Man Faces 16 Yrs. in Prison for Videotaping Gun-Waving Cop

[snot]

Police officer Joseph Uhler was caught on film charging out of his unmarked car and waving his gun at a unarmed motorcyclist pulled over for speeding. When the footage was uploaded to YouTube, authorities raided Anthony Graber's home, seized his computers, arrested him, and charged him with "wiretapping" offenses that could land him in jail for 16 years. Glyn writes in:

"The ACLU of Maryland is defending Anthony Graber, who potentially faces 16 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. The ACLU attorney handling the case says, "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."

Indeed, Maryland contends that Uhler had a reasonable expectation of privacy while waving his gun around in public and yelling at a motorist with a giant video camera mounted on the top of his helmet.

Remarkably, the state Attorney General has already opined that when police record in public, that is not a private conversation subject to the same laws. In other words, in any public interaction between a police officer and a member of the public in Maryland, it is private for one of them but not the other.

More at http://www.boingboing.net/2010/08/01/man-faces-jail-for-v.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boingboing%2FiBag+%28Boing+Boing%29 .

[Fumesucker]

1. All animals are equal..

But some are more equal than others..

[MilesColtrane]

2. *oink*

[LooseWilly]

12. *bray*

[TheCowsCameHome]

21. *baahhhh*

[Octafish]

34. *Moo. Moo!*

Mu Mu Amerikon

[daleanime]

45. cluck cluck

[DRoseDARs]

48. *gwwaaah, gwwaaahh*

That's the sound of a dying giraffe.

[mikelgb]

92. lolz

I made that sound the other day and someone got it, said "It sounds like a giraffe is dying over there"

[depakid]

3. America has gone insane

and due to the administration's failure to return the nation to accountability under the rule of law- to at least pre-Bush norms is going to have wide ranging and in many cases quite dire consequences.

Thus, I expect to read about a lot more of this type of thing in the states.

[Chulanowa]

10. Yes, it was absolutely perfect until THAT ONE stepped into office

:eyes:

[depakid]

11. There was a chance to set examples and say "this isn't what America really is or should be."

Rather than do that- this administration has in almost every instance, either failed to prosecute, ratified the actions of the previous administration- or taken them further.

That sets a tone for every public official, every would be civil right and civil liberties abuser and every corporate criminal from banksters & fraudsters, to mining executives & managers to those who'd willingly distribute tainted food products.

Leadership sets the acceptable norms that others follow- and hence, you'll see a LOT more things like this in all sorts of fields- and all sorts of agencies.

God forbid where the envelope will get pushed in America in the next administration.

[Chulanowa]

14. The other day, I was cut off in traffic

Obama needs to step out and tell us that this is NOT how we drive in America. I feel immensely fucking butthurt that he hasn't. Oh well, even if he did, I'd just bitch about how he's "just talking."

Get a fucking clue, please. Not everything is Obama's fault.

[depakid]

23. Never said that

though you can ignore the general propensities all you like- you'll have to deal with it on every level.

Be careful with your peanut butter- and be wary of what you say on the phone.

[Jackpine Radical]

Oh, fer Chrissakes.

[snake in the grass]

65. I wonder when you are going to run out of straw.

You seem to need a lot of it these days.

The question is rhetorical, by the way.

[SILVER__FOX52]

75. It's called Fascism.

[Liberty Belle]

4. We need a federal law on this. And what about journalists who record cops?

Being a journalist myself I would like to know just how far this insanity is being carried.

[bjobotts]

50. Didn't you kinow, Cops are above the law with privileges to do whatever they want without question.

[bjobotts]

51. Seizing his computers and ransacking his house was just punishment for outing a cop

[bjobotts]

52. Why are the cops overreacting to such pettiness of cop on camera.

[bjobotts]

53. They videotape us from their cruisers constantly but won't allow you to do it to them. Special

[lunasun]

93. you got that right!!! bet it wasn't pretty nt

[CoffeeCat]

5. i was taught in journalism school...

...that as long as you were videotaping on public property--you were fine. Even if you're
on a sidewalk or on a street, it's ok to take pictures or videotape of people in their homes--
because you're filming or snapping pics from a public area.

How in the world--can it suddenly be a serious crime to videotape or take pictures in a public place?

I'd really love to hear what my former communications-law professor has to say about this!

[HEyHEY]

6. Same here

Was also told that as long as ONE person involved in a phone conversation knew it was being recorded, it's legal.

[ET Awful]

17. That one depends on the state law. Some states that's so, others both parties have to agree to be

recorded.

