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.
Flip side (Score:2, Insightful)
A happy day for freedom-loving Marylanders and Americans in general.
But a sad loss for power tripping pigs.
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course the big irony here is... (Score:3, Insightful)
... that cameras are not allowed in many/most court rooms.
a police officer on a traffic stop? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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:Alright! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course the big irony here is... (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 the judge/jury.
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.
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: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.
In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What? (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: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:Alright! (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't see the downside....?
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.
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:Seriously, what were the prosecutors smoking? (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 there's method in his madness.
Virg
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: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.
Re:Alright! (Score:2, Insightful)
No way, if theres a group that the police won't fark with, it'd the judges.
You mean the police are not above the law (Score:1, Insightful)
You mean the police are not above the law... hmmm, i thought some of us are more equal than others. Heaven forbid the police have to act within the law :O
Re:Alright! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Scumbag lawyers! (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: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.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Alright! (Score:1, Insightful)
"Break the law" is a very loose definition. Since you brought it up, I would like to point out that wikileaks isn't breaking the law to the slightest. It may sometimes (always?) be in violation with US laws, but US laws do not apply on Swedish soil.
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.
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.
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:A sad sad story (Score:3, Insightful)
I would replace 'not tomorrow' with 'probably not tomorrow'. Stuff can happen surprisingly quickly.
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 of a lawsuit, or maybe even a federal civil rights suit.
All this is aside from the issue that their captain would probably get pissed off if they were wasting time on this rather than issuing tickets like they are supposed to.
I seriously think some /.ers need to get out a little more, and get some news from places other than online.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
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".
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]
Re:Happy day... sort of (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Technically, yes, except .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Alright! (Score:1, Insightful)
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:I can possibly see the future (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:I can possibly see the future (Score:3, Insightful)
My point was that was an ad hominem attack. I expect better from slashdotters.
You must be new
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:Alright! (Score:3, Insightful)
But since that limit was set by the feds, what can your town do?
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: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: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.
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...
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.
Re:Alright! (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah none of this is relevant to his right to record the police.
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"
Re:Alright! (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes. Clearly execution is the most reasonable way to rectify this this type of situation. Not like, oh, I don't know, replacing the AG or judge with a new one when voting time comes.
Re:Alright! (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck you. (Score:2, Insightful)
Now that you've finished raving like an idiot, let the grownups tell you how the world REALLY works.
In the REAL world, cities pull funding from traffic ticket money. This has come to the point where even giant metroplexes rely on month-to-month ticket and fine monies for their operating budget - for a stellar example, look at the news from a couple years go from the city of Houston (3rd largest metroplex in the US) when then-mayor, now governor-candidate Bill White stood up in a city council meeting and tried to blame the city's entire budget shortfall on "the police not writing enough tickets."
Since they require this revenue, the pigs are given ticket quotas for each month. By hook or by crook they are ordered to meet these minimums. If they don't, they get written up. If they get written up enough, they theoretically get either fired, or denied promotion. So the pigs have every fucking incentive to be as corrupt as they need to be to write the tickets up. And by the time they graduate out of traffic detail (the lowest rung on the ladder), any semblance of honor or honesty they may once have had is long fucking gone.
THAT is the reality.
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:Mod -1, idiot (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 younger individuals that are probably being stupid rather than malicious)
Re:What? (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.