Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Videotaping police activity is risky

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

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

    I'm pretty sure the cops are wrong in this case, but I don't have the code in front of me.

    I just thought I'd post this to generate discussion and to warn you MD guys about what's happening in your neck of the woods concerning "wiretapping" laws and their misapplication.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Mr H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    AA Co., Maryland, USA
    Posts
    286

    Post imported post

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

    If Shipley is on board with regurgitating this beauracratic and partisancrap, Marylanders may have a long row to hoe.

    In a public setting--no matter how weird--there is no 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. MSP is out of bounds on this one.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Mr H wrote:
    <<"We are enforcing the law, and we don't make any apologies for that," said Greg Shipley, MSP.>>

    If Shipley is on board with regurgitating this beauracratic and partisancrap, Marylanders may have a long row to hoe.

    In a public setting--no matter how weird--there is no 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. MSP is out of bounds on this one.
    If you record a conversation without the permission of both participants, you can be in violation of the Wiretap law in Maryland.

    Videotaping without sound was legal last time I checked the statute, however.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrote:
    Mr H wrote:
    <<"We are enforcing the law, and we don't make any apologies for that," said Greg Shipley, MSP.>>

    If Shipley is on board with regurgitating this beauracratic and partisancrap, Marylanders may have a long row to hoe.

    In a public setting--no matter how weird--there is no 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. MSP is out of bounds on this one.
    If you record a conversation without the permission of both participants, you can be in violation of the Wiretap law in Maryland.

    Videotaping without sound was legal last time I checked the statute, however.
    Permission, or knowledge? Makes a big difference. If one of the MD guys can post the code it would be useful.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    The Donkey wrote:
    Mr H wrote:
    <<"We are enforcing the law, and we don't make any apologies for that," said Greg Shipley, MSP.>>

    If Shipley is on board with regurgitating this beauracratic and partisancrap, Marylanders may have a long row to hoe.

    In a public setting--no matter how weird--there is no 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. MSP is out of bounds on this one.
    If you record a conversation without the permission of both participants, you can be in violation of the Wiretap law in Maryland.

    Videotaping without sound was legal last time I checked the statute, however.
    Permission, or knowledge? Makes a big difference. If one of the MD guys can post the code it would be useful.

    Its been a few years, but my understanding is "permission."

    Seems to me that there is usually implied permission if you inform the other party that there is a recording device, and they keep on speaking.

    But what if it is a cop who must speakin the process of doing their job?

    I think that an AG opinion would be a good idea here: citizens use recording to keep police honest during engagements, and the police are unfairly exploitinga criminal lawto stop citizens from doing something that is in the public interest.

    Until the AG or a Court comes up with a definitive opinion, however, would recommend that anyone in Maryland who decides to tape a police encounter without permission do so with the sound recording turned off.

    This may still get you arrested - cops are not legal scholars -but at least you won'tlikely be guilty under the felony wiretap law.


    See http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...80000000000002



  6. #6
    Regular Member Sig229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    926

    Post imported post

    The Supreme court has ruled that if both parties are in public, there is no right to prvacy in public.

    This is why business and government can have cameras WITH audio recording in public.

    So, I dont see how its illegal in a public venue to record a Maryland LEO.

    On the phone, yes, you do have to inform the person however.
    "Let your gun be your constant companion during your walks" ~Thomas Jefferson

  7. #7
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    Sig229 wrote:
    The Supreme court has ruled that if both parties are in public, there is no right to privacy in public.

    This is why business and government can have cameras WITH audio recording in public.
    Sig, I think you know as well as I do that in MD, the Attorney General holds the official opinion that in many cases, Federal law, Supreme Court Rulings and the US Constitution DO NOT APPLY. It is the official opinion of the MD AG, the MDSP, and much of the General Assembly that MD is fully autonomous as a legal entity, and cannot be held to legal precedent, dictates, or standards of ANY outside entity, including the Federal Courts, or the US Constitution.

    Until the People of MD start holding their officials responsible for upholding their oaths, or the Federal Government starts holding them responsible to uphold Federal Case Law precedent, thus it will ever be...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Dreamer wrote:
    Sig229 wrote:
    The Supreme court has ruled that if both parties are in public, there is no right to privacy in public.