And, believe it or not, that's what some states base prosecutions on videotaping police officers on, or so I remember reading a few months ago. They categorized the videotaping or photographing of law enforcement as being the same as recording a conversation without the other party's consent.

I don't recall the exact number of states where the law is different, but don't rely on the laws in one state being valid in another. Some states only one party has to consent to being recorded, other states both parties do.

[HEyHEY]

18. That's all federal for us.

[billh58]

84. I believe that

almost all "eavesdropping," or, "wiretapping" laws are based on recording someone's private words or actions without their consent.

If there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (i.e., on a public sidewalk, or highway, etc.) prior consent would not be required because the words or actions are no longer "private." A telephone call from your residence would be considered "private," while your half of a public cell phone conversation (in a restaurant, on the subway, etc.) becomes a public conversation, as you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Maryland State AG's Office just issued a letter stating this distinction, and the decision relied on numerous other court cases from around the US:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-07-30/news/bs-md-attorney-general-wiretap-20100730_1_police-officers-recording-police-law-enforcement

Interfering with a law enforcement officer as they conduct their duties, however, is an entirely different matter, and can be (and has been) interpreted very broadly.

[AlabamaLibrul]

8. The law only matters when someone is willing to uphold it.

In the case of private citizens recording police encounters, it seems that nobody is interested in the law and "reasonable right to privacy" precedent.

[CoffeeCat]

9. If you are in a public street...

...there is no way in hell that you can expect privacy. You're on a PUBLIC street, for Pete's sake.

So, the police, in these abusive cases--are so wrong.

Doesn't it make you disgusted?

It's like they're making up abusive rules and ignoring decades of settled law.

[AlabamaLibrul]

38. It absolutely disgusts me. But if nobody's willing to stand up for me, I can't be there

for every suspect who is having their rights violated by a thuggish police officer.

[awoke_in_2003]

68. if you video tape a cop...

they are not free to use excessive force (which they enjoy dishing out)

[Lorien]

29. That's what I was told in my photography courses in college, too. If it weren't the case

then Paparazzi would be out of business-and those people even use helicopters to fly over celebrity homes to take their photos without fear of prosecution.

[npk]

40. Laws to do not apply to the police

Surely you have learned this by now.

I can't tell you how many news photographers I have seen arrested for filming on public grounds. All the cases were eventually dismissed, but nothing ever happens to the cops. These cops should be in jail, especially the one in this case.

[awoke_in_2003]

67. About the same time it became illegal...

to say "fuck" to a cop. They brook no disrespect- it shatters their tiny egos.

[slay]

7. Even if he gets off the intimidation and harassment tactics by the cops are unacceptable

do they work FOR THE PEOPLE or not? WTF. If this is allowed to stand we truly will be in a police state. I hope Graber sues the shit of the Maryland PD. :mad:

[Dawson Leery]

57. Police do not work for us. That is obvious.

[awoke_in_2003]

69. the cops primary job...

it to protect the "haves" from the "have nots". Traffic stops are just extra revenue generators.

[ixion]

13. There should be no law against taping police doing their public service

And I think Maryland ought to have its ass handed to it in this regard.

[Historic NY]

15. What happen to COPS on the TEE-VEE...its filmed live in public.

[WinkyDink]

43. With their permission.

[MyNameGoesHere]

16. "In Soviet Union, you watch television. In America, television watch you."

We are getting close to what we used to despise. How's that post 9/11 mentality working out for you?

[WVRICK13]

19. Nazi Salute and Heel Click

No officer, I didn't say we have freedom in America, cause that would be a huge lie.

[sendero]

20. This needs to go all the way to the SCOTUS..

.. where we'll see if they can come up with some tortured logic to justify this.

THIS IS ABOUT CITIES AND STATES NOT WANTING EVIDENCE AROUND WHEN THEY GET SUED FOR POLICE MISCONDUCT, and it should be dispensed with immediately.

[awoke_in_2003]

70. if it goes all the way to SCOTUS...

they will do nothing about it. Hell, they just recently made changes to Miranda rights- they are on the authoritarians' side.

[Hugabear]

90. Um, have you seen the Supreme Court lately?

Same people who gave us Bush v Gore, ruled that giant corporations should enjoy the same rights as individuals, and trampled all over the Miranda rights.

[sendero]

97. Well..

.... the "strict constructionists" on the court are going to have to come up with a legal justification of their position.

Whatever it is, at least we will know where we stand. I simply cannot see HOW these laws can be constitutional.

[Tsiyu]

22. Hello, World.

This is the NEW AND IMPROVED 'Murika.

Screw that "freedom" crap; screw "Equal Protection under the Law."

We don't b'leeve in that crap no more!

SOME people are more EQUAL than others here in 'Murika!

Constitution?








Uh.






What's a "Constitution?"

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

24. Where are all the bootlicking sycophants?

They should be along shortly, screaming about how everyone on this thread hates all police officers and how it is as bad as racism......

[Ignis]

28. The APB is being put out now; they'll arrive shortly.

Count on it.

[Odin2005]

25. Fascism.

[uponit7771]

26. What a waste of money!!!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. MD State AG has already issued an opinion that filming in public, even cops, is not illegal

[truebrit71]

30. Isn't MD the same state that refused to prosecute Linda Whatsherface over taping Monica Lewinsky..

..and their phone calls without her knowledge?

What's that thing called when you use the rules on one person when it suits you but not on another?

Hypo-something or other..:eyes:

[asdjrocky]

31. Fuck Da Police-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiX7GTelTPM

Get it? Do you pigs get it now? It's not just the Brothers in your hood any more, it's all colors, all shapes all sizes.

Fuck Da Police

[rhett o rick]

89. No thanks, I swing the other way. Not that there is anything wrong mind you. nm

[KansasVoter]

32. This is why all DU members should join the ACLU!

[Ignis]

36. +++

Proud "card-carrying member" here. :patriot:

[KansasVoter]

37. Me too!

[Chef Eric]

55. Me too. nt

[Spheric]

33. Fascism. Nothing less. /nt

[joshcryer]

35. Wow, you guys see the video? The initial stop looks like a carjacking rather than a polite pullover.

The officer appears to be either off duty or under cover, and at first it's like "Imma shoot you bitch!"

[npk]

39. You can bet that that if this man had recorded the same cop saving a kitten

from a tree, the police department would be sending him a thank you card. What they are really upset about is one of their officers got caught waving his gun around in public like a complete fucking idiot and now everyone on youtube is going to see it.

I would sue the department for civil rights violations, if I were the man.

[gaspee]

41. Ah cops,

We're (we the people) their designated enemy - serve and protect? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[WinkyDink]

42. Since when is taking a visual image "wiretapping"?

[tomm2thumbs]

46. +1

and then some

[WinkyDink]

72. I hope this gets overturned, with a huge recompense.

[happyslug]

85. Maryland's Law is the same as Pennsylvania's

Both were written in the 1960s or 1970s and makes it a crime to use ANY taping device to record ANYONE without their permission. The law was intended to be so broad that ANY taping, even if done in the public, would be covered. When passed no one thought that within 40 years almost everyone would be carrying around device that could record (most cell phones can today, as can all cameras with video capacity).

A law to outlaw recordings of people without their knowledge can cover a video recording with sound (and almost all video cameras have that feature today). When presented with such a situation the police and District Attorneys have refused to prosecute on the grounds that no one thought of such inadvertent audio recording when the law was passed. Look at the Kennedy Assassination film, it had no sound and it was top tech for the time period. Today you can buy a Camera from B&H with video capacity with sound for $40 (Plus $10 for the SD card and $15 for shipping). Not the best video camera (It is a still camera with Video Capacity), but you will get pictures better then the Camera that filmed the Kennedy Assassination AND have sound. When these laws were passed no one was even thinking of such capacity, just what could be done then.

[Joe Fields]

44. A related question: Here in Missouri, in some jurisdictions,

police departments have infrared cameras mounted on the trunks of their cruisers. These very expensive cameras have the ability to scan license plates and check for warrants and other things at lightning speed. A cop has the ability to cruise through the parking lot of any facility and amass tons of data within minutes. This data that they collect is open for public review at virtually anyone's request.

My question is this: If the data that police can gather, (ie. stolen vehicles, traffic warrants, driving patterns, etc... ) can be anyone's for the asking, then how can it be illegal to collect data on police, who are using the same public road systems?

[dogday]

47. Your papers please!

:thumbsdown:

[bvar22]

49. Take a lesson.

Keep your video and photos secret.
Erase all encoded ID data,
and upload to an anonymous hosting site from an an untraceable computer,
BEFORE going public.

[awnobles]

59. great advise

Thanks

[Dawson Leery]

54. Police are above the law.

They do not want us recording them because this act takes much power away from them (which is the way it should be).
I follow my parents advice to stay away from cops and never send them a cent for their so-called 'benevolence' foundations.

