man faces 7 year sentence under "wiretapping law" for filming police

[Martin]

check this article out.

-M

[Easy180]

I'm hoping they are just trying to scare the kid with these charges, but you never know how a judge is going to act

Just in a general sense it's never good to piss off a cop unless you just feel it's absolutely necessary...They have a wide range of charges to choose from and a pissed off one would likely get pretty creative as evidenced by this story

[PUGalicious]

That's absolutely crazy. If law enforcement can film you during traffic stops, then private citizens should be able to film law enforcement officers in the performance of their official duties.

[Midtowner]

It's an interesting case. I'm trying to think of how the law might be unconstitutional, but I can't really think of anything.

I don't really think that this application is what the law intended though. This is one reason I'm not a big fan of wiretapping laws when it comes to private citizens.

[Misty]

Cops, in general, in my opinion, are jerks. I have a good friend in Austin that is an artist and is black. He bought an old building in the worst part of town, made it his gallery and tried to encourage others to help revitalize the area. He was driving his dad's Mercedes one night and was pulled over (some lame reason, I don't recall what they gave now). It's a long story, but they ended up arresting him, putting their guns to his head and being verbally abusive. The charges were later dropped. When he filed a complaint and requested the tapes most of the footage and sound was mysteriously missing. THEN they filed charges against him for his complaint, saying he was lying.

An Austin cop also shot a young man named Daniel Rocha in the back, while he was on the ground. He died. The tapes for that were mysteriously missing as well. There are SO many stories like this, it amazes me what cops get away with.

[Rifleman2C]

It's an interesting case. I'm trying to think of how the law might be unconstitutional, but I can't really think of anything.

I don't really think that this application is what the law intended though. This is one reason I'm not a big fan of wiretapping laws when it comes to private citizens.

Midtowner,

I'll admit right now I'm not a lawyer (which I consider not to be a bad thing, honestly), but what does the 'law' define 'wiretapping' as?

If I, as a private citizen, place a recording device that records both video and audio in a public area, for instance a city park or train station, am I wiretapping?

And if I, as a corporate entity, place a recording device that records both video and audio in a public area, again, as an example, a city park or train station, am I wiretapping?

Finally, if I, as a government representative at the city, state, or national level, place a recording device that records both video and audio in a public area, using the same example of a city park or train station, am I wiretapping?



The biggest question I really have in this case: where is the 'wire'?




Count me as confused... I need guidance in this case!

[Midtowner]

It depends on the statute. I'll have to find that... then we might have the answer to your questions.

[Midtowner]

I looked at what I guess is the statute being charged under here.

I can't even tell how the prosecutor thinks a crime has been committed.

In a civil case where this statute was the underlying cause of action, it was held that the statute wasn't applicable where the person being recorded had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

-- there's never an expectation of privacy for someone who is standing in a public place, especially one as conspicuous as a police officer with lights flashing, etc.

I don't think the ACLU will even need to get involved. Based upon what I've read, the judge would throw these charges out by himself. I have no idea how felony charges are brought in Pennsylvania, but I'm really surprised that whatever process they use over there to certify charges certified these charges.

Of course, my look at the statute didn't cover the whole thing, so I could have missed something important.

[Rifleman2C]

Midtowner,

Thanks for bearing with me on that, and for helping to assert that someone in that particular police force is probably just attempting to 'flex their muscles'.


Sad as it may be, there are things like this going on daily that never make the media. That's why I don't see the internet as a bad thing... we can talk over, as a social and maybe a political group, what we find that just might be teetering on rotten.

[Midtowner]

We'll see. I couldn't find where that statute has been tested in the criminal context. Perhaps the police are looking for a test case?

It seems to me that if the prosecutor is already saying *IN THE MEDIA* that he wants to plea bargain, he's not too confident in his case... otherwise, he's just not very good at using the media to his advantage.

[Martin]

i was also thinking that privacy is the key hole in this case. in a public space, such as the side of a highway, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. anyone could have seen or heard what was going on during the stop. furthermore, unless this or another statute directly address it, it is not uncommon for law enforcement to record conversations that take place during traffic stops without the knowledge or consent of those stopped.

-M

[Midtowner]

i was also thinking that privacy is the key hole in this case. in a public space, such as the side of a highway, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. anyone could have seen or heard what was going on during the stop. furthermore, unless this or another statute directly address it, it is not uncommon for law enforcement to record conversations that take place during traffic stops without the knowledge or consent of those stopped.

-M

The statute has an exception for the recordings of law enforcement in traffic stops. In fact, they even have to inform the individual they're being recorded.

I still think there's no expectation of privacy for the officer. I would think the Supreme Court of the U.S. would agree.

[Martin]

...in practice, i wonder how often individuals are actually informed of this.

-M

[Midtowner]

...in practice, i wonder how often individuals are actually informed of this.

-M

We'll never know... I'll bet police recording equipment is pretty unreliable... they probably "lose" a lot of video in a given year.

[Misty]

I've been pulled over many, many times (I'm a very bad driver) and I have never been told I was being recorded. This is good to know that they should be telling us so when I'm being rude I can bring this up too. HA!

[Midtowner]

I've been pulled over many, many times (I'm a very bad driver) and I have never been told I was being recorded. This is good to know that they should be telling us so when I'm being rude I can bring this up too. HA!

Sorry to mislead; this is a Pennsylvania case. It has nothing to do with the state of the law in Oklahoma.

[Martin]

yeah, oklahoma law really doesn't apply here. as far as i know, we don't have such an agressive wiretapping law.

-M

[Misty]

So Oklahoma cops aren't required to tell you this? Dammit, that was going to be my big bliatch line for them. I think I've only been pulled over in Oklahoma a couple of times, the majority of it has been in Texas. They are tougher there. The cops here don't even stare me down when I drive by them like the TX cops. FINE BY ME!

[Midtowner]

So Oklahoma cops aren't required to tell you this? Dammit, that was going to be my big bliatch line for them. I think I've only been pulled over in Oklahoma a couple of times, the majority of it has been in Texas. They are tougher there. The cops here don't even stare me down when I drive by them like the TX cops. FINE BY ME!

In Oklahoma, they can do plenty to you.. include recording the entire stop.. audio and all without your knowledge.

When you're in your car, you're in public. When you're in public, there's no reasonable expectation of privacy.

[PUGalicious]

Does that go both ways? Can we record the traffic stop?

[Midtowner]

Law students can't give legal advice

[NikonNurse]

Cops, in general, in my opinion, are jerks. ******** There are SO many stories like this, it amazes me what cops get away with.

Pretty narrow minded of you. There are also SO MANY MORE stories related to lives saved, property returned, dogs/cats/ ferrets rescued(that they don't have to do btw( than the ones the media takes and runs with.

You perceptions are skewed by the media. All cops are jerks until you need one.

[NikonNurse]

Cops says "put the camera down", kid doesn't, kid gets arrested. That was probably left out.

[Rifleman2C]

Pretty narrow minded of you. There are also SO MANY MORE stories related to lives saved, property returned, dogs/cats/ ferrets rescued(that they don't have to do btw( than the ones the media takes and runs with.

You perceptions are skewed by the media. All cops are jerks until you need one.

I certainly don't agree with your point of view about all cops being jerks until you need one... our police forces are doing the best they can with what they can. Imagine coming to your job every day knowing that the next folks that you meet might decide to yell at you, run you over, knife you, or take a shot at you, and see how you feel.

All that aside, that doesn't mean that the folks that you are pulling over for what might ordinarily be considered a 'routine' traffic stop don't have a right to film you, if they are so equipped. That's really the issue here, isn't it? After all, if you are the police, you are filming them...

[Midtowner]

Cops says "put the camera down", kid doesn't, kid gets arrested. That was probably left out.

Did the cop have the authority to issue that order? Was the camera a possible source of danger? It seems to me that the kid had a property interest in the recording he was making. The cop, without authority took that away. The kid ought to sue that cop under the Civil Rights Act.

-- it's a long shot, but no longer a shot than that DA's interpretation of the state statute.