News: Man Faces Up To 16 Years In Prison For Videotaping The Police

johnmflores · 08-02-2010, 12:14 AM

You may remember the video from a couple of months ago - a guy on a motorcycle is joyriding on the highway before being pulled over by an off-duty (or undercover, I don't remember) cop who draws his gun before identifying himself as a cop.

The guy on the bike puts the video on YouTube and now all hell is breaking loose:

AZspot

It's good to see the ACLU get involved and that these stories are getting more and more press. In the words of Carlos Miller, "Photography is not a crime"

MRRiley · 08-02-2010, 06:40 AM

Given the recent opinion released by the MD Attorney General's office it seems highly likely that this and the couple of other similar cases under way in MD will be dropped. That will open the way for civil suits of illegal police harrasment and wrongful prosecution.

See... https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-talk/109271-recording-police-like...-maryland.html & Recording police OK - baltimoresun.com

Mike

Blue · 08-02-2010, 07:30 AM

The irony in MD is that the cops were doing this under the auspices of wire tapping laws. The FBI is currently pushing for the ability to get peoples email records from there ISP provider without a warrant. Its bad enough currently with just requiring a judge and a national security letter. Its interesting that wire tapping seems to only apply to the Fuzz.

The wire tap laws need to be re-written and done so such that it doesn't take 3 Philadelphia lawyers to figure them out. They should state the obvious to include phones, cell phones, email etc., and bugging peoples homes, offices, shops and autos. The laws should further clarify the cameras outside of said items aren't the same thing.

MRRiley · 08-02-2010, 08:48 AM

And the police and countless 'security agencies" certainly don't mind recording or videotaping citizens do they... Whats good for the goose is good for the gander...

Rupert · 08-03-2010, 06:40 AM

Cops in general do not have a "pristine" reputation, and part of that is due to video of their too often abuse of power. So....they apparently think the answer is to stop the filming. Adding to their poor reputation in the area of good judgment is their failure to consider removing bad cops as a logical measure. Until they first police themselves, it is up to us to keep the pressure on them via any legal means necessary, including photos and video.
Regards

Ira · 08-03-2010, 11:25 AM

Maybe the cop was Amish, and it's against his religion to be photographed.

Because let's face it folks, that's where the U.S. is headed with all of this political correctness.

And I'm saying this as a liberal!!!

Blue · 08-03-2010, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Ira

Maybe the cop was Amish, and it's against his religion to be photographed.

Because let's face it folks, that's where the U.S. is headed with all of this political correctness.

And I'm saying this as a liberal!!!

If he was Amish, he wouldn't be drawing a piece on someone nor driving a squad car. However, a horse & buggy with a blue-light pulling someone over would be worthy of a photograph.

johnmflores · 08-03-2010, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Blue

If he was Amish, he wouldn't be drawing a piece on someone nor driving a squad car. However, a horse & buggy with a blue-light pulling someone over would be worthy of a photograph.

The chase would be great on video. No wait, come to think of it, 4 FPS should be plenty!

Wheatfield · 08-03-2010, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by johnmflores

The chase would be great on video.

Except that you'd get arrested for doing it.
That's the point of the thread!!

johnmflores · 08-04-2010, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Except that you'd get arrested for doing it.
That's the point of the thread!!

Umm...I know, I started it.

Rupert · 08-05-2010, 07:26 AM

Some encouragement here: Looks like there are those willing to fight against this abuse, as we all should be willing to do.
Should Videotaping the Police Really Be a Crime? - Yahoo! News

Regards

**Lowell Goudge** · 08-05-2010, 08:40 AM

THe one point that I would like to raise, not with respect to the right to film or not, is a simple point of process.
While I do not disagree with the right to take photos, or the right to post photos on the internet (providing such posting does not violate the rights of the people in the photo/ vidio with respect to waiviers etc, as they are clearly recognizable and the principle subject of the photo/video) there is a time and place to make things public,
I did not see anywhere, and someone please correct me if I am wrong about this, that people lodged complaints regarding conduct first.
We have a real problem with cameras, and distribution of photos and videos, which is bypassing the normal process and things go public before they can be acted upon by the responsible authorities. It should only be when the responsible authorities fail to act that the issues shoud be taken public, not before a complaint has been filed.
This is not to say we back down from any rights, but simply to make sure that we folow a process

Edit note: I watched the video.

aside from the stupidity of going 127 MPH and posting the fact that he was braking the law, and perhaps (this is a function of jurisdiction) the violation was enough to make it a criminal offence, it is hard to tell on the video that the police officer was "out of control" in fact, while his gun was "out" it was pointed down, and not threatening. In fact, the overall arrest appeared to be completely "in control". If the gun was pointed at the rider perhaps it would be different. What does the training dictate? the time delay between showing the gun and the identification as state police was less than 2 seconds? what is the legal requirement with respect to use of force and identification as a police officer? I can't comment on the charges for posting the video, but he deserves what ever he gets for reckless endangerment of the public for filming such a stupid act in the beginning.

You could even go as far as to say this is entrapment, because he was clearly making the video of an illegal act that he himself was comitting, and continued the video up to and including the ultimate response to that illegal act.

I am also not sure about the rights with respect to "freedom of speech and expression" under the first ammendment, when that involves deliberately breaking legally established laws, unless someone is now going to say that going 127 mph is "freedom of expression"

Rupert · 08-05-2010, 09:23 AM

Well, if the offense was clearly noted, and the video was not "doctored" then it is up to the people viewing to decide what was right or wrong, but should in no way interfere with the right to shoot the video. Banks use video cameras for the benefit of the authorities.......we see what we see and decide what happened. Should Law Enforcement ban the use of bank video? Convenience Store video? It seems to be fine if it works for them....but if not, it is illegal? Something is not Kosher in this logic.....
Regards!

johnmflores · 08-05-2010, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

Edit note: I watched the video.

aside from the stupidity of going 127 MPH and posting the fact that he was braking the law, and perhaps (this is a function of jurisdiction) the violation was enough to make it a criminal offence, it is hard to tell on the video that the police officer was "out of control" in fact, while his gun was "out" it was pointed down, and not threatening. In fact, the overall arrest appeared to be completely "in control". If the gun was pointed at the rider perhaps it would be different. What does the training dictate? the time delay between showing the gun and the identification as state police was less than 2 seconds? what is the legal requirement with respect to use of force and identification as a police officer? I can't comment on the charges for posting the video, but he deserves what ever he gets for reckless endangerment of the public for filming such a stupid act in the beginning.

You could even go as far as to say this is entrapment, because he was clearly making the video of an illegal act that he himself was comitting, and continued the video up to and including the ultimate response to that illegal act.

I am also not sure about the rights with respect to "freedom of speech and expression" under the first ammendment, when that involves deliberately breaking legally established laws, unless someone is now going to say that going 127 mph is "freedom of expression"

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.

**Lowell Goudge** · 08-05-2010, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Rupert

Well, if the offense was clearly noted, and the video was not "doctored" then it is up to the people viewing to decide what was right or wrong, but should in no way interfere with the right to shoot the video.

I have to disagree, by saying that the person has the right to shoot the video, is in fact saying that it his right to knowingly and deliberately violate the laws. While I believe in freedom of speach, I do not believe that it should be used as an excuse to comit a crime. That is the whole point, even when you look at photographer's rights to photograph public figures etc, from or on public property, it is clear that they are not permitted to go out of their way to do so, or trespass to do so, i.e. they can't clime fences or break the law etc..

Quote:

Banks use video cameras for the benefit of the authorities.......we see what we see and decide what happened. Should Law Enforcement ban the use of bank video? Convenience Store video? It seems to be fine if it works for them....but if not, it is illegal? Something is not Kosher in this logic.....
Regards!

banks and convenience stores are different, the videos are used to film their property and to provide them a degree of safety, they are not either violating anyone's rights, or breaking any laws in making the video.

As I said at the beginning, people do not have the rights to break laws just to take photos. Anyone using this argument as an argument that their rights of freedom of expression are being violated are actually doing more harm than good to the whole issue.

My own opinion here is that it should be illegal to deliberately brake the law to take photos (edit note, it makes the crime premeditated, as opposed to involentary or accidental) and the charges should be considered in terms of the proof of premeditation.

That is quite different than making the taking of photos a crime.

