MSP upset over taped traffic stop

garyad · Apr 9, 2010

imported post

Granted the guy was traveling over 100mph but does that warrant the gun coming out of the holster?

What do you think?

http://wjz.com/local/traffic.stop.youtube.2.1621320.html

Sonora Rebel · Apr 9, 2010

imported post

No. The cop never showed a badge either. The MSP do whatever they want... Odds are... they'll put the screws to this guy for posting the Vid on U-Tube'n wreck his life 'cause they can.That in no way excuses him from bein' an idiot on a public road tho.

Dreamer · Apr 9, 2010

imported post

This driver is an idiot.

First, he was doing 100mph on a motorcycle and popping wheelies on I-95.

Second, he was taping his criminally reckless ride with a helmet cam. I suppose he thought he was going to post his exciting ride on YouTube to get some sort of hooligan street cred or something...

Then he says in the interview that the cop shouldn't have pulled his gun because th edriver wasn't a criminal. Last time I looked, reckless driving and endangering others, are, in fact, statutory violations, so in fact, he IS a criminal...

And lastly, he didn't inform the LEO that he was recording. In MD, THAT is a crime as well. MD is a "two party consent" state, and if you are recording any conversation, activity, or interaction, both parties must be informed that they are being recorded, and both parties must give consent for the recording to continue. (unless you're a cop, and then you don't have to ask for consent--two laws for two classes of people...)

Honestly, this guy is lucky they didn't Taze and then "Rodney King" his sorry ass for "Egregious Contempt of Cop". He will get convicted of speeding AND breaking the MD Wiretapping Statutes, and he WILL do time, or see a massive fine, and probably have his DL revoked. And knowing how they do things up there in MD, the MSP will probably try to get the Air National Guard to somehow sanction him as well. In MD, if you mess with the police and embarrass them publicly, they will do everything in their power to ruin your entire life.

So yeah, this guy was treated poorly, but he IS an idiot, he DID break several laws and was acting extremely recklessly, and the fact that he was recording his law-breaking driving habits just adds fuel to the fire of his stupidity.

I hope he has a REALLY good lawyer. And he might as well start looking for a place to live in VA or PA, because as long as he lives in MD, he is going to be "red flagged" on the MSPs "naughty list". And you can bet that he will NEVER be "allowed" to buy a firearm in MD after this episode...

But where this story starts to make Mr. Graber look like the victim is the way MSP treated him AFTER the video was posted. The raided his house, seized his computers and other equipment, and just generally are treating him with the thuggish totalitarian disregard that they are famous for. The MD Attorney General is actually threatening Mr. Grabel with up to FIVE YEARS in prison for recording the cop without his consent...

http://www.agingrebel.com/?p=3169

http://orwellsdreams.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/man-who-filmed-plainclothes-cop-pulling-gun-on-him-getting-threatened-with-prison/

Welcome to the Peoples Republic of MD, folks.

Ihre Papiere, Bitte?

All those things said, the one thing I find MOST interesting about this story is how when the mainstream media posts stills or clips from the video, they blur out the gun-qaving MSP's face. Well, I have screen capture, access to the original video, and Photoshop, and I'm not afraid to use it...

Here's the vid of the entire ride:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7PC9cZEWCQ&feature=related

So while I agree that MSP perhaps over-reacted in the stop, and has DEFINITELY over-reacted with the subsequent retaliatory raid and "wiretapping" charges, I don't have much sympathy for this guy.

If I had $10 for every testosterone-laden crotch-rocket jockey that has nearly run me off the road in MD in the last 10 years with their hooligan driving style, I could buy a brand new top-end ParaOrdnance, and still have money left over for a months worth of range ammo and a new holster...

Citizen · Apr 9, 2010

imported post

Doesn't Maryland have federal case law about recording of LEOs being protected by the First Amendment? Maybe I'm thinking of PA or NJ.

