Motorcyclist charged with videoing cop

[ishi_p]

<p>As a motorcyclist myself I am amazed at this. If someone is a criminal doing a runner or something they are not going to be popping wheelies along the road. To pull a gun on the guy?</p>

<p>The camera was obviously there to record his riding. How paranoid to think otherwise.<br /> 5 years? Just what harm did he do to this officer. Madness, Complete Madness. Law gone mad.</p>

<p>I hope the guy gets off with reckless riding or something, it seems the only reasonable charge.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>The officer asked Mr. Miller to stop video taping according to the CNN talking head.</em></p>

<p>That doesn't matter. The officer had neither the right nor the authority to compel anyone to not record the scene, including the person being pulled over. <strong>A public officer who is on duty serving the public by making a public stop in a public place has absolutely no expectation of or right to privacy what so ever.</strong></p>

<p>What is it about authority that it goes straight to a person's head? Everyone in our government of late, from the president down to common traffic cops, is acting like a king or a queen. Enough is enough. This is a nation of laws, the highest of which is the Constitution, and you obey those laws no matter what your job title is.</p>

<p>The judge and the DA need to be fired. The cop needs to be reprimanded for pulling his firearm yet also failing to identify himself in a reasonable amount of time.</p>

<p>And as for the question of cops being recorded, the answer in my mind is very simple given the never ending stream of police abuse stories: every officer should wear recording equipment that records every second of their activities while on duty. The equipment should be provided and monitored by an independent state agency. Any evidence of tampering by an officer should carry an automatic 25 year prison sentence.</p>

<p>Maybe if they knew they were being recorded constantly while on the job they would start to shape up. And maybe if they would shape up and fly straight then they wouldn't be so paranoid about citizens recording them.</p>

[jeff_conrad]

<blockquote>The officer asked Mr. Miller to stop video taping according to the CNN talking head.</blockquote>

<p>She said no such thing. Watch the video again; she asked a hypothetical question that she did not answer. She also took someone's statement that the law barred such recordings as gospel, so she obviously was too lazy to read the law herself (to be fair, she's no worse than most other talking heads).</p>

<blockquote>Had the officer not asked him to stop then there would be no charges or grounds for charges.</blockquote>

<p>If you read the warrant affidavit on Carlos Miller's site, it's clear that Officer Uhler did not even realize it was a video camera until long after the incident was over. And in any event, whether he asked Mr. Graber to stop is irrelevant because what Mr. Graber was doing was perfectly legal.</p>

<blockquote>Could have been anything from a stunt to someone armed and dangerous trying to escape other officers.</blockquote>

<p>Very unlikely—again, read the affidavit. You're entitled to your opinion, but as several of us have said, pulling a gun before identifying himself as a police officer was foolish and dangerous, and had things turned ugly, the State could have faced a nasty lawsuit. As W T said, why not show a badge instead (the standard protocol; I speak from experience years ago ...) or just identify himself as a cop? There was a marked unit right behind Mr. Graber, so the theatrics were completely unnecessary.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p> He was He was cited for doing 80 in a 65 mph zone.</p>

[sd_woods]

<p>Land of the Free my ass</p>

[michael j hoffman]

<p>Cop is the new mafia.</p>

<p>Michael J Hoffman</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>I'm <strong>not</strong> defending anyone or taking anyone's side in this. Just offering a different point of view, and hopefully an explanation on why things are done the way they're done.<br /><br />From a law enforcement perspective, it is almost always more to this type of story than meets the eye. Any traffic stop has the very real possibility of going from zen to violent chaos in a second. It is extremely rare that the LEO pulling someone over know anything beyond the current violation about the individual driving. Although rare you have to take into consideration that you might be pulling over a serial killer, someone with a dangerous mental condition, a person intoxicated or under the influence of drugs that make a person more prone to violence, etc. I've had people explode on me for a $100 traffic ticket. I've had an individual trying to grab my sidearm and he was pulled over for failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign (the guy had just found out his wife was cheating on him and he felt he didn't have anything to live for). We had one guy on PCP driving around with a huge fire-axe on the seat next to him that he grabbed when pulled over - that ended quietly and safely for everyone but could have gone south in a second. When I approach a stopped vehicle I almost never know what awaits. Thankfully it is extremely rare with a very violent reaction but it does happen and this fact is in every cop's mind in these situations. If I walk up with my sidearm holstered and the person pulled over is holding a loaded gun in his/her lap he has about a second or so advantage and if you've never been in a firefight - or any fight when a weapon is used against you - you'd be very surprised at how extremely fast things happen. I <em>almost</em> prefer felony traffic stops because then at least I know that I'm dealing with a potentially very dangerous and desperate individual and things are done differently. Can anyone figure out why it's getting hard to recruit good and balanced people to law enforcement?<br /><br />As I have mentioned in many earlier posts on this topic, often how a LEO reacts and what is done comes down to either policy or a split second gut reaction. Unlike sport refs we can't rewind and look things over in peace and quiet. Training a gun on a suspect is often - and this is a sad reality - the fastest and safest way to take a potentially violent and/or dangerous situation and make it safe for everyone. Personally I think it's sad that this is the case. Even though LEOs have lots of training in how to safely handle these situations (trigger finger on frame and not trigger the most common - to avoid "reaction-fire") accidents happen and that is always extremely sad and something nobody wants. But y'know we've got families too we'd really like to see after duty. And the <strong>protect</strong> in protect and serve actually includes <em>suspects</em> too - even if that seems to be going more and more out of fashion sadly.<br /><br />Again, this is not about the particular incident mentioned above - simply an attempt to give you all a different perspective on these things.</p>

