• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Video Recording Of Arrests Sparks Debate. ABC TV13 WJZ.com

Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

http://wjz.com/local/preakness.fight.internet.2.1708562.html

Marylanders face felony charges for recording their arrests on camera, and others have been intimidated to shut their cameras off.

That's touched off a legal controversy. Mike Hellgrenexplains thefierce debate and what you should do to protect yourself.

A man whose arrest was caught on video faces felony charges from Maryland State Police for recording it on camera.

"We are enforcing the law, and we don't make any apologies for that," said Greg Shipley, MSP.

Video of another arrest at the Preakness quickly made its way online, despite an officer issuing this warning to the person who shot it, "Do me a favor and turn that off.It's illegal to videotape anybody's voice or anything else, against the law in the state of Maryland."

But is he right? Can police stop you from recording their actions, likea beating at the University of Maryland College Park?

TheAmerican Civil Liberties Union says no.

"For the government to be saying it has the power to prevent citizens from doing that is profoundly shocking, troubling, and particularly in the case of Maryland, simply flat-out wrong," said David Roach, ACLU.

Under Maryland law, conversations in private cannot be recorded without the consent of both people involved.

But can that be applied toincidents such as one caught on tape three years ago where a Baltimore officer arrested a teenager at the Inner Harbor?

"When you tell me to turn it off because it's against the law, you've proven to me that I'm not secretly taping you," said law professor Byron Warnken. "He doesn't have the right to say, if you don't stop recording me, I'm going to arrest you."

The last official interpretation of Maryland's law came from the previous attorney general saying it was legal for officers to record video on dashcams.

Delegate Sandy Rosenberg is pushing the current attorney general for his opinion on whether you can record them, too.

"If he finds that there are circumstances when it's illegal, under existing law, to tape public actions by police or other public officials, then it's appropriate for me to introduce a bill to change that statute," said Rosenberg, Democrat, District 41, Baltimore City.

At this point, the attorney general has not indicated whether he will issue an opinion clarifying this law.
 

Brimstone Baritone

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Leeds, Alabama, USA
imported post

Which is why I'm glad I live in a single-party consent state. They can ask me to turn off the recorder, but as long as we're in a public place, I have no obligation.

I would think that if a third party is openly recording the arrest then it wouldn't qualify as a private conversation...
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

IANAL, but wouldn't you be able to record a public conversation, even in an all-party State?

It seems to me that any interaction between a representative of the State and a citizen, especially one that puts the citizen at risk from the State, is a matter of public record, not a private conversation. Therefore, the citizen should be able to record it. The only person in the interaction with a privacy interest would be the citizen.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

eye95 wrote:
IANAL, but wouldn't you be able to record a public conversation, even in an all-party State?

It seems to me that any interaction between a representative of the State and a citizen, especially one that puts the citizen at risk from the State, is a matter of public record, not a private conversation. Therefore, the citizen should be able to record it. The only person in the interaction with a privacy interest would be the citizen.

Same here.
 

Nelson_Muntz

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
697
Location
Manassas, Virginia, USA
imported post

Then it must be against the law to use all those dash cams, red light and speeding cams, and surveillance cameras on the street and in stores....
 

fully_armed_biker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
463
Location
Portsmouth, Virginia, USA
imported post

"We are enforcing the law, and we don't make any apologies for that," said Greg Shipley, MSP.
Enforcing their own personal opinions, rather than the law, is more like it!

Further proof...NEVER ask a LEO for legal advice...to put it nicely, they're clueless!!! This is NOT and honest mistake...This isthe police force for the People's Republic of MD trying to enforce their will under the cover of darkness...plain and simple!!!

I hope the victims in this case sue and the MD State Police get their a$$es handed to them on a platter!
 
M

McX

Guest
imported post

it's nice to have the gizmo, but you gotta turn it on. something must be afoot, as i see some threads that you can't record, or something to that effect. everyone concerned can pin their hopes on dash cams, suveliance cams, web cams, if they're turned on. and no one corrupt gets to them before the truth must be viewed. mindful of their actions for everyone concerned, yeah, if it's allowed and turned on.
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

The MSP are reaching here: but the law is a fickle thing.

Until there is some good law on this, just turn the sound off on your videocam.

Sure they can arrest you, but at least you won't be convicted of a felony.:)
 

IndianaBoy79

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
639
Location
Eagle, Idaho, USA
imported post

canadian wrote:
Quick! Someone rush to defend the police position!
Actually, I have more of an issue with the prosecutors and local government in these cases. The police are subject to civil authority, and when the local authorities tell them to stop they will in most cases. The police are wrong, yes, but it is a greater tragedy that we continue to elect government officials who do not stand up for our rights.
 

open4years

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
347
Location
Valdosta, Georgia, USA
imported post

I fully support 'most' LEO's and I understand that they have a difficult, dangerous and sometimes thankless job. I commonly interface with local LEO.

