a job in another city and they moved.
The fact of the matter is that it is VERY difficult to have police fired. It used to be commonplace for mayors to come in and fire most of the police department and repopulate it with his cronies, now there are all sorts of laws protecting police officers.
Re:No, probalby not (Score:5, Insightful)
whenever he saw me driving around town, follow me and pull me over for minor offenses such as speeding less than 5 mph over the posted limits.
While I see what you're saying, he was an asshole, all you have to do is not give him an opportunity to BE an asshole by following traffic laws. They aren't that hard to follow and, as a pet peeve of mine, not signaling, on a lane change or otherwise, is one of the most asshole things you can DO on a road. Nobody can read your mind so use the fucking signal.
Thanks.
Next step (Score:2, Insightful)
Sue the city and the cops for malicious prosecution.
Seriously, what were the prosecutors smoking? (Score:5, Insightful)
If their legal theory had held up, next thing we know we'd have had homeowners facing 10+ years in prison for "wiretapping" burglars' conversations on CCTV.
(Ooh, and the burglar was whistling "Happy Birthday", so you're liable for $160,000 in damages to the RIAA as well ...)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Take that!
In all seriousness, though, the prosecutor wasn't high, he was trying to make his job easier. With restrictions on recordings of traffic stops, it's harder to prove mistakes in procedure. Based on the ruling, more cases will show up with recordings, which makes it tougher to prosecute the violations. It's self-serving but at least t
Re: (Score:2)
If their legal theory had held up, next thing we know we'd have had homeowners facing 10+ years in prison for "wiretapping" burglars' conversations on CCTV.
(Ooh, and the burglar was whistling "Happy Birthday", so you're liable for $160,000 in damages to the RIAA as well ...)
CCTV doesn't come with audio recording precisely because in some states it is a violation of their wiretapping laws to record audio. It's not the BURGLARS that have an expectation of privacy in this case, but rather, employees and customers.
Scumbag lawyers! (Score:2)
device primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of oral communications
They would put an end to recording devices in public just to win one stupid case against a kid on a bike. And what about that redneck cop that bursts out with a gun and no identification? I hope he gets canned? No mention.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
if that is his habit, eventually the natural consequences will take care of him, hopefully whoever is involved is not vilified as a "cop killer" but he probably will be. either that or he'll fall down the stairs and land head first on a bullet on the way to the police station
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My first interaction with the cops, drunk at age 16 and "trespassing" (went back to the house the party was at, but the sitter who invited everyone over was gone, and his sister had come home and was unwelcoming), they cuffed me and then I fell down a flight of stairs. And, unfortunately, I was too drunk to later recall whether I tripped or was pushed (or simply "wasn't restrained from falling", a sof
Why do I have to read this? (Score:4, Interesting)
In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In other news (Score:5, Interesting)
Happy day... sort of (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm happy to hear the verdict, but it always strikes me as sad how we only seem to win the most obvious of court cases these days. I mean, who in their right mind would think it is not OK to videotape in public, or that we needed to "protect" the police from video cameras?!
From the stupid fucken judiciary that hasn't outlawed torture yet (despite it being on the books), who let the government get away with warrantless wiretapping, assassinations of american citizens, and who thinks its ok for an $80,000 per song downloaded verdict....
I'm happy with this verdict, but overall I'm still massively frustrated.
d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Countersuit? (Score:2)
I would donate to such a cause... these proto-fascists need to be put in their place...
just the other day, a cop car pulled out wildly ahead of another motorist, turned on his siren and lights, zoomed past a few other cars, then shut off his siren... who's to bet there was no emergency other than the cop's inflated ego?
Is it "wire tapping" (Score:5, Interesting)
If the device is out in the open, and you disclose this to the other party? Can the other party actually require that you turn the device off even if it's on your own property? What about in your own car. I think that at some point, "recorded" is going to become more and more fuzzy.
What if I write something down as you're saying it? What if a robot hears and transcribes it for me into text? What if I commit it to memory? What if my memory is enhanced? Where does the line get drawn? Or does it?
