Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-05-2010, 10:02 AM   #16
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
This case is not about the speeding.

This case is not about the use of force or the drawn gun either.

This case is about the camera.


The State of Maryland is trying to put this guy in jail for 16 years because he had a video camera on his helmet and filmed a public official (police officer) while he was performing his duties.

We've all got to remember that the police work for us - we pay their salaries through our taxes - not the other way around.
No, I disagree, while the case being argued is the wire tap law, the problem is that the case being presented is the rights of people to endanger the lives of others by knowingly breaking the law, and then using photography and the first ammendment to justify it.

The first ammendment does not provide the explicit right of people to commit crimes just because they are holding a camera.

Edit note, Maybe a lawyer from MD can join in and advise us of the legal status of the video. Are the proceeds of a crime illegal? is it because the video is considered illegal because it is a self made documentation of an illegal act, that it has caused the charges to be raised?

This case is very different in many respects because the photographer has comitted a crime to make the video.

08-05-2010, 10:10 AM   #17
Pentaxian
MRRiley's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling, VA, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,276
Lowell, what is the "normal process?" And who are the "responsible authorities? The chief? Internal affairs? Possible, but its rarely fruitful to report a cop to another cop. And there is no legal requirement to "go thru channels" (in the U.S. anyway). The motorcyclist could have just as readily sent the video off to CNN, but there is little guarantee that it would get attention that way... So the commonsense answer is to go public on the internet. I see nothing wrong with that, especially in a case like this.

And the question here has nothing whatsoever to do with the motorcyclist's stupid 127mph joyride. The recklessness of such behavior is not in doubt, and as a motorcyclist myself, I think he should get whats coming to him for that stunt. I seriously doubt that anyone here on the forum will dispute that fact...

However, the officer had very little justification for pulling his firearm. Police rarely approach traffic violators with drawn weapons. That is normally reserved for known or suspected violent offenders. And your assertion that though the gun "was pointed down" that it was "not threatening" is almost laughable. Having someone jumping out of a car with a drawn weapon after cutting you off at a light is very definately threatening and the officer intended it as such "See here guy... I have my gun out and if you don't cooperate I am prepared to shoot you ... for reckless driving." and btw, it was nearly 5 seconds before the officer identified himself.

Even that though has little to do with the situation we are discussing... that of the man being charged and his personal property searched and seized 3 weeks after the fact because they decided it was illegal to videotape a police officer in the performance of his duties on the side of the road. That they decided, was wiretapping.

Fortunately, the MD Attorney General's office has recently released an opinion that the wiretaping statutes are being misapplied by the police and prosecuters as regards recording police activity in public (see my initial reply to this thread). It's likely that even in light of that opinion that the MD legislature will be revisiting and clarifying their wiretapping laws.

Again, I don't know anyone who is defending the motorcyclist's reckless behavior, but his videotapping the interaction and then posting it online was completely reasonable and should be completely legal.

Mike

Last edited by MRRiley; 08-05-2010 at 10:16 AM. Reason: darned typos
08-05-2010, 10:23 AM   #18
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
I don't think a speeding or wreckless driving by a cyclist warranted the pulling of a piece by a plain closed officer from an unmarked vehicle. The dash came video from the second cop car should be subpoenaed. If it wasn't for the car in the rear, it wouldn't have been obvious that the guy in plain cloths was a cop. He looks like a punk to me. The way he cut into the front of the bike was gambling with the cyclist's safety. The cyclist should have been cited for speeding and/or wreckless driving. The rest is B.S.

Furthermore, even if the plain cloths officer got reprimanded by IAD, it would be sealed in his personnel file which isn't public record. Its like a college or high school transcript and is part of the privacy act.