[steve_bellayr]

<p>If you hate the US government or any state government then nothing officer did will be correct. The individual in question was charged with reckless driving in the state of Maryland which means he had to be doing more than just 15mph over the speed limit. His driving had to endanger the lives of himself/others. Plan clothes officers are discouraged from making traffic stops unless there is such danger to others that there is no recourse. With the advent of small digital cameras all sorts of illegal and dangerous activities are recorded and posted on the internet. This is very common and I am certain we have all seen them. As far as the wiretapping law the arrest appears legal. If the law is to be proven illegal then the only recourse is to have it adjudicated by the courts as illegal which necessitates someone breaking that law to challenge it. Breaking this incident apart we have two charges. The first being Reckless Driving and the second Illegal Wiretapping, the recording of audio without the permission of the other party. If this law was found to be illegal then you could place a hidden microphone anywhere in public and record whomever you chose while image recording from a separate location. Would we want this to be the norm? We already have cameras placed into downtown areas recording the actions of innocent passerbys. Should we be allowed to record personal conversation too? </p>

 

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Imagine if the cycle rider was another off duty LEO person from another agency; all pumped up on coffee and donuts; armed. Guy comes out of unknown car with gun an he gets a 9mm through his head. Ie Beavis shoots Butthead. There are places in the USA where local police, sheriffs, state highway dept and FBI are at odds and do not even communicate much.</p>

<p>An off duty LEO on the cycle might think chap coming out of the car with the gun is mafia; a chap on PCP and thus gets blow away with a quick draw.</p>

<p>the video makes the police look stupid ie he has no badge and doesnt say who the hell you are. Many folks might run his ass over thus weeding out this doofus behavior. Now saying who you are has a massive risk; two off duty LEO all pumped up with sugar and caffine; each wanting that dream of stopping the bad guy.</p>

<p>I the midwest many of us had safe and sane speed signs years ago and the family station wagon was driven on bias tires at 85 to 100 all the time on long vacations.</p>

<p>I drove up I-5 with a Ford Probe in the early 1990's one morning between 85 to 105.</p>

<p>In the south east back in the early 1980's My friend drove his stock car on I55 with me in it at about 165mph.</p>

<p>Our old 1961 souped up Plymouth Fury back in Michigan topped out about 120.</p>

<p>In LA I have been on US101 at 80mph and been passed by a rice rocket bike car going 50 to 70 percent faster.</p>

<p>In driving from LA to New Orleans I have got there in 28 hours when younger by having a fellow driver. One can be in the middle of nowhere on I-10 in Texas doing 90 and you get passed up.</p>

<p>In California LEO want you never to pull over on the left side</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>you could place a hidden microphone anywhere in public and record whomever you chose while image recording from a separate location</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No one here has challenged the legality of the statute. Just how it applies in this instance so any illegal application does not mean "you could place a hidden microphone anywhere in public and record whomever you chose". Even if the statute itself were be deemed illegal (i.e. unconstitutional) it doesn't mean that a different version would be. Particularly if it were limited to the type of recording described above. So, again, it does not mean "you could place a hidden microphone anywhere in public and record whomever you chose while image recording from a separate location".</p>

[rickbarbosa]

<p>He had a GOPRO camera. On the top of his HELMET! In public. No secret "wiretapping". No criminal anything minus the speeding wheelie which was based on an eyeball estimation. Practically everyone who doesn't ride a motorcycle thinks sportbikes are too fast, and cruisers are too loud, and get so worked up whining about something they don't understand to the point where they are willing to let this kid get prosecuted illegally. In some countries people are intimidated, abused, and even killed for documenting anything, especially the abuse of power. I guess the gutless sheep who thinks these scare tactics are okay will not be happy until it becomes the norm here as well. The kid is an Air National Guard with a CLEAN record, and they want to send him to Prison? wow. </p>

[rickbarbosa]

<p>A couple of other things. The judge who released him said he did not do anything illegal by videotaping, and the paperwork used to search his parents house, and take all cameras and computers, had NO SIGNATURE from any judge. Said it was a "secret". Secret judges, storming troopers? </p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>http://www.feedthehabit.com/outdoors/the-definitive-gopro-pov-video-camera-review/</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I predict this will the be thread that we use to yell at each other this holiday weekend. It has all the key ingredients:</p>

<ul>

<li>abstract hypothetical topics (good & evil, power & weakness, justice & injustice, courtesy vs. survival) </li>

<li>front page billing</li>

<li>leading info from propagandists</li>

<li>pertinent information not yet revealed</li>

<li>players aligned with symbols of power</li>

<li>players aligned with the appearance of weakness or meekness</li>

<li>justifying or mitigating conditions that are difficult to observe and prove, but easy to assume</li>

</ul>

<p>And all weekend to argue about it while typing. </p>

 

[rickbarbosa]

Jeff Conrads' link above has more than enough information.

[martin_engineer]

<p>Don't American's have some laws about freedom of the press? This guy is clearly filming a documentary and posting it online, does he need a large company backing him in order to be a legitimate reporter? If a CNN reporter or did they same and posted it on CNN.com would they get arrested?</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>Amen to that John.<br /><br />@ Ricardo - ever heard about the Patriot Law? You'd be amazed at the powers granted law enforcement just by that one law...<br /><br />@ Martin: As much as it pains me to admit this it seems like the more money/power/resources you have on this side of the "pond" - the more equal you are in the eyes of the law. Just look at all the executives at investment banks who are spending years upon years in the slammer for defrauding people out of billions... or that mine owner who was too cheap to properly secure his mines and 29 people died... surely he'll be spending at least a decade or two behind bars... right? oh, wait... people serve astronomical sentences for petty crimes here while really bad crooks get a slap on the wrist, a fine that's the equivalent of what they make in half an hour, and walk off laughing all the way to the bank... me bitter? nah... just a little bit... Yet another reason why I'll be getting out of law enforcement...</p>

[jeff_conrad]

<p>Steve,</p>

<p>I don't know where you come up with people here hating the U.S. or state government. The issue most of us who question the arrest have raised is the failure of those charged with enforcing the law to follow it themselves. When the police ignore the law, there is no law, which I doubt is how you would prefer it.</p>

<blockquote>The individual in question was charged with reckless driving in the state of Maryland</blockquote>

<p>The reckless driving wasn't added until Officer Uhler saw the video. Doesn't this make the charge awfully suspect, especially in conjunction with a bogus wiretapping charge? Now, if indeed there were grounds to cite for reckless driving in the first place, the officer's motivation is irrelevant; perhaps he was just giving Mr. Graber a break. But if the reckless case goes to trial, a few questions are sure to come up: if Mr. Graber's actions were really reckless, why did you endanger the public by not issuing the appropriate citation at the time? And what led you to add that citation later when there were no additional material facts related to Mr. Graber's driving?</p>

<blockquote>As far as the wiretapping law the arrest appears legal. If the law is to be proven illegal then the only recourse is to have it adjudicated by the courts as illegal</blockquote>

<p>I don't think anyone here has said the law is illegal; the plain words of the statute indicate that it applies only to private conversations, and the Maryland courts have held that the law means what anyone with at least the brains of a gerbil would think it means. Or are you seriously suggesting that the encounter between Mr. Graber and Officer Uhler was a private conversation?</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<blockquote>

<p>could place a hidden microphone anywhere in public and record whomever you chose while image recording from a separate location. Would we want this to be the norm?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Candid Camera used to do some thing very similar to the above, if it is public basically there are no expectation of privacy, within limits of course you can't point a device into a house to listen to a conversation minus a warrant to do so, there are quite a few other exceptions but those are the exceptions.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>if it is public basically there are no expectation of privacy</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You might find that expectation of privacy in audio situations to be treated differently than you may be familiar with in photography. With imagery most public places don't enjoy reasonable expectation of privacy status because people are often expected to be seen from almost anywhere. A public park in a city is an often referenced and is an unofficial poster child of having no expectation of privacy visually. Arguing that a recording made in a public place automatically deprives the people recorded of a reasonable expectation of privacy will not go as smoothly when it involves something like a remote microphone hidden n the bushes of a public park to pick up voices. The problem is that the expectation of privacy people have about conversations out of earshot of others is higher than being seen by others. Sight is long distance and can potentially be from anywhere. Conversation is usually proximity and situationally based and what is seen as reasonable tends to be much different.</p>

<p>An incidentally related reason that audio privacy expectations are higher is that these eavesdropping statues have been on the books almost everywhere for many years and survived challenges all these years. The fact that it has been the law for so long, itself, affects people's expectations. So what is reasonable visually shouldn't be assumed to be the same audibly.</p>

<p>Eavesdropping law varies radically from state to state, more so than most photo related law such as voyeurism and such. Its not really safe to say that an audio recording (particularly a remote controlled or hidden one) in public means "basically there are no expectation of privacy".</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>all weekend to argue about it while typing</p>

</blockquote>

<p>... and to comment about the comments about other comments.</p>

[Marc453]

<p>"I often wish for the motorcyclists who whizz past at 100mph + weaving in and out of traffic to meet the back end of a parked car."<br>

I saw this happen to a group of young motorcyclists a few years back on I-95. Not a pretty sight. Of the six in the crash, four were critically injured. I couldn't tell about the other two. They had been weaving in and out of traffice at high speeds and tried to exit when one hit a car. The others either hit him or crashed trying to avoid him.<br>

As far as the reckless driving charge, any information that proves you committed a crime can be used against you and charges can be brought up against you later.</p>

<p> </p>

[Brad_]

>>> Or are you seriously suggesting that the encounter between Mr. Graber and Officer Uhler was a private conversation?

 

I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that conversations between police officers and citizens are automatically deemed to

be not private; whether a casual conversation or the result of an enforcement action. I talk to cops all the time when I'm

shooting, usually for doing blog stories, and would never have my recorder running without first getting permission. Nor

would I do the same if pulled over for speeding.

[jeff_conrad]

<p>Brad,</p>

<blockquote>I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that conversations between police officers and citizens are automatically deemed to be not private;</blockquote>

<p>I suppose absent a specific holding (as in California) that a conversation between a peace officer and a citizen that occurs in a public place is not a private conversation, there's always a possibility. But it would be sheer torture of the English language to suggest that Officer Uhler had a reasonable expectation of privacy in this situation.</p>

<p>We've seen similar bogus charges (there was one a while back in Pennsylvania that was discussed here); they've been dropped. If this one isn't, I expect the judge will immediately dismiss. As noted on Carlos Miller's site, the judge who released Mr. Graber was of the same opinion.</p>

<p>I agree that it's common courtesy to ask people before recording a conversation, and some conversations actually might be private. And I'll concede that recording a traffic stop might annoy the officer, even though, at least in California, it's perfectly legal. Police seem to have no qualms about making their own recordings of traffic stops (San Jose are even experimenting with officers using head-mounted cameras for <em>all</em> citizen encounters).</p>

<p>Methinks the officer doth protest too much ...</p>

[andylynn]

<p>This case is ridiculous. If the prosecutor's argument is correct, in CT any time you pull out a Flip video camera to record your kid you need to yell "Attention all present, I intend to commence recording audio. Do I have your permission?" and if you catch anybody's voice on something that goes on Youtube without their permission you're liable for up to 5 years in prison. There's no wiretapping here - wiretapping is recording a conversation between two other people without their knowledge using illicit electronic surveillance.</p>

<p>The prosecutor's claim that he has no choice but to enforce the law is of course silly. Prosecutors have that discretion. All he needs to do is say "I don't think this evidence is likely to lead to a conviction."</p>

<p>What's really going on here is that there's an ongoing fight between law enforcement and people with video cameras over whether those people will be recording police activities. Anybody see the video from NYC where a cop knocks somebody off a bike then everybody at the scene with a camera gets arrested? Youtube and half the people in the country having video recording at all times scares the crap out of some people. An officer makes a stop for speeding and leads with his sidearm instead of his badge. Whether or not this is standard procedure, the debate on this thread shows that it is clearly a debatable subject of public interest. This should be subject to public scrutiny and debate.</p>

<p>Publicizing the arresting officer's tactic does not impede an ongoing investigation or place anybody in jeopardy, so the only interest served in arresting the individual for the taping is to silence criticism of police activities by the public. It's the type of "chilling effect" that judges, libertarians and the ACLU hate. </p>