• 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.

Videotaping police activity is risky

Mr H

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
286
Location
AA Co., Maryland, USA
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.
 

The Donkey

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

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
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.
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
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_case?case=15651243740111743462&q=Maryland+wiretap+permission&hl=en&as_sdt=80000000000002
 

Sig229

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
926
Location
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
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.
 

Dreamer

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

The Donkey

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

Dreamer

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

MK

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
396
Location
USA
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.
 

Dreamer

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

Les habiles tyrans ne sont jamais punis.
--Voltaire

(Translation: Clever tyrants are never punished.)
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
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/06162010/entetop162348_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."
 

Dreamer

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

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
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/maryland-cops-say-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...
 

Dreamer

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

Sig229

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
926
Location
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
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!
 

codename_47

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
376
Location
, ,
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.
 
Top