08-02-2010, 12:14 AM	#1
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	News: Man Faces Up To 16 Years In Prison For Videotaping The Police You may remember the video from a couple of months ago - a guy on a motorcycle is joyriding on the highway before being pulled over by an off-duty (or undercover, I don't remember) cop who draws his gun before identifying himself as a cop. The guy on the bike puts the video on YouTube and now all hell is breaking loose: AZspot It's good to see the ACLU get involved and that these stories are getting more and more press. In the words of Carlos Miller, "Photography is not a crime"

08-05-2010, 08:40 AM	#12
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891	THe one point that I would like to raise, not with respect to the right to film or not, is a simple point of process. While I do not disagree with the right to take photos, or the right to post photos on the internet (providing such posting does not violate the rights of the people in the photo/ vidio with respect to waiviers etc, as they are clearly recognizable and the principle subject of the photo/video) there is a time and place to make things public, I did not see anywhere, and someone please correct me if I am wrong about this, that people lodged complaints regarding conduct first. We have a real problem with cameras, and distribution of photos and videos, which is bypassing the normal process and things go public before they can be acted upon by the responsible authorities. It should only be when the responsible authorities fail to act that the issues shoud be taken public, not before a complaint has been filed. This is not to say we back down from any rights, but simply to make sure that we folow a process Edit note: I watched the video. aside from the stupidity of going 127 MPH and posting the fact that he was braking the law, and perhaps (this is a function of jurisdiction) the violation was enough to make it a criminal offence, it is hard to tell on the video that the police officer was "out of control" in fact, while his gun was "out" it was pointed down, and not threatening. In fact, the overall arrest appeared to be completely "in control". If the gun was pointed at the rider perhaps it would be different. What does the training dictate? the time delay between showing the gun and the identification as state police was less than 2 seconds? what is the legal requirement with respect to use of force and identification as a police officer? I can't comment on the charges for posting the video, but he deserves what ever he gets for reckless endangerment of the public for filming such a stupid act in the beginning. You could even go as far as to say this is entrapment, because he was clearly making the video of an illegal act that he himself was comitting, and continued the video up to and including the ultimate response to that illegal act. I am also not sure about the rights with respect to "freedom of speech and expression" under the first ammendment, when that involves deliberately breaking legally established laws, unless someone is now going to say that going 127 mph is "freedom of expression" Last edited by Lowell Goudge; 08-05-2010 at 09:08 AM.

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

08-02-2010, 06:40 AM	#2
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	Given the recent opinion released by the MD Attorney General's office it seems highly likely that this and the couple of other similar cases under way in MD will be dropped. That will open the way for civil suits of illegal police harrasment and wrongful prosecution. See... https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-talk/109271-recording-police-like...-maryland.html & Recording police OK - baltimoresun.com Mike

08-02-2010, 07:30 AM	#3
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	The irony in MD is that the cops were doing this under the auspices of wire tapping laws. The FBI is currently pushing for the ability to get peoples email records from there ISP provider without a warrant. Its bad enough currently with just requiring a judge and a national security letter. Its interesting that wire tapping seems to only apply to the Fuzz. The wire tap laws need to be re-written and done so such that it doesn't take 3 Philadelphia lawyers to figure them out. They should state the obvious to include phones, cell phones, email etc., and bugging peoples homes, offices, shops and autos. The laws should further clarify the cameras outside of said items aren't the same thing.

08-02-2010, 08:48 AM	#4
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	And the police and countless 'security agencies" certainly don't mind recording or videotaping citizens do they... Whats good for the goose is good for the gander...

08-03-2010, 06:40 AM	#5
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	Cops in general do not have a "pristine" reputation, and part of that is due to video of their too often abuse of power. So....they apparently think the answer is to stop the filming. Adding to their poor reputation in the area of good judgment is their failure to consider removing bad cops as a logical measure. Until they first police themselves, it is up to us to keep the pressure on them via any legal means necessary, including photos and video. Regards

08-03-2010, 11:25 AM	#6
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	Maybe the cop was Amish, and it's against his religion to be photographed. Because let's face it folks, that's where the U.S. is headed with all of this political correctness. And I'm saying this as a liberal!!!