Having said that, when I was in my 20's to 30's, I was often treated with disrespect, without cause, from many LEO's. This would happen even if I was treating them with respect.

The problem I saw was the use of the "disorderly conduct" charge. There was a time that I witnessed two men fighting. One hit the other from behind and got quite a beating. Finally, the one that was attacked, got the upper hand. That is when a LEO arrived.

He dragged off the one who had been assaulted and put him in cuffs, while doing nothing to the other. Since I witnessed the fight, as did
others, I said: "Officer, the other guy started the fight.". He said: "If you say another word, you're going to jail!". I shut up! But others didn't.

People tried to tell him what they saw and that the other guy instigated the fight. He said: "The next person that opens their mouth is going to jail!". The guy's friend said: But, officer my friend didn't...

That is far as he got as the cop threw him on the floor, handcuffed him
and took him to jail. The charge: "Disorderly conduct."

Now I could understand this if the officer said that he would take witness's statements later, but he didn't care. I've seen people arrested on the "disorderly conduct" charge for the most innocent things.

I know LEO's have a tough job and they need to take control of a situation, but I'm referring to one's who abuse their power. They may be a small number, but they give many a very negative viewpoint of LE.
 

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
imported post

open4years wrote:
I know LEO's have a tough job and they need to take control of a situation, but I'm referring to one's who abuse their power. They may be a small number, but they give many a very negative viewpoint of LE.
You're not allowed to have a "negative viewpoint" of LE, no matter what. If you do, you're a "cop hater" and wanted to be a cop but couldn't... at least that's what the cops say.
 

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
imported post

What are cops so fond of saying to citizens?

"If you have nothing to hide...?"

Their opposition to filming/recording has absolutely NO motivation aside from preventing valid complaints and lawsuits from being sustained.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

Deanimator wrote:
open4years wrote:
I know LEO's have a tough job and they need to take control of a situation, but I'm referring to one's who abuse their power. They may be a small number, but they give many a very negative viewpoint of LE.
You're not allowed to have a "negative viewpoint" of LE, no matter what. If you do, you're a "cop hater" and wanted to be a cop but couldn't... at least that's what the cops say.

I am not a cop hater, but I am a tyranny hater. When a cop acts in a tyrannical manner, then yes I do hate his/her actions.

If a group of cops act with a pattern of opressive and tyrannical behavior which consistantly abuses our rights, well that is why we have a 2nd A, right?
 

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
imported post

Thundar wrote:
Deanimator wrote:
open4years wrote:
I know LEO's have a tough job and they need to take control of a situation, but I'm referring to one's who abuse their power. They may be a small number, but they give many a very negative viewpoint of LE.
You're not allowed to have a "negative viewpoint" of LE, no matter what. If you do, you're a "cop hater" and wanted to be a cop but couldn't... at least that's what the cops say.

I am not a cop hater, but I am a tyranny hater. When a cop acts in a tyrannical manner, then yes I do hate his/her actions.

If a group of cops act with a pattern of opressive and tyrannical behavior which consistantly abuses our rights, well that is why we have a 2nd A, right?
You just don't understand:

1. The police are never wrong.
2. See rule 1 above.

If you don't accept that as unassailable truth, a cop obviously stole your girlfriend... just ask a cop.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
imported post

Thundar wrote:
If a group of cops act with a pattern of opressive and tyrannical behavior which consistantly abuses our rights, well that is why we have a 2nd A, right?

Well, much like there is no right to a "free press" (making documentary videotapes of a newsworthy event) in MD, it is ALSO the official published position of the MD Attorney General and the MSP that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution DOES NOT APPLY in the state of Maryland.

There is no individual RKBA in the MD State Constitution. Owning and carrying firearms in MD is viewed as a privilege by the State government and the LE community.

MD is not so much a "State" as it is an Oligarchical Serfdom...

I should be receiving a video recording of a MSP officer stating this in official testimony before the MD General Assembly's Judiciary Committee during the hearing for HB-52 earlier this year. (Yes, this particular recording is legal--it was made by the MD-GA, and was obtained through a FOIA request...)

I was there, testifying on the "pro" side, and heard and saw it with my own eyes and ears. I was tempted to make a citizen's arrest, based on the fact that it was an act of treason, being a direct violation of his Oath...

It will be up on YouTube within days after the DVD hits my mailbox, which should be in the next few weeks...
 

open4years

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
347
Location
Valdosta, Georgia, USA
imported post

Deanimator wrote:
open4years wrote:
I know LEO's have a tough job and they need to take control of a situation, but I'm referring to one's who abuse their power. They may be a small number, but they give many a very negative viewpoint of LE.
You're not allowed to have a "negative viewpoint" of LE, no matter what.  If you do, you're a "cop hater" and wanted to be a cop but couldn't... at least that's what the cops say.

Yes, and based on one post of mine about cops caught in a lie, regarding killing a girl - it was locked rather fast. I was just reporting what was in my paper, on AP, CNN, etc.
 
Top