(Photo: Wired.com)
"Stop taping in the name of the law!"
People are being arrested for videotaping arrests --including their own.
The charge? Wiretapping.
The story starts in Maryland where a man with a motorcycle is speeding on I-95. Anthony Graber admits to speeding and even showboating (he popped a wheelie at one point). He's pulled over for speeding but that's not the problem. He got the ticket but he also had a video camera in his helmet and he's recording the arrest. At that point, the state trooper --a plainclothes officer-- cuts him off and draws a gun.
If you look carefully at the video, you see the plainclothes trooper get out of his vehicle, gun drawn, but no badge, or at least not one plainly visible, not one as readily displayed as the gun.
Graber says he thought he was being robbed. Police say Graber backed his bike up slightly, "creating a brief moment of fear" for the plainclothes officer. In the video, he quickly holsters his gun after getting out of the vehicle. And the point to a marked car behind Graber's bike and argue that Graber knew what was happening.
Graber received the ticket and forgot about the incident, but after he posted the video on YouTube, police arrived at his home, search warrants in hand, and take his camera, two computers, two laptops, all the hard drives and he's indicted for violating state wiretapping laws by recording the trooper without his consent.
In about a dozen states, including Maryland, you can't videotape unless you have the consent of all parties involved.
The Maryland trooper never gave consent to videotape the arrest. But Graber claims it was obvious he was recording the incident because the camera is in plain atop his helmet.
For recording the traffic stop without the officer's consent, the man now faces five years in prison.Arrests of this nature are becoming more common because a lot more people have video cameras (often in their cell phones) and are inclined to pop them on at the slightest flare-up and post them online.
Graber's not the only one facing jail time. A Florida man who has posted several police arrests on YouTube; he's now facing 16 years in jail.
Graber's helmet cam video leading up to the police stop
It's worth noting that squad cars are often equipped with video cameras so police can prove why they pulled someone over, and/or have any evidence pertinent to the commission of a crime. Is that any different from a person pulled over who wants evidence should he or she be pulled over by a zealous cop? Or is that an example of the claim that there are two sets of laws in this country: One for the police, one for the rest of us?
FYI: California law specifically allows police officers walking up to your vehicle to carry a concealed recording device (audio or video) and tape the entire conversation that goes on between the cop and the suspect. However, if the individual in the car secretly records that same conversation, that individual would be in violation of the law and subject to charges.
Why shouldn't police be allowed to film an arrest? But by the same token, why shouldn't you be allowed to do the same thing, be you the suspect or a witness?
Y'know that argument that says, "Well, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about?" You usually hear it in defense of authorities doing surveillance. Can it not work the other way around? If you're a cop with nothing to hide and you're following all the correct procedures, why worry about being videotaped in the commission of your duties? If you're a good cop, would you not want to have proof that you were doing your job if and when someone claimed you weren't?
Consider a peace officer in Arizona enforcing the state's new immigration law (which goes into effct later this month). One fear of law enforcement agencies that opposed the law was that it would increase the likelihood of individuals filing lawsuits claiming they were racially profiled. If a passerby happened to record an exchange between Arizona lawman and citizen, if the video showed that the cop engaged in no such racial profiling, the citizen would have no recourse to sue. Is there no value in recording such an incident, even if the person recording it failed to get permission of those involved? Do we arrested the videographer even if it exonerates the police officer?
Let's not forget what happened recently in Seattle when a law enforcement officer punched a woman who appeared to be uncooperative. Does video like that not help in the elucidation of such matters, whichever way the decision falls? Like the transit police shooting in San Francisco, or the Rodney King incident?
The question is simple: When on duty and working in public, are the words of a police officer to a private citizen a private matter or a public one?
If you side with the motorcyclist, do you also agree with red light cameras, and with surveillance cameras on the street recording the activity of citizens as they travel to and fro --not unlike the surveillance cameras common to the streets of London?
Is it okay to record an arrest or if you just get stopped by a police officer? Is it okay to pull out your cell phone and say, "Officer, by the way, I'm making a recording"? What'll usually happen is that the officer will tell you to turn the camera off. Do you really want to say "No, I won't?"
Or is that a little too much power for the police?
Should you be allowed to record a police incident. Whether it involves you or not, should you be allowed do since it could bolster a case one way or the other?
Or is there a reasonable expectation of privacy when you are out in public?
Local news report
Comments
More than likely it would be considered justice if they placed you into prison where you would be raped, tortured and beaten by the hard-core violent offenders doing life term sentences.