    This is why business and government can have cameras WITH audio recording in public.
    Sig, I think you know as well as I do that in MD, the Attorney General holds the official opinion that in many cases, Federal law, Supreme Court Rulings and the US Constitution DO NOT APPLY. It is the official opinion of the MD AG, the MDSP, and much of the General Assembly that MD is fully autonomous as a legal entity, and cannot be held to legal precedent, dictates, or standards of ANY outside entity, including the Federal Courts, or the US Constitution.

    Until the People of MD start holding their officials responsible for upholding their oaths, or the Federal Government starts holding them responsible to uphold Federal Case Law precedent, thus it will ever be...
    No.

    Maryland's wiretap law is a state statute. How the federal courts interpretUS statutes may be persuasive authority in regard to the interpretation of Maryland's statutes but is not binding on Maryland Courts.

    Maryland Courts do recognize that the USConstitution trumps their statutes.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    So, Donkey, under your understanding of the MD law, security cameras in private businesses which are open to the public (remember that "reasonable expectation of privacy/public access argument?) are illegal, and if an individual knows that there are such cameras, the owners of businesses must turn them off if a person does not consent with being recorded, if these cameras also record sound.

    Perhaps the best way to get this law changed in MD is for people to start filing lawsuits against private businesses or government offices that are not LEAs (like Libraries or the DMV) under this wiretapping statute. Think outside the box--look at this law NOT from the POV of a citizen, but as a business owner, and the potential liabilities implicit in that capacity.

    Permanently-installed "security cameras" in a vehicle might also be arguable legal, since they are for "security" purposes, and are designed to prevent or deter crime. If they were designed to automatically start by outside proximity sensors, and could not be de-activated once started, that would chage the "rules of the game" dramatically too. I mean, how would that look in the media if state and local LEA's started telling people they couldn't have security systems installed in their vehicles? It's all about perception.

    When someone who is being approached by an LEO whips out a camera and starts taping, it looks to some people (sheeple) like they are trying to entrap or harass the cop. But if you had an automatic security camera system in your car, I think even the sheeple would think it was unreasonable for an LEA to say such a thing constituted "wiretapping".

    I find it mildly ironic that when a citizen refuses to give extraneous information to an LEO that they have no legal right to, it's considered "trying to hide something", but when a public official, doing their job out in public, with no expectation of privacy, refuses to be recorded, it's considered to be some sort of "security measure" or "officer safety".

    The interesting thing about this "wiretapping" law is that is explicitly excluded the use of recording devices by LEOs, like cruiser dashcams.

    What's even more interesting, is that in almost EVERY instance of a questionable LEO action, their cruiser cams are found to be "non-operational"...

    I think that everyone who can (like college students, or people who have some spare time) should try to get some sort of official press credentials (like from college TV stations, or local community-access TV or something) and just record away. Because if an LEO trys to stop you from recording and you have press credentials, it becomes a clear-cut First Amendment (freedom of the press) issue, and in walk the Feds to prosecute them on a civil rights violation. Don't even bother with the courts. The $300 filing fee for a Federal Civil Rights lawsuit (where the Feds incur alll the expenses themselves) is a LOT more effective and economical than trying to fight it in MD courts (which are in the pockets of MD's LEO community) under MD laws (which are written to protect the State).

    If the game is rigged from the start, the best strategy is to play on a completely different field...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    The problem some police have with videos is due to the fact that videos can't lie. If videos can't lie, than neither can the police that are caught by them. The PG county beating of the UMD student is a perfect example.

    The reason cops like video of criminals, is because it helps prove crimes that are committed by them.

    The reason cops hate videos of themselves, is because it helps prove crimes that are committed by them.

    Its just crazy that any law or institution would try to prevent the video and audio recording of police doing their jobs. I hope the residents of Maryland can hold their legislators accountable for not make major changes to these rules in favor of truth and transparency. They could use the PG/UMD beating as a perfect example to make their point.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    Les habiles tyrans ne sont jamais punis.
    --Voltaire

    (Translation: Clever tyrants are never punished.)




    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    58

    Post imported post

    Was browsing liveleak and found this
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d48_1274832499

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    XDUser wrote:
    Was browsing liveleak and found this
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d48_1274832499
    More on this:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2010061505592



  14. #14
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    Only a criminal doesn't want to be recorded while doing their job...

    They just don't give up, do they?


    http://www.somdnews.com/stories/0616...48_32195.shtml


    Woman is arrested for recording deputy
    Prosecutor to review case
    Wednesday, June 16, 2010
    By JOHN WHARTON
    Staff writer

    St. Mary's sheriff's deputies responding to a noise complaint last weekend at a Lexington Park neighborhood report that they seized a woman's cell phone and charged her with illegally recording a conversation.

    Yvonne Nicole Shaw, 27, was taken to the St. Mary's jail after her arrest shortly after midnight Saturday at Colony Square, and a court commissioner ordered that she be released on personal recognizance.

    Sheriff's Cpl. Patrick Handy wrote in a statement of probable cause that he was talking to people in the neighborhood when he and another deputy spotted Shaw standing about 12 feet away and holding her cell phone "in a manner suggesting she was recording our activity."

    Handy seized the cell phone, reviewed its camcorder content and "could hear my voice and the voices of the other subjects I was talking to," the officer wrote in the charging papers, and he questioned Shaw.

    "She did admit to recording our encounter on her cell phone," the corporal wrote, "for the purpose of trying to show the police are harassing people."

    Shaw said Tuesday that she recorded the incident to show the conduct of the law officers.
    "I honestly did not know that I was not able to do that," Shaw said. "He just snatched my phone from me and locked me up."

    St. Mary's Sheriff Timothy K. Cameron (R) said Monday that the case will be presented to county prosecutors.

    "They're going to have to review the statement of charges and the officer's report to see whether they want to prosecute the case," the sheriff said.

    A conviction for the felony offense of unlawful interception of communication carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

    St. Mary's State's Attorney Richard D. Fritz (R) said Tuesday that "one may not surreptitiously record another person," but that the law's nuances arose during an investigation of former President Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky, whose comments about the relationship were recorded by another woman, Linda Tripp. A charge against Tripp of violating the Maryland law was dismissed because that particular statute requires proof that the defendant knows the law.

    "The person [making the recording] has to have a fair degree of knowledge that what they're doing is unlawful," Fritz said.

    "Cell phones are so pervasive," the prosecutor said, "that recording something that occurs in public raises a question of whether or not it's unlawful. If I'm convinced this was a public encounter that just happened to be recorded, I probably will not proceed with the prosecution. The facts will probably bear out that it was not a private one-on-one conversation."

    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  15. #15
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    Cell phones are so pervasive," the prosecutor said, "that recording something that occurs in public raises a question of whether or not it's unlawful. If I'm convinced this was a public encounter that just happened to be recorded, I probably will not proceed with the prosecution. The facts will probably bear out that it was not a private one-on-one conversation.
    Translation:

    "If the cop did something out-of line, I will suppress the video as evidence and prosecute the person who made the recording. If the video shows that the police acted within the law, I will not file charges against the citizen."

    How DARE a citizen attempt to hold the police accountable for their actions. And how DARE anyone attempt to document the rampant police misconduct in MD. The "prosecutor" knows that is is his job (under orders of the Governor and the MSP) to pummel the populace into utter submission through judicial intimidation, statutory abuse, and excessive fines and penalties. The MD judicial system WILL NOT tolerate citizens standing up for their rights, and holding public servants accountable.

    SIT DOWN and SHUT UP. You live in MD.

    You better get use to the feeling of a giant boot pressing into your face... forever....

    Because that's what the ultimate goal is. George Orwell wasn't a novelist--he was an author of political prophecy.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  16. #16
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    Radley Balko posted an EXCELLENT essay on this matter last month, and I suggest EVERYONE go read it...

    http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/29/ma...ay-its-illegal

    Apparently, it's not bad enough that MD police and DAs are actually charging people with felony wiretapping in violation of previous case law rulings and in DIRECT violation of the "expectation of privacy" provision of the MD statute, but the state AG has ruled that the police CAN record citizens without their consent and not be violating the law.

    And that guy on the motorcycle who is being charged with felony wiretapping--well, they're piling on other charges now. State's Attorney Joseph Cassilly has also charged Graber with "Possession of an Interception Device."

    So apparently in MD is it now illegal to simply OWN a device capable of recording sound, let alone to use it...

    Two sets of law for two classes of people...

    MD does not have a government--it is being operated as an organized criminal enterprise...

    RICO charges, folks---someone needs to start bringing up RICO charges on the thugs in Annapolis and Pikesville...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Excellent article: thank you, Dreamer.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    So here is an interesting situation...

    I testified before the MD General Assembly earlier this year in support of HB-52. Also present was a representative from MSP--the director of their permitting division, who testified on the "negative" side.

