Skidmark speaks out. Exclusive interview.

Thanks for taking the time with this interview (to all involved). I look forward to "future installments"...

skidmark - keep up the good fight and "stay safe".

What is going on here reminds me of this story:

Police Officer Puts Minor in Choke-Hold, Charges with Felony Battery Over Air Kisses

Bob Hope once charged that “people who throw kisses are . . . hopelessly lazy.” Former Bradenton Beach (Florida) Police Officer Tim Matthews thinks that they are also forms of battery. Matthews is the subject of a lawsuit after he arrested a 14-year-old bloy who blew a kiss at him.

Matthews was hit by the flying kiss when he was patrolling near Coquina Beach in his car. It was a nightmare. One second everything was normal and then suddenly Lance Lewis, 14, and Veronica Lewis, 18, turned and sent Lewis fired off the kiss. At least one of the air kisses penetrated the car (presumably the window was open) and hit Matthews. One of my longest standing complaints is that bullet-proof vests leave the neck and face exposed — prime targets historically for blown or delivered kisses.

Click to expand...

http://jonathanturley.org/2010/12/0...elony-battery-after-being-hit-by-an-air-kiss/

Part I of the suspense-filled saga of Skidmark's treatment at the hands of over eager public safety individuals ends with our hero being carted off to the hoosegow.

Why? What nefarious criminal charges does he face? Will he be able to post bail? Will justice be served?

Stay tuned to learn our stalwart hero's fate as he stands up for his (and our) constitutional rights!

thanks for the video! btw, what cafe/restaurant is that?

confedneck said:

thanks for the video! btw, what cafe/restaurant is that?

Click to expand...

Thank You!

It's River City Diner. One of my favorites. They are gun friendly, great service and extremely tolerant. I've done a number of interviews there.

It's the one on Parham.

Peter Nap posted this elswhere here:
[video=vimeo;17711336]http://vimeo.com/17711336[/video]

TFred said:

Yeah, I'm just saying... we've all seen the movies... so have these Surry County boys... I'd watch my back, my front, my house, my car, just about everything. It's not too hard to figure out who some of the major players are here, and sadly I would not be at all surprised if some of these boys down there realize that the fan is about to become soiled, and decide to leave some "little presents" for other LEOs to find, maybe after an anonymous tip or two get called in.

Paranoid? Maybe. Likely? Maybe not. Possible? You better believe it. If only half what's been alleged here is true and found so by a court of law, these boys are in for a serious lifestyle change. Nobody likes that kind of change.

TFred

Click to expand...

I hear ya'. I had a friend who was fond of saying, "paranoids live longer".

Remember, boys and girls...

"Just because you're paranoid,

don't mean they're not after you."

ComradeV said:

So, essentially one can just stick an audio recorder under a park bench and come by and collect the recordings, no problem?

Click to expand...

Correct.

eye95 said:

I suspect that a court would rule that any quiet conversations held at that bench were held with an expectation of privacy. I think some are overbroadly interpreting the planted-GPS ruling.

I could be wrong. IANAL.

Click to expand...

The thing is that we're talking about Fourth Amendment privacy, not First Amendment privacy. In order to have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" you have to have the power to exclude others and to actually do so. It isn't the actual penetration of the Cone of Silence that counts, it's the possibility of access. If someone could sneak up and stick a recorder under the park bench without trespassing, then, by definition, the people who park their butts there and chatter away have no reasonable expectation of privacy. The reason it's defined that way is to give the widest possible latittude to law enforcement folks.

So to clarify, there is basically "0-party consent" when there is no expectation of privacy. When there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, however, one party con sent still applies? As in, if I am on the phone with someone, and I am actually a legitimate party to the conversation, in a single party consent state, can I record without informing?

sultan62 said:

So to clarify, there is basically "0-party consent" when there is no expectation of privacy. When there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, however, one party con sent still applies? As in, if I am on the phone with someone, and I am actually a legitimate party to the conversation, in a single party consent state, can I record without informing?

Click to expand...

Yes, though if the other party is in Maryland, you may be committing a felony in Maryland. In cases involving telephones, the acts of both parties are deemed to be taking place at both ends of the connection. However, if a person is listening in, or even recording, using a hard-wired extension telephone, that's just using the 'phone, even though he's not a party to the conversation, and is legal in Virginia. That's why the jails can record prisoners' conversations over the telephone with other people, including their physicians, clergy, and lawyers. Just because some piece of the conversation is privileged doesn't mean there's any reason to think one's conversation is private.

If you want to have a pretty much guaranteed "reasonable expectation of privacy", go to a room in your own home where you can close the door; make sure first that no one's standing around in a position to overhear; then check the room thoroughly to make sure no one's inside a closet, under the bed, etc. Then you can have a private conversation with any number of people whom you bring into the room for that purpose. (Eight people can have a "private conversation".) Ok, that establishes one endpoint for the continuum. The other endpoint is trying to have a conversation with one other person in a crowded elevator. No expectation of privacy at all in that situation. In between is an enormous range of human activity, and it generally requires a judge to make something up "as a matter of law" whether a reasonable expectation of privacy existed.

You also have to look at what is being released in these recordings/video's.

User is defending Skidmark. That's his job and he does it very well. He is able to gather information with tools like subpoena's and good old examination on a witness stand.

I am doing a documentary. I have to dig in a little different manner.
Even then, I have a policy of not releasing personal or embarrassing information that doesn't have a purpose.

This particular case is a little more difficult. The issue at hand is near and dear to me and the fact that Skidmark is a friend, makes it even more urgent that I respect the privacy of others.

I could add the address and phone number of everyone. I have them. I have found one person who is cheating on his wife and another that is described as "Lazy" by one person and "Sleeps on duty" by another.