TechnoWeenie · Apr 10, 2010

imported post

Unlawful acts. -- Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle it is unlawful for any person to: (1) Willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

(2) Willfully disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle; or

(3) Willfully use, or endeavor to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle. Cts. & Jud. Proc. §10-402(a)(1)-(a)(3).

I don't see where it says anything about video in public.

By their very nature, PUBLIC recordings are NOT private.

I disagree with the dick on the bike, and with the way officers handled it... Thing is, the guy was on a public road, shooting public video, and there was nothing 'private' about the situation, and IMO isn't protected. IIRC it's the audio that makes it illegal.

****** up thing is, no matter how bad the cops **** up in MD, they never get held accountable for it.

In PG county they used like 10 cars to stop a reporter from following a case about budget overruns and excesses by a county executive.. The cops pulled them out at gunpount, injured one of the reporters arms, then miraculously ALL the cruisers video cameras were either 'not switched on, or malfunctioning'.. even then, THE NEWS CAMERA was running, and got it all on tape.... NOTHING happened... Illegal stop, kidnapping, assault, etc under the letter of the law, but NOTHING happened to the officers involved...

Maximum · Apr 10, 2010

imported post

In my opinion the police officer was great. He needs to have the gun ready to go in case the driver tries to pull a weapon.

The motor-cycler was putting everyone's life in danger. Vehicles are deadly weapons too, not just guns. If the cycler gets scared from seeing a gun too bad.

TechnoWeenie · Apr 10, 2010

imported post

Email sent to jicassilly@co.ha.md.us

Since when is recording a bike ride on public highway, felony wiretapping?

I understand you can't comment on pending cases, and probably don't care about the general publics ideas of what the laws should be (only what they currently are) but don't you think it's a little ridiculous charging a man for recording IN PUBLIC? Not only that, you have to prove that he INTENTIONALLY wanted to record the officers voice, and I find it pretty farfetched that a guy was trying to record that officer, and had no chance to stop the recording with a gun being pulled on him.

I'm not defending the driving of the guy, as it's obviously out of line, but charging a guy because he caught an officer with proverbial egg on his face, is not the best thing to do, and makes you and the state police look like thugs.

It is the DUTY of the people to ensure their government bows to the wishes of the public.

In your official capacity as a public servant, your job is to follow not only law, but to serve the will of the public at large. Such charges serve only the government in its attempt to smear someone who has caught the state police in an awkward position.

So how does one catch public officials, servants, officers, etc performing illegal or immoral actions if one cannot record it? And in recording the servants are given a blank check because even if they did do something wrong, the 'evidence' was 'obtained illegally' and somehow magically doesn't exist?

Further, the officers dash cam is running, which is recording audio, and if there is an 'exception' for officers' dash cams, that cannot legally exist, as such an exemption would create a separate 'class' of citizen, making them exempt from things that others are not (and, under the constitution, we are ALL equal) which would be unconstitutional. The 'exception' is that THERE IS NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN PUBLIC PLACES. Do you charge tourists who record voices while taking video of the inner harbor? How bout those at Ocean City on the boardwalk? Well.. of course not.. Because A) It's in PUBLIC where NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY EXISTS and B) Taking video of the boardwalk doesn't make your state police look like goons.... Although the same can't be said about the kid who videotaped the Baltimore police officer giving him crap for riding a skateboard at the inner harbor, why didn't the state charge the kid for such an "illegal" recording? Ohh.. RIGHT... IT WAS IN PUBLIC...

How about I sue the state for false advertising? Something about 'The Free State'?

I moved OUT of Maryland because of the obvious abuses of power, the lack of the legislature and politicians to properly address those issues, and the utter lack of ANY oversight on ANY governmental body.

You have further affirmed that my decision to leave was a positive one.

Enjoy the fact that criminals in MD have all the guns they want, while you disarm law abiding citizens.. That Officers can illegally raid houses, seize firearms, and do whatever they so please while you're busy charging those who catch questionable activity on film with felony wiretapping.

The founders of this country would be very pleased with such a 'Free State'...

I find your actions extremely reprehensible, and disgusting.

The political backlash from such a folly will be great, I hope you enjoy your job.

With all due respect.

-Signed

Edited to add: Guess he didn't like his email being out there... Bounced back....

Grapeshot · Apr 11, 2010

imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:

Unlawful acts. -- Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle it is unlawful for any person to: (1) Willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

(2) Willfully disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle; or

(3) Willfully use, or endeavor to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle. Cts. & Jud. Proc. §10-402(a)(1)-(a)(3).

Click to expand...

I don't see where it says anything about video in public.

By their very nature, PUBLIC recordings are NOT private.

I disagree with the dick on the bike, and with the way officers handled it... Thing is, the guy was on a public road, shooting public video, and there was nothing 'private' about the situation, and IMO isn't protected. IIRC it's the audio that makes it illegal.

@#$%ed up thing is, no matter how bad the cops @#$% up in MD, they never get held accountable for it.

In PG county they used like 10 cars to stop a reporter from following a case about budget overruns and excesses by a county executive.. The cops pulled them out at gunpount, injured one of the reporters arms, then miraculously ALL the cruisers video cameras were either 'not switched on, or malfunctioning'.. even then, THE NEWS CAMERA was running, and got it all on tape.... NOTHING happened... Illegal stop, kidnapping, assault, etc under the letter of the law, but NOTHING happened to the officers involved...

State courts have interpreted the laws to protect communications only when the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy,
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/maryland.html

Yata hey

lockman · Apr 12, 2010

imported post

Where is the audio?

Sig229 · Apr 12, 2010

imported post

When did the MSP switch over to Sig Sauers? I thought they were always issued Glock 22's.

Grapeshot · Apr 12, 2010

imported post

Sig229 wrote:

When did the MSP switch over to Sig Sauers? I thought they were always issued Glock 22's.

This would indicate that their issue handgun is the Beretta PX4 Storm
.
http://www.gunsholstersandgear.com/2008/04/27/maryland-state-police-to-carry-beretta-px4-storm-pistol-as-duty-gun/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_State_Police

Yata hey

Sig229 · Apr 12, 2010

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Sig229 wrote:

When did the MSP switch over to Sig Sauers? I thought they were always issued Glock 22's.

Click to expand...

This would indicate that their issue handgun is the Beretta PX4 Storm
.
http://www.gunsholstersandgear.com/2008/04/27/maryland-state-police-to-carry-beretta-px4-storm-pistol-as-duty-gun/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_State_Police

Yata hey

Ahh yes. Thanks.

I guess after working 16 hours straight through the night might make my visual recognition a little off. lol

Grapeshot · Apr 12, 2010

imported post

Sig229 wrote:

Ahh yes. Thanks.

I guess after working 16 hours straight through the night might make my visual recognition a little off. lol

I didn't have a clue myself 'til I searched it.

I totally avoid Md. - which is a shame because there is some beautiful countryside there.

Yata hey

GoldCoaster · Apr 21, 2010

imported post

Maximum wrote:

In my opinion the police officer was great. He needs to have the gun ready to go in case the driver tries to pull a weapon.

The motor-cycler was putting everyone's life in danger. Vehicles are deadly weapons too, not just guns. If the cycler gets scared from seeing a gun too bad.

Is that the caliber of English language communications in the MSP these days?

Grapeshot · Apr 21, 2010

imported post

GoldCoaster wrote:

Maximum wrote:

In my opinion the police officer was great. He needs to have the gun ready to go in case the driver tries to pull a weapon.

The motor-cycler was putting everyone's life in danger. Vehicles are deadly weapons too, not just guns. If the cycler gets scared from seeing a gun too bad.

Click to expand...

Is that the caliber of English language communications in the MSP these days?

It is the sound that a drive by troll makes who doesn't even legitimize his post by showing his state of residence.

Yata hey

ruger345 · May 5, 2010

imported post

i think the officer did everything correct. it looks like he called for a marked unit to make the arrest. the guy on the bike was wrong and got a little more than he was looking for. The officer had to set the tone and he did by drawing his weapon. he then went back to his holster. the marked unit behind him was his badge. the bike was still running and there is always a chance of this guy taking off again. so, he if run the officer down are we having this same converstation? or if the same trooper is blocking traffic because of an accident this guy caused.??

codename_47 · May 5, 2010

imported post

And lastly, he didn't inform the LEO that he was recording. In MD, THAT is a crime as well. MD is a "two party consent" state, and if you are recording any conversation, activity, or interaction, both parties must be informed that they are being recorded, and both parties must give consent for the recording to continue. (unless you're a cop, and then you don't have to ask for consent--two laws for two classes of people...)

100% not true. You are a failure at this station. Go back and read MD laws. MD requires a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are no two laws for two people. You are just wrong.

This driver is an idiot.

Fair enough. Although in a car vs bike situation he is largely putting himself at risk.

IndianaBoy79 · May 6, 2010

imported post

http://www.apbweb.com/court-rulings-news-menu-100/1018-privacy-concerns-ignored.html

Interesting that there is already a court ruling in Maryland stating that there is no expectation of privacy for a police officer while acting in the capacity of his official duties.

From what I read on other news sites, they raided his house and took his computer too. Shame.

They had the youtube video, that was enough to prosecute him for the driving infractions/crimes, but this privacy crap is a joke.

Dreamer · May 6, 2010

imported post

IndianaBoy79 wrote:

From what I read on other news sites, they raided his house and took his computer too. Shame.

THAT is the whole point of my outrage with this situation.

The guy was obviously speeding. We know that from police records, and from hi sown recording which clearly shows his speedometer. I've had to deal with these crotch-rocket yuck-a-pucks on a pretty regular basis when I lived in the NoVa area. They are dangerous, wreckless, and a menace to public safety. For that he deserves to be cited, fined, and maybe do a little time.

The officer pulling a gun on a traffic stop was a little over-reacting I think. They had his tag number. Catching him at home wouldn't be tough...

The part that has me outraged about this incident is that they RAIDED HIS HOME, and took computers, recording gear and other electronics, after he posted his recording on YouTube. The State is using the MD Wiretapping laws (which are such a set of fraudulent, misused, and over-extended laws that they make a mockery of the Judicial process). I think the MD Wiretapping laws are badly written.

I also know that although the MD courts have made some pretty reasonable rulings with regards to "expectation of privacy exceptions" to the wiretapping laws, the MSP and local LEO's tend to really stretch and twist this law to intimidate and punish people for committing "contempt of cop" by daring to document incidents of LEO's engaging in abusive, over-reaching, fraudulent, and downright unethical behavior. And unless a defendant has REALLY deep pockets to sue over these abuses of power, the charges GENERALLY stand, which has set up a substantial body of case law in MD that SUPPORTS this sort of behavior. The FEW cases that rule against the "contempt of cop" standard of when the wiretapping law does and doesn't apply are few and far between...

MD Should come in line with the vast majority of the rest of this country and change it's wiretapping laws to be a "one party consent" state. The only people that "two party consent" protects are criminals, especially the kinds wearing suits or carrying "credentials"...

It's an interesting coincidence (or IS it?) that EVERY state that has oppressive gun-control laws is ALSO a 2-party consent state for recording, and has draconian and labyrinthine "wiretapping" laws. I guess when the people are down and being kicked, you don't want anyone to be allowed to catch it on film, eh, wot?...

petrophase · May 6, 2010

imported post

I used to live in MD. I don't anymore.

MSP upset over taped traffic stop

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

State Researcher

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran