Motorcyclist charged with videoing cop

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>How can it be a legal order when he has not said who he is yet?<br>

<br /><br>

" The cop either had a flashing light on his dash or he waved his badge at the biker. The biker stopped. Then sat waiting as the cop came out of the car. My point is that the biker had a reasonable expectation that he was lawfully pulled over. "<br>

<br /><br>

How can it be assumed that " The cop either had a flashing light on his dash or he waved his badge at the biker."?<br>

<br /><br>

I had a guy back in the 1970's In Arkansas cut be off on a 2 lane road; the inbred guy got out without a gunand I backed up the car and drove around on the shoulder and left and he later chased and tried to smash the bumper. He had a poor handing big detroit car; I had a dinky sports car thus with all those curvy roads I lost him. then one has the sick feeling of maybe he is radioing on a CB to some other goofballs; thus you make sure you have the gun ready.<br>

<br /><br>

Here in California they tell you to go to a neutral area; cop station; fires station or place with a lot of folks around it it looks wrong.<br>

<br /><br>

When a unmarked LEO pulls out a weapon before saying who he is; another LEO or normal person might *NOT* know who the hell he is and thus the adrenaline goes to be still; or fight or flight; he is is a target; a hostile one that is carrying a weapon. </p>

<p>It does not calm me having an unknown ; unidentified person with a gun ordering to do something. Many LEO folks know each other in smaller area; you worked with them once; you see them at the shooting range; you trained with them; went to a buddies funeral.<br>

I was a Gun show back in the south east about 8 years ago when a gun "went off"/fired in the row of folks several tables over. Holy Jesus one has LEO's; Bubbas; Farmers; kids a second later with adrenaline; coffee; donuts and some folks with guns drawn thinking we had a Nut Case attack. Gobs of folks were scanning each other like it was Dodge City on high Noon.<br>

The video on other sites shows the audio; all faces.<br>

<br /><br>

There are a mess of unknowns (1) " The cop either had a flashing light on his dash or he waved his badge at the biker."<br>

Known (2) LEO did not know beans about who the heck this guy on the bike was<br>

<br /><br>

Known (3) the bike rider had this guy with gun at the ground with no mention that he was a LEO for a few seconds<br>

This (2) and (3) is why we males often die early ! :)<br>

Two guys with adrenaline; one with a gun; no clue. Either or both could be a LEO<br>

<br /><br>

There are some parts of the country where there are sheriffs and cops and neither works together well; it is a big rivalery. <br>

They do not even share the same data bases. </p>

<p>A buddies car with NJ plates got stolen; they drive it to the top of a state and dump it. Buddy reports it stolen to the Police dept. Joy riding kids get caught; confess and mention car. The car gets dragged back 300 miles to where the kids live. My Buddy 6 weeks later spots his sports car in the Sheriffs dept impound lot; the police dept and sheriffs do not talk to each other there. My buddy got his car back; but had to pay the daily fee. being from New Jersey; he assumed that if he reported the car to the Police; they worked with the other LE places!</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>Jeff:<br /><br />If you're going to quote maybe you should quote the entire sentence and not just a snippet? If you would have quoted the entire sentence you'd have seen that I in fact wrote that I thought the order to turn the camera off - if such an order was indeed given - was probably <strong>not</strong> a legal order.<br /><br />Also, when you watch the tape you'll see that the officer says: "Get off the bike... Get off the bike... state police..." Sure, he should have turned his sentence around and started by saying state police. We don't know if the biker actually gets off the bike since CNN stopped the tape right after the officer says "state police". If he did that's great. If he didn't, well not so much. The point here is <strong>we don't know</strong>. This is a news piece that CNN have spun and then spun some more. I don't know about you but I sure as (profanity) don't trust CNN to be the bearer of truth and objectivity.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>The officer pulled up in front of the motorcycle - I've had moving violations and always been stopped by a police car flashing sirens and pulling up behind me when I pull over - got out, led with the gun instead of the badge, repeatedly told the guy to get off the motorcycle and put his hand on the motorcycle before identifying himself as police. I see no lights on the police car or other identifying marks.</p>

<p>The motorcyclist posted the video in order to incite public debate on police methods, and it is clear from this thread that such debate is appropriate. He's well within his rights. I'm 100% with the motorcyclist here. It is completely inappropriate for the DA to prosecute the motorcyclist for filming the incident.</p>

[jeff_conrad]

<p>Mikael,</p>

<blockquote>- was probably <em>not</em> a legal order.</blockquote>

<p>Upon rereading, I see that I obviously misread the sentence. Perhaps I got distracted by the mention of “legally given” order in the next sentence (I still don't know when that is). In any event, read twice, comment once ...</p>

<p>The order well might have been legal had the conversation been private, because the recording would have been illegal (though I suppose the officer would have to have known that audio was being recorded). To hold that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy would fly in the face of a long line of precedent, but I guess we'll see, perhaps early next week.</p>

<p>In 2007, we discussed the similar case of Brian D. Kelly in Carlisle, PA. The charges there were quickly dropped, though the DA insisted the police had done nothing wrong. Kelley sued under 42 U.S.C §1983, but I don't know how it turned out.</p>

<blockquote>"Get off the bike... Get off the bike... state police..." Sure, he should have turned his sentence around and started by saying state police.</blockquote>

<p>It's obviously easy to play Monday-morning quarterback, a luxury not available to the officer on the spot. But the “state police” should have preceded the gun. Had the motorcyclist really been a nut, it could turned very ugly, endangering the officer as well as others. Again, the situation didn't strike me as exigent.</p>

<blockquote>We don't know if the biker actually gets off the bike since CNN stopped the tape right after the officer says "state police". If he did that's great.</blockquote>

<p>He did comply; the YouTube video link shows it. I agree that CNN shouldn't have stopped the tape; it would only have taken an extra second or two to show Mr. Graber getting off the bike. And I don't give Ms. Costello much credit for confusing the issue by asking apparently irrelevant hypotheticals like “What if he asked you to stop recording him?” when the officer did no such thing. Unlike Carlos Miller, Ms. Costello probably didn't have the benefit of seeing the affidavit stating that Officer Uhler hadn't even realized he was being recorded, but nothing in the video indicated that Mr. Graber had been asked to stop, and she should have confined her reporting to the facts. But I guess all reporting today is half op-ed ...</p>

[jeff_conrad]

<p>The ACLU of Maryland have decided to support Mr. Graber. The press release is <a href="http://www.aclu-md.org/aPress/Press2010/052810_Motorcyclist.html">here</a>; a <a href="http://www.aclu-md.org/aPress/Press2010/Graber_Factsheet.pdf">backgrounder</a> (PDF) is also provided.</p>

[waite_watson]

<p>What's good for the goose is good for the gander! Was the incident recorded on the cop's dash cam (with audio)? I'll bet it was. Did the officer notify him that the stop was being recorded? Do they notify everyone they stop that they are being recorded? If not then the police as a matter of course are violating the law.<br>

The real trouble here, as far as the state is concerned, is they they don't have the opportunity to selectively edit the video/audio for the DA to get a conviction (that's really what it's all about.... both the truth & innocence or guilt don't matter they just want a conviction innocent or not!) Welcome to the police state people.</p>

[tapani]

<p>For comparison: in Finland it is always legal to record a conversation you're yourself participating in: if you have a right to hear it, you have the right to record it. (This also applies to phone conversations.) It's been confirmed by Finnish Supreme court in a case where a man was interrogated by the police and he recorded it without telling them.<br>

But different countries, different laws. Caveat emptor.</p>

 

[jeff_conrad]

<blockquote>But different countries, different laws. Caveat emptor.</blockquote>

<p>Same here for different states. Though I obviously have some strong opinions about this, I'm for waiting to see what comes of the legal process. We can discuss, but the courts decide.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>How is the argument going?</p>

<p>Feeling good about feeling mad yet? </p>

[Brad_]

>>> Do they notify everyone they stop that they are being recorded? If not then the police as a matter of course are

violating the law.

 

Unless you know what the laws are in your state, that's not necessarily true. In California police officers are exempt being

able to record any conversation they overhear. I suspect it's the same in many other states as well.

 

>>> Welcome to the police state people.

 

Do you have any idea at all, via historical perspective, what a "police state" is?

[keith__richard_terry]

<p>I would have thought your cops had better things to do than pull people for having video cameras on their helmets, roof racks or whatever. Motorcyclists are easy to single out because they are a minority group ( I don't ride a motorcycle incidentally). What about the young person I saw - driving her little car at 90+ within inches of the rear bumper (fender) of a BMW, AND talking on a cell phone. Where were the cops then ? Questioning some photographer I expect !</p>

 

[markci]

<p>The guy was a jerk, but the prosecution is ludicrous. The courts should take a very dim view of any assertion that recording police interaction with the public is forbidden in any way. And no, telling someone to turn off their camera is not a "legal order." Telling you where you can stand to use the camera is, but there is no legitimate reason whatsoever to tell you to turn it off. On the contrary, in addition to dashboard-mounted cameras being standard, some departments are starting to put tiny cameras on officers' uniforms.</p>

<p>I guess I need to send the ACLU another grand or so. It's been a while.</p>

[ishi_p]

<p>Reminds me of a funny story in a 2000AD comic. Judge Dread sees a "Runner" and the whole strip is him basically trying to catch the guy as he legs it through Maga-City One at breakneck speed . After several distant warnings (which go unheeded or unnoticed by the incessant runner) Dread finely gets close enough as the runner reaches his destination, and shoots him dead. Problem solved.</p>

<p>He was just a regular runner about to beat his best time. </p>

<p>"I can't break the law, I am the law!"</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>Keith:<br /><br />The guy was pulled over for going some 100 mph. My guess - from personal experience having conducted boatloads of traffic stops - is that the camera wasn't discovered until after the bike is stopped. <br /><br />I agree by the way that he shouldn't have been prosecuted - unless there are other things going on that we don't see on the tape.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>I would rather be recording and have a true copy of what occurred than to trust what an individual, especially a police officer said occurred. I will take my chances with the camera.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Anybody do photos around here.</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>Yeppers Allen.</p>

[michael s.]

<p>By way of an update, this story made the front page of the printed version of today's "Washington Post," and it included a prominent mention of the blog, <em>Photography is Not a Crime</em>.</p>

<p>The <em>Washington Post</em> story (June 16,2010) is here:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/15/AR2010061505556.html?hpid=newswell" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/15/AR2010061505556.html?hpid=newswell</a></p>

<p> </p>

[jeff_conrad]

<p>Maryland's assistant attorney general has weighed in on the issue (though not specifically on Graber's case), according to <a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-attorney-general-wiretap-20100730,0,1126908.story">this story</a> in the <em>Baltimore Sun</em>, suggesting that in most cases, it is unlikely that interactions with police would be considered private. The letter of advice is <a href="http://www.oag.state.md.us/Topics/WIRETAP_ACT_ROSENBERG.pdf">available</a> on the web site of the Maryland Office of Attorney General.</p>

[jeff_conrad]

<p><strong>Wiretap Charges Dismissed</strong></p>

<p>Unsurprisingly, all wiretap-related charges against Anthony Graber were dismissed by Judge Emory A. Pitt Jr, who wrote:</p>

<p>“Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public. When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation. ‘Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes’ (‘Who watches the watchmen?’).”</p>

<p>Because the decision was by a circuit court judge, it's not precedential, but Graber's attorney thinks this will be the end of the matter. The DA had not yet indicated whether he intends to appeal; an appeal that upheld Judge Pitt's decision would obviously help, because it would become binding and would facilitate action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for any similar arrest in the future.</p>

<p>None of the accounts I've seen suggests the reckless driving charge that seemingly was added in retaliation was dismissed, so there may be more to come in the saga.</p>

<p>More information is available from the <a href="http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2010/09/motorcyclist_wins_taping_case.html">Baltimore Sun</a>, the <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/story-lab/2010/09/wiretapping_charges_dropped_ag.html">Washington Post</a>, and commentary from <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/27/maryland-judge-tosses-the-felo">Radley Balko</a>.</p>