On a side note, two officers in the local sheriff's office were fired and arrested this week for smuggling and selling contraband into the county jail. There arrest mug shots were with held from the local paper. All other arrest mug shots for the week from the sheriff's office and TPD are submitted and published in the Sunday Paper including the web version of the paper. Its not out of the realm of possibility that the Fraternal Order of Police will get them their jobs back trough arbitration.
08-05-2010, 10:44 AM   #19
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
Mike

yes internal affairs is the correct place to start, with respect to channels.

with respect to the wire tap law, you are also probably also correct, it may be the wrong law to use, unless there is something about the recording must be obtained without breaking any laws, and that is the whole point. The motorcyclist was breaking the laws. That is why I asked for a MD lawyer to offer comment, he may know the statute explicitly.

My issue is not photographing the police at work, but the deliberate comitting of a crime in order to take photographs of police at work.

08-05-2010, 10:51 AM   #20
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
The way he cut into the front of the bike was gambling with the cyclist's safety.
Ok, so explain to me why it is OK for the cyclist to endanger the public at large, but not OK to stop him forceably?

Wouold you have the same opinion of someone shooting a gun in public, and the police shooting him to stop him?
08-05-2010, 10:56 AM   #21
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,185
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
No, I disagree, while the case being argued is the wire tap law, the problem is that the case being presented is the rights of people to endanger the lives of others by knowingly breaking the law, and then using photography and the first ammendment to justify it.

The first ammendment does not provide the explicit right of people to commit crimes just because they are holding a camera.

Edit note, Maybe a lawyer from MD can join in and advise us of the legal status of the video. Are the proceeds of a crime illegal? is it because the video is considered illegal because it is a self made documentation of an illegal act, that it has caused the charges to be raised?

This case is very different in many respects because the photographer has comitted a crime to make the video.
Lowell, you may interpret the case that way, but the case is specifically about the wire tapping law. The rider (Anthony Graber) is being indicted for wire-tapping. Nearly a month later, six police officers came to Graber's place of residence with a warrant and seized 4 computers, external hard drives and the video camera.

Please note that they did not seize Graber's motorcycle or his helmet or even his keys. If that doesn't suggest to you that this isn't about the motorcycle, then I'm not sure what will.

And regarding process, AFAIK Graber is not complaining that the penalties for speeding were unjust. In fact he's said that he deserved it. AFAIK, Graber filed no complaints about how he was treated by the police office. AFAIK, the state of MD went after him - with 6 police officers at his door - not the other way.

Look at it this way - Graber would not be facing these wiretapping charges if he did not have a camera on his bike.

Likewise, Graber would not likely be facing these wiretapping charges if he had not posted the video on YouTube.

Likewise, Graber would not likely be facing these wiretapping charges had the video not included the part where the police officer drew his gun. There are hundreds of riders with YouTube videos pulling stunts on public highways - they aren't being accused of wire tapping.


Here's more on the matter.

Traffic stop video on YouTube sparks debate on police use of Md. wiretap laws


Graber was wrong for speeding. The state of MD is wrong for restricting his right to photograph/film in public. Two wrongs do not make a right.
08-05-2010, 11:28 AM   #22
Pentaxian
MRRiley's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling, VA, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,276
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
Mike

yes internal affairs is the correct place to start, with respect to channels.

with respect to the wire tap law, you are also probably also correct, it may be the wrong law to use, unless there is something about the recording must be obtained without breaking any laws, and that is the whole point. The motorcyclist was breaking the laws. That is why I asked for a MD lawyer to offer comment, he may know the statute explicitly.

My issue is not photographing the police at work, but the deliberate comitting of a crime in order to take photographs of police at work.
Yet there is no legal requirement for a citizen to avail themselves of "internal affairs, Lowell. And you are still ignoring the "thin blue line." Cops protect cops!

Now as for your assertion about "videotapping during the commission of a crime" Graber was not breaking any laws at the time that the officer jumped out of his car, drew his weapon and demanded that he get off of the bike. He was stopped by that time. He was not speediing or riding recklessly at that point! In short, the predicate crime had, for all practical purposes, ceased at that point.

I also doubt very seriously that Graber did all this with the intent of getting caught so he could incite a police officer to pull him over, much less to get him to draw his weapon.

Mike

p.s. Lowell, let me ask you a hypothetical question.

What would your position be if the video had been shot by a bystander (say the stop occured at an intersection with some level of pedestrian activity) who then posted it to YouTube? What then if the poster had been charged with the same wiretapping violation?

Last edited by MRRiley; 08-05-2010 at 11:37 AM.
08-05-2010, 12:46 PM   #23
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
mike

in response to the hypothetical question, it is completely different, and would clearly be a case of abuse of authority because the photographer himself had not comitted any crime, or broken laws that resulted in contact with the police.

with respect to the footage and the fact that at the time of being arrested he was no longer comitting the crime he was pulled over for, is splitting hairs. The entire interaction was the direct result of comitting a crime.

THe issue would be completely different if the motor cyclist had been driving in full accordance with the laws

08-05-2010, 01:03 PM   #24
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
QuoteOriginally posted by MRRiley Quote
Yet there is no legal requirement for a citizen to avail themselves of "internal affairs, Lowell. And you are still ignoring the "thin blue line." Cops protect cops!

Now as for your assertion about "videotapping during the commission of a crime" Graber was not breaking any laws at the time that the officer jumped out of his car, drew his weapon and demanded that he get off of the bike. He was stopped by that time. He was not speediing or riding recklessly at that point! In short, the predicate crime had, for all practical purposes, ceased at that point.

I also doubt very seriously that Graber did all this with the intent of getting caught so he could incite a police officer to pull him over, much less to get him to draw his weapon.

Mike

p.s. Lowell, let me ask you a hypothetical question.

What would your position be if the video had been shot by a bystander (say the stop occured at an intersection with some level of pedestrian activity) who then posted it to YouTube? What then if the poster had been charged with the same wiretapping violation?
Mike

I looked up the use of making recordings and the issue in this specific case would really require a full court and lawyers. specicically for one point. The recording is not to be used in any criminal act. I do not know, if by braking the law to make the recording, constitutes using the recording for a criminal act.

As I have said all along, the big issue for me is the deliberate braking of laws to make a photo/video, and while I agree we should have the rights to photograp things in public, that right should not be exploited to protect us from prosicution for braking the laws.
08-05-2010, 01:06 PM   #25
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
Ok, so explain to me why it is OK for the cyclist to endanger the public at large, but not OK to stop him forceably?

Wouold you have the same opinion of someone shooting a gun in public, and the police shooting him to stop him?
The cyclist pulled over when the marked car came up behind him with the blue lights on. I already said, write the guy a citation for speeding and/or wreckless driving. The cyclist never pulled a gun here so you are creating a strawman argument with the gun analogy. A plan cloths officer shouldn't be pulling a gun in a routine traffic stop and should be there to back up the traffic officer. Any time some one clears leather regardless of whether its a cop or a robber, you are that much closer to getting shot.

You keep talking about this guy breaking the law, he didn't. Move on beyond the speeding/wreckless driving here. You guys do things differently up in Canada. The proper channels isn't necessarily IAD. That's only one facet. That's like BP running the evaluation on there cleanup efforts in the Gulf. What we have in Maryland is the bending of a wiretap law to suit the cops for a long time. If you go back and look at the opinion of the top guy in 2001 when the dash cams were put in the Maryland cop cars, it was the opinion that it wasn't breaking the wiretap laws. If it is, the cops need to arrest themselves on about 1 Billion counts of wire tap violations.
08-05-2010, 01:09 PM   #26
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
mike

in response to the hypothetical question, it is completely different, and would clearly be a case of abuse of authority because the photographer himself had not comitted any crime, or broken laws that resulted in contact with the police.

with respect to the footage and the fact that at the time of being arrested he was no longer comitting the crime he was pulled over for, is splitting hairs. The entire interaction was the direct result of comitting a crime.