    The MD GA, as a matter of routine, videotapes ALL Committee sessions, this one included.

    I've got an uneditied, raw copy of the entire proceeding on order through one of the sponsoring delegates, and it should arrive next week. I'm planning to edit it down into manageable clips highlighting some of the more notable moments, and post them on YouTube.

    Since this was a public proceeding, and therefore 1) a matter of public record, and 2) protected under the 1A as "journalism", do I need permission from the different speakers to post their speeches?

    And secondly, and most importantly, can I post the MSP spokesman's bit, without running afoul of MD's spurious wiretapping "laws", if I don't have the consent of this officer?

    And third, would re-posting these video segments be protected under "fair use", and not require the standard "journalistic releases" to use other people's images and voices?

    Should I even care?

  19. #19
    Regular Member Sig229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    And third, would re-posting these video segments be protected under "fair use", and not require the standard "journalistic releases" to use other people's images and voices?

    Should I even care?
    Im not a lawyer, but I dont think it would matter. It IS public record and all parties participating in the proceeding KNEW they were being recorded.

    But if you dont feel comfortable doing it, I will post all of it.

    Damn, i cant wait to see that footage.

    And good for you speaking up on behalf of the 2A!
    "Let your gun be your constant companion during your walks" ~Thomas Jefferson

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    376
    If you record a conversation without the permission of both participants, you can be in violation of the Wiretap law in Maryland.

    Videotaping without sound was legal last time I checked the statute, however.


    You need to recheck the statute and read some caselaw. MD requires an expectation of privacy for the law to be in effect, AND you have to know that your conduct is illegal. You are a failure at this station. Go read some caselaw and statutes.

    Anyone who thinks that recording the cops in MD is illegal or anyone else for that matter in PUBLIC, post ONE single court opinion for a conviction civil or criminal for the wiretapping statute under those circumstances.

    The law isn't the problem. It is ignorant people (both cops and non-cops) who think that the law applies in circumstances where it does not.

    Apparently, it's not bad enough that MD police and DAs are actually charging people with felony wiretapping in violation of previous case law rulings and in DIRECT violation of the "expectation of privacy" provision of the MD statute
    Insert 42 USc 1983 lawsuit here with no qualified immunity.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Well, it looks like Ms Shaw's charges have been dropped by the St. Marys County States Attorney...

    But I think the threats made against her, and the trauma of being charged with a felony probably served to "get the point across" just fine, even without a trial or conviction. The message that MD is sending to it's citizens is that it might not be illegal to video cops, but if we catch you doing it, we'll make your life a living hell for a few months, including additional incidents of harassment and selective enforcement, to put you in your place...


    http://www.somdnews.com/stories/0623...18_32318.shtml


    Fritz says recording of deputy legal
    State's attorney to drop charges against woman whose cell phone was snatched
    Wednesday, June 23, 2010

    By JOHN WHARTON
    Staff writer

    St. Mary's County's top prosecutor said Tuesday that he will dismiss the charges against a Lexington Park woman whose cell phone was snatched by a lawman as she recorded his actions.

    Yvonne Nicole Shaw, 27, said this week that a St. Mary's sheriff's deputy followed her into a friend's home to arrest her on a felony charge from the incident.

    Shaw awaits a preliminary inquiry in court this week on the charge of unlawful interception of communication. She said Monday she is scheduled to meet next week with State's Attorney Richard Fritz, who indicated Tuesday that the charges will be dropped.

    "I'm not proceeding forward on that," Fritz said.

    St. Mary's sheriff's Cpl. Patrick Handy remains on full active duty, the county sheriff said this week, as an internal-affairs investigation of the June 12 incident continues. The sheriff said all of his officers might receive additional training on the issue of how to conduct themselves in a similar situation.

    As of Monday, Shaw had spent almost $200 to buy a cell phone, and now faces a possible $60 fine after another sheriff's deputy gave her a ticket last week in the same neighborhood for having a faulty tag light on her car. She said Handy was among four other deputies who responded to the scene of the traffic stop.

    Shaw was at the Colony Square neighborhood shortly after midnight on the Saturday morning of June 12, when Handy and other officers responded there on what he described in court papers as a noise complaint.

    Shaw said about a dozen teenagers left the area as police arrived, and that she got out her cell phone because of the way Handy was talking to her friend, who lives in the community.