After all, you video taped a public servant while he was performing a public service and short of the death penalty, what would you expect for such a violation?
These laws are clearly unconstitutional, and could be successfully challenged as such. All law enforcement officers are public servants, and as suchj surrender their right to privacy while performing their duty. the only exception might be if they were engaged in undercover work.
If the ACLU weren't so busy suing small-towns for the heinous crime of posting the Ten Commandments, then REAL infractions of our rights could be pursued in the courts more rigorously.
The Police State isn't coming - it has arrived.
Some cops are deliberately hostile when they pull you over - aggressive and threatening (not all). If someone complains it becomes he said/she said. I think for our protection ALL prosecutable or ticket worthy interchanges between police and the public should be openly recorded for our protection as well as theirs. No tape - no case. I think it would inspire better behavior from both parties. If that tape goes missing in an abuse accusation - the officer should be automatically dismissed.
No one should record anyone without their knowledge - including cops and other officials.
Thanks, Stan. I agree with you. Double standards like this should not exist. FYI: The ACLU has filed suit in Florida and is also, I believe, representing Mr. Graber.
"In about a dozen states, including Maryland, you can't videotape unless you have the consent of all parties involved."
___________________________________________________________
That is not correct. The law in Maryland is that you can't do audio recording without knowledge of all parties involved. Video is not covered by the law at all. Consent is not covered by the law, either.
My understanding of the two-party consent (or better stated, all-party consent) laws for recording is that they only apply to situations where the parties involved can reasonably expect a certain level of privacy. In other words, a conversation with your friend on the phone would be illegal to tape (unless everyone consents to the recording), but when you call a business that plays that little "this call maybe recorded for quality assurance" message, it is not. No reasonable person would expect any level of privacy on an off-ramp of I-95.
The cop was a doosh bag.
This is BULLSHIT!!!!! The Gov.can video tape US all they want. BIG double standard. That cop that stopped him pulled his gun?? WHY?!?!? What a JACK BOOTED THUG!!!! I suppose the lesson here should be that IF you video tape such a situation, best NOT put it on line. 15 years in jail?? That is TOTALLY INSANE. That is TYRANNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have been arrested 2x and I film for the news. The police are out of control and the DA's need to be held accountable. I have a readiness hearing on the 28th of this month in El Cajon CA. . Worse then that El Cajon has some very very bad police state mind judges. Out of Ramona CA. there are 22 deputies out of that 22, 9 are facing some sort of Civil Rights claims and or lawsuits. you can watch these Constitutional thieves on youtube newsnowsandiego and yes folks I have been arrested and charged 2x and have had so many cameras illegally taken from me it is not even funny. 1 of my cameras has been taken from me now for 4 months, and my State appointed Lawyer refuses to hold a motion hearing to get it back
I think not only should Anthony Graber be set free, but that Statie Pig should be reassigned to walk a beat in East Baltimore.
There is a First Amendment right to photograph anything that takes place in public.
This underscores the rampant overzelous behavior of some law enforcement officers. The driver is clearly speeding, which is a non criminal offense. Even if the Drivers intention when backing up was to leave the officer would still not be justified in shooting him. Therefore there was absloutely no need for the officer to draw his weapon. Moreover, the driver would have been justified in shooting the officer as soon as he jumped out of an unmarked car brandishing a gun.It would have a tragedy brought on by the policeman's own actions.
Two words: POLICE STATE.
Also; wiretapping? Really? Do they even know what that word means? ALL exchanges between police and citizens should be open to recording from ANYONE (excluding only undercover work), as someone else said these are public servants, WE PAY THEIR SALARIES AND BUDGETS, and they are here for us, not the other way around. If they have nothing to hide they won't mind being recorded. This is clearly corruption and ENTIRELY too much power and authority is being handed to these police to abuse. It's absolutely disgusting that stuff like this is allowed to persist, it should be brought to the forefront and this crap should get fixed, recording the police should NEVER get you into trouble, absolutely disgusting, all it does is give them a free ticket to abuse and take advantage of people.
PS:
Yes Martin Burzynski is absolutely right, that idiot cop in the motorcycle video should be thanking his lucky stars that he is still alive, the motorcyclist or anyone else on the roadway there would have been entirely within their rights to shoot him thanks to the completely stupid way he handled the situation, he made himself look like a hijacker or crook (then again maybe he is a crook!).
This stuff makes me sick, it's this kind of oligarchy and tyranny that people DON'T cover on the news, and I applaud you as a fellow examiner for this one. Quality stuff!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!