THe issue would be completely different if the motor cyclist had been driving in full accordance with the laws
Speeding doesn't make you a criminal. It is a traffic violation and misdemeanor. The arrest was made for the wiretap violation some time after the speeding stop. They also hauled off 4 of his computers.
08-05-2010, 01:17 PM   #27
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Speeding doesn't make you a criminal. It is a traffic violation and misdemeanor. The arrest was made for the wiretap violation some time after the speeding stop. They also hauled off 4 of his computers.
I don't know about MD but in Ontario canada, speeds in excess of 50 km/h over the limit (30 mph over the limit for the metric impared) are now actually a criminal offence, and in his video he is showing 127 mph which is at least (assuming SSL of 75 mph 52 mph over the limit). The distinction is this would be classed as dangerous driving, not speeding. Dangerous driving is a criminal offence. But again, you would need to look at MD laws for that distinction.

The other issue, and look at the response to mike and the applicability of secret recordings, is the use. Secret recordings are illegal and subject to wire tap laws if they are used criminally. SOmeone (other than us forum members) needs to determine this. Does deliberately breaking the laws to make a recording make them intended for criminal use? etc...,

We won't solve it in the forum, and as I said, I personally think this type of discussion where someone has broken laws to make a recording is the wrong case to argue about the rights of photographers.
08-05-2010, 01:46 PM   #28
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
I don't know about MD but in Ontario canada, speeds in excess of 50 km/h over the limit (30 mph over the limit for the metric impared) are now actually a criminal offence, and in his video he is showing 127 mph which is at least (assuming SSL of 75 mph 52 mph over the limit). The distinction is this would be classed as dangerous driving, not speeding. Dangerous driving is a criminal offence. But again, you would need to look at MD laws for that distinction.
I'm sure we want to start filling up the jails with speeders. That said, he could have been hauled in for wreckless driving but wasn't.

QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
The other issue, and look at the response to mike and the applicability of secret recordings, is the use. Secret recordings are illegal and subject to wire tap laws if they are used criminally. SOmeone (other than us forum members) needs to determine this. Does deliberately breaking the laws to make a recording make them intended for criminal use? etc...,
These same laws apply to the police. However, I suggest you leave your cameras at home from now on or turn yourself in to your local goulag. sarcasm

QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
We won't solve it in the forum, and as I said, I personally think this type of discussion where someone has broken laws to make a recording is the wrong case to argue about the rights of photographers.
In the U.S., the government's power comes from the people and not the other way around. That is why I try to be proactive and encourage others to be proactive.
08-05-2010, 02:03 PM   #29
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canada eh!
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 674
QuoteOriginally posted by Rupert Quote
Cops in general do not have a "pristine" reputation, and part of that is due to video of their too often abuse of power.
Motorcycle riders in general do not have a "pristine" reputation, and part of that is due to video of their too often driving like morons.


QuoteQuote:
Graber would not be facing these wiretapping charges if he did not have a camera on his bike.
Graber wouldn't be facing ANY charges if he wasn't speeding and driving like a moron.

08-05-2010, 02:28 PM   #30
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,185
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Leaf Fan Quote
Motorcycle riders in general do not have a "pristine" reputation, and part of that is due to video of their too often driving like morons.

Hey man, don't start stereotyping motorcycle riders, or else I'll have no choice but to start stereotyping Leafs fans!
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
cop, guy, photo industry, photography, video
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DC Police - Illegal to take photos of people or police in public MRRiley Photographic Technique 109 08-06-2010 10:46 AM
Architecture Old Prison HDR timstone Photo Critique 15 04-20-2010 06:46 PM
Architecture Prison timstone Post Your Photos! 7 04-15-2010 01:17 AM
Architecture A Brutalist Prison paulyrichard Post Your Photos! 7 02-02-2010 11:39 AM
Martyr's prison ikonographics Post Your Photos! 5 05-30-2009 08:51 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:22 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top