08-03-2010, 11:38 AM	#7
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Ira Maybe the cop was Amish, and it's against his religion to be photographed. Because let's face it folks, that's where the U.S. is headed with all of this political correctness. And I'm saying this as a liberal!!! If he was Amish, he wouldn't be drawing a piece on someone nor driving a squad car. However, a horse & buggy with a blue-light pulling someone over would be worthy of a photograph.

08-03-2010, 12:47 PM	#8
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361 Original Poster	Originally posted by Blue If he was Amish, he wouldn't be drawing a piece on someone nor driving a squad car. However, a horse & buggy with a blue-light pulling someone over would be worthy of a photograph. The chase would be great on video. No wait, come to think of it, 4 FPS should be plenty!

08-03-2010, 01:20 PM	#9
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,987	Originally posted by johnmflores The chase would be great on video. Except that you'd get arrested for doing it. That's the point of the thread!!

08-04-2010, 04:09 PM	#10
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361 Original Poster	Originally posted by Wheatfield Except that you'd get arrested for doing it. That's the point of the thread!! Umm...I know, I started it.

08-05-2010, 07:26 AM	#11
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	Some encouragement here: Looks like there are those willing to fight against this abuse, as we all should be willing to do. Should Videotaping the Police Really Be a Crime? - Yahoo! News Regards

08-05-2010, 09:23 AM	#13
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	Well, if the offense was clearly noted, and the video was not "doctored" then it is up to the people viewing to decide what was right or wrong, but should in no way interfere with the right to shoot the video. Banks use video cameras for the benefit of the authorities.......we see what we see and decide what happened. Should Law Enforcement ban the use of bank video? Convenience Store video? It seems to be fine if it works for them....but if not, it is illegal? Something is not Kosher in this logic..... Regards!

08-05-2010, 09:51 AM	#14
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361 Original Poster	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge Edit note: I watched the video. aside from the stupidity of going 127 MPH and posting the fact that he was braking the law, and perhaps (this is a function of jurisdiction) the violation was enough to make it a criminal offence, it is hard to tell on the video that the police officer was "out of control" in fact, while his gun was "out" it was pointed down, and not threatening. In fact, the overall arrest appeared to be completely "in control". If the gun was pointed at the rider perhaps it would be different. What does the training dictate? the time delay between showing the gun and the identification as state police was less than 2 seconds? what is the legal requirement with respect to use of force and identification as a police officer? I can't comment on the charges for posting the video, but he deserves what ever he gets for reckless endangerment of the public for filming such a stupid act in the beginning. You could even go as far as to say this is entrapment, because he was clearly making the video of an illegal act that he himself was comitting, and continued the video up to and including the ultimate response to that illegal act. I am also not sure about the rights with respect to "freedom of speech and expression" under the first ammendment, when that involves deliberately breaking legally established laws, unless someone is now going to say that going 127 mph is "freedom of expression" 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.

08-05-2010, 09:52 AM	#15
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891	Originally posted by Rupert Well, if the offense was clearly noted, and the video was not "doctored" then it is up to the people viewing to decide what was right or wrong, but should in no way interfere with the right to shoot the video. I have to disagree, by saying that the person has the right to shoot the video, is in fact saying that it his right to knowingly and deliberately violate the laws. While I believe in freedom of speach, I do not believe that it should be used as an excuse to comit a crime. That is the whole point, even when you look at photographer's rights to photograph public figures etc, from or on public property, it is clear that they are not permitted to go out of their way to do so, or trespass to do so, i.e. they can't clime fences or break the law etc.. Quote: Banks use video cameras for the benefit of the authorities.......we see what we see and decide what happened. Should Law Enforcement ban the use of bank video? Convenience Store video? It seems to be fine if it works for them....but if not, it is illegal? Something is not Kosher in this logic..... Regards! banks and convenience stores are different, the videos are used to film their property and to provide them a degree of safety, they are not either violating anyone's rights, or breaking any laws in making the video. As I said at the beginning, people do not have the rights to break laws just to take photos. Anyone using this argument as an argument that their rights of freedom of expression are being violated are actually doing more harm than good to the whole issue. My own opinion here is that it should be illegal to deliberately brake the law to take photos (edit note, it makes the crime premeditated, as opposed to involentary or accidental) and the charges should be considered in terms of the proof of premeditation. That is quite different than making the taking of photos a crime.