No celebrating on forums.officer.com (Score:3, Interesting)
Majority on that forum wished this stop would've ended in a not so favorable manor for the motorcyclist. That forum seems to hate 'civilians' for some reason.
Re:No celebrating on forums.officer.com (Score:4, Insightful)
Holy crap, if ever there was a board in dire need of some epic trolling, it's that one.
forums.officer.com supports decision (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you say forums.officer.com needs trolled? As far as I can see [officer.com], most posters there agree with the decision, and also say that the cop was an idiot for pulling his gun.
There are idiots in any group. Most cops are reasonable folks. The problem is only: you never know which kind you have...
Overturned on appeal (Score:3, Insightful)
Law enforcement has their head so far up their ass they do have an expectation of privacy.
Can you hear me now? [bambamworld.com]
Red light cameras vs. cops. (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the more amusing camera issues has been red light cameras photographing cops running red lights. [findlaw.com] The processing of the images is usually outsourced and automated, and the company doing the work handles the process. The cops have to either pay up or go to court. There is much whining about this.
Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw writes to other police departments: "Please advise your members if they are captured on camera in their vehicles running the red light at these intersections, they will be cited. The only remedy for relief will be through the traffic court system. All law enforcement personnel must understand the high standard of conduct is applied to them in order for the public to have confidence in their departments and the officers."
Somebody gets it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You obviously don't know anything about Antonin Scalia apart from what Moveon.org and the DailKos tell you to "think". Go read the wikipedia page for Kyllo v. U.S. [wikipedia.org] Then go read the full opinion [cornell.edu] and come back when you know a tiny sliver about the law instead of the Pavlovian emotional responses that are bred into you by your blogging "friends".
Re:I can possibly see the future (Score:5, Insightful)
Antonin Scalia is a constructionalist obstructionist who yet again applied Alice-in-Wonderland thinking in interpreting the Constitution to rule incorrectly as part of a lifetime of putting "individual" rights over "collective" rights, something that he doesn't use to protect you and me, but to protect the few "individuals" (i.e. corporations) who are attempting to turn this country into even more of a de facto fascist state than it already is.
Stevens schooled him in that opinion, even quoting from the case Scalia cited, Katz v. United States, a demurral showing that the deciders of Katz knew there would be exceptions, under which Kyllo eventually fell. Privacy ends where your emissions enter the public air, whether you are emitting noise, radio waves, the odor of a meth lab, photons bouncing off your naked body through an open window, or thermal radiation. The police or your neighbors can receive those emissions passively at a distance and act on the information as reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
The hitch in this case is that having a hot garage is evidence of nothing in particular and gave the police no cause to do anything. Even if the garage is being used as a hot-house, there's no evidence it's a hot-house for illegal plants. They must have had other evidence. The opinion suggests they did the thermal imaging because of a prior suspicion. At the end it says it's up to the original courts to figure out if that evidence is still sufficient to have justified the search. Likely it wasn't, or the cops wouldn't have done the thermal imaging. And whether coupling a hot garage to the other evidence is sufficient is unknowable without knowing what the other evidence is. I get the feeling I'd come down on the side of saying it isn't sufficient and the cops should have just done some more surveillance.
Re:I can possibly see the future (Score:5, Insightful)
You obviously don't know anything about Antonin Scalia apart from what Moveon.org and the DailKos tell you to "think".
Ah yes, good form old chap. Someone says something you disagree with on the internet, and you respond first with "you're ignorant and influenced by news/propaganda sources I personally don't agree with." Allow me to respond in kind.
(ahem)
You're just brainwashed by faux-news!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My point was that was an ad hominem attack. I expect better from slashdotters.
Manners aside, I'm not convinced that slashdot actually has a liberal bias any more than I'm convinced CNN does. Furthermore, if there is bias, I'm of the opinion that the answer is not intentional bias in the opposite direction, since obviously I'm not convinced Fox has done anything beneficial for cable news with that same approach.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My point was that was an ad hominem attack. I expect better from slashdotters.
You must be new
Re:I can possibly see the future (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)