    "He was being very aggressive, and I decided to record it," she said, adding that another officer pointed her out to Handy before he grabbed her phone. She said she went back into her friend's home.

    "I went inside to call dispatch[ers at the sheriff's office] to see if he could take my phone, and he came in the house," she said. "He put handcuffs on me in front of all the kids."

    Sabrina Mawson, the home's occupant, said she spoke to the officer as he came in.

    "I said, ‘You all can't come in my house without permission or a search warrant,'" Mawson said Monday outside her home. "He said, "We're looking for the girl whose phone we took.' They woke up all the kids. He kept saying he was going to lock me up, and that I better get out of my house."

    Shaw was released on personal recognizance after her arrest, and St. Mary's Sheriff Timothy K. Cameron (R) said his agency's administrative investigations of the matter commenced early last week.

    "It's under review at several levels," the sheriff said Monday during an interview at his office.

    All new officers joining the sheriff's office receive training on media relations, Cameron said, and this month's incident could prompt instruction on how to respond to cell-phone recording by the general public.

    "Likely there'll be training, for everybody in the agency," Cameron said. "I stand firmly behind the public's right to hold law enforcement accountable. You can expect when you're out in public, you're going to be filmed all the time."

    Toward that end, the sheriff said he is asking the county commissioners to back his longstanding effort to get a $500,000 federal grant to put video cameras in all patrol cruisers.

    "Ninety-nine percent of the time, it benefits the officers," the sheriff said. "It [also] benefits the public."

    The benefit of improving citizen assistance to police at Colony Square suffered a potential setback after this month's incident.

    "Sometimes, they use their badge in the wrong kind of way," Angel Mawson said outside her sister's home. "My kids don't even like the police, now."

    Fritz said Tuesday that Handy had probable cause to make the arrest, but that a review of the case showed that Shaw did not know of the state law against voice recording without consent, and that the police officers' conversations in a public place is not protected by the statute.

    "There's also a public policy issue here," Fritz said, adding that although there was no indication of misconduct by Handy, the public's recording of law officers' conduct is helpful to police agencies.

    Shaw said she'll take the tag-light citation issued early last Friday morning by sheriff's deputy Kevin Meyer to court.

    "I'm not going to pay it," she said. "He could have just given me [an equipment repair] order."

    Shaw said she overheard Handy talking to one of the other officers at the scene of the traffic stop.

    "He told the officer that I'm the girl that had him on the front page of the newspaper," Shaw said.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    376
    The Maryland Atty Gen says that I am right and you are wrong. Video/audio taping is ok.

    http://www.oag.state.md.us/Topics/WI..._ROSENBERG.pdf

  23. #23
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by codename_47 View Post
    The Maryland Atty Gen says that I am right and you are wrong. Video/audio taping is ok.

    http://www.oag.state.md.us/Topics/WI..._ROSENBERG.pdf

    Well, someone needs to circulate that memo with the MSP and the various County an Municipal LEAs, because apparently, they either haven't read it, or they have conveniently forgotten. Because the have continued to arrest people for violatng th e MD Wiretappng statute for recording in public...

    I'm not disputing the law. I KNOW the MD wiretapping law. I'm just saying that DESPITE the law, and the AG's ruling, the LEAs in MD continue to disregard the wording and requirements of the law, and continue to use this as a "color of law" bullying technique. Until the LEAs in MD are officially corrected (by lawsuit or AG sanction), they will continue to use this "color of law" bullying technique of charging people for a felony when they hav broken no law.

    Getting a felony charge thrown out by the DA is a good thing. But these people should never be charged inthe first place. If LEAs don't even understand the stipulations of a specific law (that comes with a felony charge) they are sworn to uphold, there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with their training.

    Video recording is pervasive. Everyone has cell phones with recorders in them now. Video recording happens all the time, and people whip out their cell phones and pocket video recorders all the time--tourists, students, concerned citizens--and record police interaction these days. If the police don't understand how the laws of MD work, then someone needs to address this massive failure in training.

    Being charged with a felony--even if not conviceted--is a traumatc experience. It can get you fired, adversely effect your eduction, and can cost a LOT of money in terms of legal fees.

    This needs to stop, and the State of MD needs to stop it now...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    376
    Dude, they HAVE the memo. They just don't care because there is no penalty for arresting someone and harassing them. People need to sue these morons into compliance, but people are afraid to. Heck, they are afraid to engage in 100% legal activity. Sue them and they will stop.

  25. #25
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •