Facing 16 Years In Prison For Videotaping Police 878
krou sends this snip from the Maine Civil Liberties Union: "The ACLU of Maryland is defending Anthony Graber, who faces as much as sixteen years in prison if found guilty of violating state wiretap laws because he recorded video of an officer drawing a gun during a traffic stop. ... Once [the Maryland State Police] learned of the video on YouTube, Graber's parents' house was raided, searched, and four of his computers were confiscated. Graber was arrested, booked, and jailed. Their actions are a calculated method of intimidation. Another person has since been similarly charged under the same statute. The wiretap law being used to charge Anthony Graber is intended to protect private communication between two parties. According to David Rocah, the ACLU attorney handling Mr. Graber's case, 'To charge Graber with violating the law, you would have to conclude that a police officer on a public road, wearing a badge and a uniform, performing his official duty, pulling someone over, somehow has a right to privacy when it comes to the conversation he has with the motorist.'" Here are a factsheet (PDF) on the case from the ACLU of Maryland, and the video at issue.
The problem is Maryland's two-party law (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The problem is Maryland's two-party law (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep, if you live in a two party state, you need to get on your representatives to change the law. The problem is just as this illustrates: EVERYONE involved in a conversation has to be informed and often to consent to the recording. If not, it is illegal. While obviously it is the easiest for the police to abuse this, normal citizens can too. You see a gang banger beating the crap out of someone, you covertly film it, his attorney presses to have you criminally charged. Or you have a boss who screams racial slurs at people your record that on a tape recorder and then the boss find out and has you charged.
A one party system is a much better way to go. That means one person in a conversation , the person recording, has to be aware a recording is being made. Nobody else needs to be told. This means you can't just record anything, you can't sneak cameras in to your neighbour's house, but you can put them in your own. You can't place a tap on a random phone but you can record your own calls, and so on. You can record things you are involved in (such as having a camera on your person), property you own, etc.
Do that, and then police, or anyone else, can't pull this shit.
Right to profit (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny how when a multinational Internet search and advertising corporation gets caught doing a wifi traffic stop, its a mistake.
No servers confiscated
These cases catch hooks and miss exemptions (Score:4, Interesting)
I actually read an article about issues like this, and it seems different states have different wording in their wiretapping statutes. In some states, the audio part of the recording is what's illegal (many cellphones and pocket cameras record audio when they record video with no way to turn the microphone off). In other states, there's an exemption if it's obvious to all parties that what's happening is being recorded (local Channel 5 reporters with 50-pound cameras talking into a huge mic.) or if it's taking place in a public area (no privacy in public, remember?) but it seems judges are ignoring the public area exemption in cases like these.
If you have such a video, submit it to your local news station with a note requesting anonymity, or use a Youtube account created and accessed via TOR. If the police confiscate your camera/phone, you can sue and successfully get it back.
One thing I do wonder: how is it not a violation for cops to have dashboard-mounted cameras that record audio and video constantly, yet a brief cellphone video of a pulled-over cop is a violation.
What if he loses (Score:3, Interesting)
While we can get all indignant about how asinine this is and how the laws are stupid. What can we do if he does lose this case and goes to prison. What is our recourse? There isn't one. While I'd love to be able to look back and say this was some landmark case that caused some sort of sane reform, I just dont see that happening, and I just don't see Maryland replacing the politicians that are allowing this farce to continue.
Hmm (Score:3, Interesting)
While I would defend 100% his right to post this video, there is one thing I wouldn't have done (well, two things really) if it were me:
1. Put the 120+MPH bit on YouTube. That's just asking to attract more unwanted police attention. I'd have just posted the last bit (where he admits to 69 and 80 mph, probably what he got the ticket for) and not put the bit where he overtakes the bus.
2. Do 120+ on a busy highway in the first place.
There's a time and place to go hooning, and it's called a very quiet road where no other traffic is, and where you're reasonably sure there are not cops lurking. And if you do get caught and get a ticket for 80 mph, for heaven's sake don't then admit to 120 in a YouTube video!
Re:Lose lose situation (Score:5, Interesting)
Many (most?) employers now ask if you've merely been arrested...
In all the countries i live in, you can answer no to such a question regardless (its also illegal to ask it in the first place). Only the police have the information and its not public and it will not be on your criminal record.
Ironically having a record in the countries i live is also not such a death warrant for jobs either. Generally people are prepared to believe you turned over a new leaf--even if its just about a book of new leafs.
But its not all peaches and sunshine. In particular if it goes to trial, that is a matter of public record. One guy got news headlines that he knocked up a little girl and was a dirty pedo, with a "unrelated" picture next to his mug shot of 5year old girl playing in a new playground on the front page. He was fully acquitted since the girl in question was 15 and he meet her in a bar (drinking age back then was 20) and she acted 20 claiming to have a office job etc. The Judge/jury said there was no way the defendant could have reasonably expected that she was underage.
It didn't matter. In the end the fully acquitted and innocent guy had to change his name and move countries.
So I do agree. There is a very real social cost with an arrest, one that cops generally don't pay. And they wonder why so many of us don't respect the uniform.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure that the founding fathers would have had an amendment of the constitution that guaranteed against what is going on right now.
People should also focus on how unnecessarily dangerous that traffic stop was.
Why did off-duty officer feel it was necessary to endanger his own life, the motorcyclist and the life of the motorists in the nearby vehicles? His weapon was drawn before he announced that he was a police officer. Somebody who would have chosen fight over flight could have caused a serious altercation. IANAPO, but why couldn't the officer have recorded the details of this obvious lawbreaker and reported it to a marked unit to take care of traffic violations?
I'm hoping there are other details I don't know about, but the video evidence seems to indicate an investigation of the officer's conduct would be prudent.
Re:What if he loses (Score:3, Interesting)
What is our recourse? There isn't one...
Martin L. King would probably disagree. Seriously. Begin part of a "democracy" means so much more than the right to vote. If enough can rally to the cause there are many *peaceful* things you can do. Don't forget that bad PR is a DA worst nightmare....
/. is probably harder than it looks.
But motivating lots of people to hit the streets rather than get hot under the collier on
But then again flash mobs do happen.
Maryland Cops (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the gazillionth story I've heard of Maryland cops wantonly abusing their power.
The most blatant one I've heard happened to a coworker of mine from Bethesda in about '98. His car had been stolen and was reported to the police about a month prior to the incident. The police had actually recovered his vehicle and he had picked it up at the city impound lot earlier in the week.
On a Friday night, he was pulled over while riding with a friend. The cops ran to his car with guns drawn, pulled the doors open, dragged them out of the car, forced them to the ground, and kicked the crap out of them. All the while they were both of course shouting that this was their car and trying to show ID etc.
After they were both beaten into submission, the cops did eventually look at the car papers and ID, and then verified with their dispatcher that the car had been recovered that week, after which they simply drove away. I believe there were exchanges of something along the lines of "you have no proof of anything".
Now, my friend should have gotten a lawyer, but where he messed up was that he & his dad went to the police station to complain, which got them basically nowhere. Actually this was also about the time he left our mutual employer and we haven't really discussed it since, so I'm not sure how it turned out in the end.
Re:You have to forgive many of us if we are skepti (Score:5, Interesting)
Really? Anything that involves interstate commerce can immediately be classified as federal. And it's easy to classify anything has having an effect on commerce.
I did not say "I didn't do anything." I said "I was facing five life sentences plus 105 years for an offense no one had ever been jailed a day on before. " And that is absolutely true. In fact, I filed my own 2255 collateral attack and the judge issued a sua sponte ruling (in violation of Greenlaw) using Gonzalez v Raich, a 9th Circuit medical marijuana case, which states that the Government can regulate noncommercial INTRAstate activity in which it has an interest. (See Wickard v Fillmore.) No "special circumstance.." the Feds just need to have an interest in you.
As for only "robbery with a gun" being an example of a life sentence requirement, that's bollocks. Feds operate on a very strict numerical system, (even though Booker says it's all advisory.) See this table? [ussc.gov] All you need to do is get up to Offense Level 37 with a few priors and you're gone forever. Or get a few 924(c) counts, the third of which puts you away for life, mandatory. There are white collar guys who are doing life because their dollar amounts are high. Bernie Madoff didn't use a gun, did he? How about Jeff Skilling? A guy who sells small amounts of drugs three times does 20 years, mandatory because of 18 USC 851.
You can do life for conspiracy. If I call you and ask "hey want a pound of blow?" and you simply say yes, you can be indicted on a pound of blow..at least 15 years. No blow needs to exist. Happens every day.
Just cause you have a pal who happens to work for a PD doesn't mean you understand just how unjust the system is. Actually, at the spot I served, I never saw a single inmate who claimed to be innocent.
I'm just suggesting people be very careful.
Re:USA - Police State (Score:1, Interesting)
And somehow, in California alone, hundreds more protests occur a year without complication. The problem with relying on media reports instead of real-life experience is that you lose all perspective, and start to believe that such events are a regular occurrence and something a demonstrator has to be concerned over. You could spend all day driving around a CA city and not find one witness to police oppression against public protests in the last 30 years.
IOW, you're proven susceptible to the same reactionary fear that nightly TV-news watchers are: you ignore everything positive because the negative is easier to find or to focus on. You become afraid that every neighborhood has a paedophile and that you carry a risk of being randomly murdered. In this case, you are shut indoors and believe local police commit terrible atrocities on a daily basis. How sad you are.
The Police love technology until.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Lose lose situation (Score:1, Interesting)
Uhh.... I don't understand how this one is on the police. If he did in fact impregnate someone underaged, the police would be duty-bound to enforce a just and reasonable law. The cops are not SUPPOSED to make judgment calls in such unambiguous cases - they're supposed to enforce the law fairly and evenly, and let the courts sort it out. Surely as someone who apparently dislikes the police, you'd agree that they should NOT be acting as judge and jury?
See, this is the real shame of the piece. I say the blame rests solely on those who soiled his name, given that the injustice revolves around his undeserved loss of reputation. If I had my way, the "journalist(s)" responsible would forfeit all of their fingers and their tongue(s). Perhaps a little barbaric, but as you say, they ruined a mans life with their shameless lies, and for them it would be just another unwarranted smear job of hundreds or thousands that they'd commit.
Re:USA - Police State (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:3, Interesting)
You're advocating the annulment of privacy laws, implicating that who doesn't has something to hide and is afraid of some unspecified threat.
Either you have never listened to the arguments of privacy advocates, or you've dismissed them. In the latter case I'd be real interested in the train of thought that lead to that dismissal.
If all you were referring to was the right to privacy for officers on duty that's a whole different thing of course..
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:4, Interesting)
Just fyi, Americans have very little right to privacy when their in a public place, witness the recent lawsuit Girls Gone Wild won. ACLU will win this case either directly, if the judge follows precedent, or on appeal, if this judge is corrupt.
We'd prefer the police department ended up paying Anthony Graber some settlement for malicious prosecution of course, but who knows.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:1, Interesting)
while the constitution does now contain the bill of rights, those rights were only put there at the insistence of the states. our founding fathers had not even thought of 'guaranteeing' the rights they were so intent on winning.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:5, Interesting)
He also drew his gun while in the car, and brandished it at the guy before identifying himself as a police officer.
Re:Maryland Cops (Score:1, Interesting)
If your friend was in a situation with cops that seemed that serious, and he was shouting and trying to pull something out of his pocket, your friend was being stupid.
Yeah, the police should have had their records straight. Yeah, they might have been too quick to use brute force. But at the point they're looking at what they think are a couple of car thieves who are being loud and appear to be trying to draw weapons, you can expect someone to get fucked up.
There are plenty of stories about abusive cops. That isn't one.
Re:What if he shot the cop? (Score:3, Interesting)
As a deaf guy this story kind of scares the heck out of me. Now if *I'D* been sitting on my motorcycle and some normally dressed dude runs up and points a gun at me while screaming who knows what...
well I guess I'd just end up dead.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:2, Interesting)
Traffic Stop (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually I would argue that the cop was acting reasonably by pulling his weapon because he had to stop in front of the cycle. As I understand it, coming out of a car in front of a suspect is dangerous and precaution is warrented.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that charging his for posting the video is absurb. The only good thing about this is that hopefully some court will finnally ge tto rule this shit unconstitutional.
I suggest you write your congress critters. I already wrote mine (well the Dem's, the chance of a Republican siding with a citizen over a cop is zero, It is only highly unlikely for Dem's)
Re:Maryland Cops (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:16 years?! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, that's a slam-dunk defense right there! If the car behind him was recording, the helmet recording is completely moot, because the officer knew he was on tape. Yes?
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:1, Interesting)
Speaking as a bikerider, you might be a little bit off, when I've been pulled over (once, to receive a warning for mild speeding) I was not asked off the bike. It's really unneccessary. Dismounting involves a kickstand, lots of movement, and plenty of opportunities for an opportunistic criminal to draw a weapon.
Alternatively, you just tell the rider to cut the engine and hang out on the bike. He's already pulled over and you've approached, so it's unlikely he's a flight risk at this point. His hands will naturally remain where you can see them, he can get to to his wallet to hand you ID without dismounting, and that way he doesn't have to go through all the motions and the officer doesn't assume additional risk.
For the record: I agree that charging the rider under a wiretap law is ludicrous. That is pure intimidation. The officer should be investigated based on the video. Unfortunately terms like "Fraternal order" and "All for one" give too many of our LEOs the impression they're supposed to protect one another when they act as if they're above the law, rather than treating them like another criminal, which is what this guy is--at least in my current state (Georgia), pointing a firearm at another person without a lawful purpose is specifically called out as a crime.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:1, Interesting)
As a regular motorcycle rider and concealed weapons permit holder, I can tell you that cop needlessly endangered himself and others by cutting off the motorcycle in an unmarked vehicle (I haven't seen the details on whether or not there were blue lights displayed on the vehicle somewhere), jumping out while not wearing a uniform and with a gun drawn.
On a bike you don't have as many options to get to a gun since you're usually using both hands to drive, so instead the smart option is to flee since you have superior speed and turning ability compared to most road ragers (and it's harder to hit a moving target). Given when I saw in the video, I would have run from the guy if I didn't see lights first.
That's really not the important part of this story, though. I can't believe the rider is facing jail time for this. I have a camera with me most times on my bike to cover my butt when (inevitably) somebody almost kills me in traffic because they weren't paying the attention required when operating a 2000+ pound vehicle at high speed loaded with toxic chemicals and flammable liquid.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:5, Interesting)
Lie:
It wasn't 82.
The video clearly states 69 mph on the cop pass.
Misrepresentation:
The cop didn't pull him over.
An out of uniform cop in an unmarked car cuts him off. Gets out. Draws the gun. Tells him to get off the bike. It appears to be a car jacking. Only when Anthony starts trying to back away does he identify himself as state police.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:5, Interesting)
Himself. Motorcycles have a lot of speed, high acceleration and maneuverability, little mass, and very little between the rider and the road. If he'd met another vehicle at 127mph, the other vehicle would be operable with a dent, and this video would've ended with road pizza.
Stupid driving? Extremely. Dangerous to those around him? Not really.
Here in my state, what the cop did would be called 'threatening with a deadly weapon'.
ridiculous! (Score:1, Interesting)
that was a completely unprofessional traffic stop! is that how maryland state police normally operate? was that guy actually on duty? no emergency lights or markings on the vehicle, could have been his personal vehicle. jumps out of the car immediately displays his weapon, no uniform, and does not immediately identify himself as a police officer. he could easily get himself shot doing that! especially by another off duty police officer. And as far as I know the privacy laws have nothing written special in them for employees of law enforcement, so the same rules apply equally. Noone should have an expectation of privacy when they are out in public. This is how the paparazzi are able to photograph and videotape celebritites just about anywhere they go. and how the news media is able to record/broadcast when some incident is happening in public. if anything a public local law enforcement agency should have a much lower expectation of privacy. seems the maryland state police is forgetting who their boss is, the public!
One-button upload to Wikileaks (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a useful phone app someone into phone apps should write. When you push one emergency button, the phone starts taking video and audio and uploading it in real time to a server, which then immediately sends the video someplace where it can't be deleted. (Sending it to YouTube, Wikileaks, the ACLU, and CopWatch might be overkill, but it would work.)