That wouldn't add anything the credibility of this Doc, it would only peek into the private affairs of others when it is unnecessary and unproductive.

I have hours of video that involve VDOT employees. These are working people and pretty decent folks. If I add it to this project they could easily be fired or at least disciplined. That would be a pretty low trick for a few extra minutes of exposure that I don't need and wouldn't shed any light on the focus of the Documentary.

What I'm getting at is that privacy isn't really a legal issue. It's a moral problem that we all have to set our own limits on.

FWIW, I've started a lot of projects and then just let them drop because the content went past the limits I set, and couldn't be finished without that information coming to light.

OMG - they arrested Santa!!
For what?
Pointing his finger!
Huh?
Yeah, that's what the rest of us think, too.

Nice job on the interview, thanks to Skid for sharing.
This event will be at least as popcorn-worthy as the Madison 5.

sultan62 said:

My head went to Schrodinger's cat, and I was trying to make that work and couldn't.

Click to expand...

Me too.

peter nap said:

I could add the address and phone number of everyone. I have them. I have found one person who is cheating on his wife and another that is described as "Lazy" by one person and "Sleeps on duty" by another.

That wouldn't add anything the credibility of this Doc, it would only peek into the private affairs of others when it is unnecessary and unproductive.

I have hours of video that involve VDOT employees. These are working people and pretty decent folks. If I add it to this project they could easily be fired or at least disciplined. That would be a pretty low trick for a few extra minutes of exposure that I don't need and wouldn't shed any light on the focus of the Documentary.

Click to expand...

...And with that you have now made yourself a target of these same people. Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer my friend. We are new at this and are working one case at a time and would hate to add another this soon in the process!

peter nap said:

I have them. I have found one person who is cheating on his wife and another that is described as "Lazy" by one person and "Sleeps on duty" by another.

That wouldn't add anything the credibility of this Doc, it would only peek into the private affairs of others when it is unnecessary and unproductive.

Click to expand...

True, but wouldn't it show the character (or lack of same) of these people? Also an issue with sleeping on the job. This person is stealing from the employer (taxpayers), the ones that sign the paychecks.

rodbender said:

True, but wouldn't it show the character (or lack of same) of these people? Also an issue with sleeping on the job. This person is stealing from the employer (taxpayers), the ones that sign the paychecks.

Click to expand...

That's a battle for another day rodbender. The character of these people will be shown as it pertains to this case.

user said:

... the acts of both parties are deemed to be taking place at both ends of the connection. ...
If you want to have a pretty much guaranteed "reasonable expectation of privacy"....

Click to expand...

and don't use the internet or call overseas...

WIRETAP law

ComradeV said:

So, essentially one can just stick an audio recorder under a park bench and come by and collect the recordings, no problem?

Click to expand...

NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT!

In Virginia, it is ILLEGAL to record oral/phone/radio communications in most instances.
I was part of the discussion when the Virginia laws were passed regarding this, back in the seventies, and I just went online to check the current status of the laws.
All of this is covered in the Code of Virginia, in Chapter 6of Title 19.2, Criminal Procedure. It's online at <http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+TOC19020000006000000000000>.
Details are spelled out in the Code, but for our purposes you only need to know two things.
Thing One is from § 19.2-62 A:
A. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who:
1. Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, electronic or oral communication;
[ . . . or gets someone else to do so, or discloses the contents of such interception, or]
4. Intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.
[Notice that word, "felony", i.e. no more gun rights for the rest of your life.]
Thing Two is from § 19.2-62 B (2.):
It shall not be a criminal offense under this chapter for a person to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.
<http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+19.2-62>
In other words, you can record -- or give permission to others to record -- any conversation in which you're participating. As far as I'm aware, there have been no court decisions changing the plain language of the statute.
If you are NOT a party to the conversation, or do not fall within one of the other exceptions, then you're risking up to five years in the pen, PLUS a fine of up to $2,500, PLUS your rights to vote and/or possess a firearm for the rest of your life.

FreeRoy said:

NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT!

In Virginia, it is ILLEGAL to record oral/phone/radio communications in most instances.

I was part of the discussion when the Virginia laws were passed regarding this, back in the seventies, and I just went online to check the current status of the laws.

All of this is covered in the Code of Virginia, in Chapter 6of Title 19.2, Criminal Procedure. It's online at Chapter 6 - Interception of Wire, Electronic or Oral Communications.

Details are spelled out in the Code, but for our purposes you only need to know two things.

Thing One is from § 19.2-62 A:

A. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who:

1. Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, electronic or oral communication;
[ . . . or gets someone else to do so, or discloses the contents of such interception, or]
4. Intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.​

[Notice that word, "felony", i.e. no more gun rights for the rest of your life.]

Thing Two is from § 19.2-62 B (2.):

It shall not be a criminal offense under this chapter for a person to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.​

In other words, you can record -- or give permission to others to record -- any conversation in which you're participating. As far as I'm aware, there have been no court decisions changing the plain language of the statute.

If you are NOT a party to the conversation, or do not fall within one of the other exceptions, then you're risking up to five years in the pen, PLUS a fine of up to $2,500, PLUS your rights to vote and/or possess a firearm for the rest of your life.

Click to expand...

IANAL, but I believe most of the "expectation of privacy" provisions have come from court cases. If that is the case, then it's kind of hard to track down the actual current state of the law.

There are plenty of "well duh" examples one can think of to show why this is fairly important, otherwise you'd have a law similar to the GFSZA, which makes almost literally every non-permitted gun carrier a felon.

An easy one: mom video taping kids birthday party at McDonalds... happens to catch a conversation of a nearby party not participating. FELON for life!!

Do you think that is good law?

TFred

P.S. Embedded links and a little spacing and indenting go a long way toward readability!