[Uncle_Gunnysack]

88. Their benevolence foundations are jack shit marketing scams.

Ask the Joey marketeer, the next time they hit you up for money, how much of your donation actually makes it to its intended group.

The answer will be about 12-15%. The balance goes to pay the jack shit marketing guys.

[gratuitous]

56. Film a cop, go to jail

Don't shoot a frame if you can't play the game.

Mr. Graber will conceivably spend more time in prison than Scooter Libby, despite Libby being convicted of an actual crime.

[diveguy]

58. Jesus Christ

Did any of you actually find out anything about the case, or is it just " fuck the po-po".

Guy was running from police on the interstate, popping wheelies at 125 mph on his bike. It only stopped when the cop blocked him off in traffic. If you watch the video, i don't think the cop actually waved the gun anywhere, he kept it to his side, while yelling " police, shut off he bike"

Guy posted video on youtube. was told it was fine as long as it didn't have sound. With sound, he needed consent from other parties to post. He then decided to post video with sound.

Yes, I'm a aclu loving cop.

[centerdem]

60. OK

Ill take your word for that, now explain to me why filming a cop making a stop is illegal. You know, justify that law in a "free country."

[diveguy]

61. filming wasn't the problem

He was alright, until he went back to add sound. which, is illegal

Instead of blaming the " pigs " for enforcing the laws. Why not lobby to change the law. But, i guess its easier to complain to a keyboard

[KansasVoter]

64. You are really not paying attention........

He was not running. He was pulled over and stopped!!!

And he is in a public place with NO EXPECTATION of privacy!

And if you think you are right I'll bet you $100 to charity that these charges are dropped!!!

The asshole cop was only pissed that he looked like a wacko nut!

[Capitalocracy]

62. War on dissent in the U.S.

It's the reality we live in and we need to accept it.

[MadMaddie]

63. WTF? No officer has the right of privacy once he puts on that

uniform and is acting on behalf of the citizens of that state.

[Divine Discontent]

66. good point - if he is acting in duty as a servant of the state, his actions are not

private unless they are running an undercover deal where you give up their cover - otherwise, if you record them, even if they are taking down some criminals selling coke, that should be fine also - because you're not blowing their cover or messing up their arrest.

If things are done in public - they are... PUBLIC.

[Divine Discontent]

79. so Faux Noise Channel is gonna get in trouble for all the "manipulation" of video they do every day!

I'm thinking they're saying that's part of the prob is that he put audio over the video or some such baloney on youtube? Regardless - if a gun is pulled out in public - EVERYONE has a right to videotape it as its happening. He didn't "give up" the cops to criminals in an undercover operation, the "cop" was going cuckoo by pulling a gun on a speeder!

[keep_it_real]

71. What a load of Sh*t that state Attorney General has got to be voted out

Anyone who supports this should be voted out of office; no questions asked; just out.

[benld74]

73. Another 'case' to be thrown out and taxpayer money wasted,,

[guitar man]

74. This has to stop

This is the kind of thing dictatorships are made of :(

[Swagman]

76. case will be thrown out and another big lawsuit against the cops

[Taitertots]

77. These laws are insane, anyone should be able to record events in public

Especially the police, especially if they are breaking the law.

I personally think the police should be actively taking steps to ensure that they are video taped much more. Helmet cams, gun cameras, tazer cameras, cameras in the cars, and cameras outside the cars.

[guruoo]

78. I swear, I never saw any camera, you're Honor....

Cop Pulls Out Gun On Motorcyclist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK5bMSyJCsg



'Maryland contends that Uhler had a reasonable expectation of privacy
while waving his gun around in public and yelling at a motorist with
a giant video camera mounted on the top of his helmet.'

[Tsiyu]

82. Always follow the money as well

Insurance co's are paying out the ass nationwide for bad law enforcement decisions, poor training of cops and LE corruption.

It would not surprise me if the Insurance Co's are behind the new flock of anti-videotaping laws appearing.


But like they said to us: "If you're not doing anything wrong, what are you worried about?"








Oh, wait. We have two different sets of laws here. I forgot.







Carry on....

[jennied]

80. WTF

[billh58]

81. I posted this story

yesterday in response to another subject concerning the "expectation of privacy" in public:

"Recording police likely OK, attorney general says

Letter comes in response to recent charges brought against Marylanders who recorded police interactions

July 30, 2010|By Justin Fenton, The Baltimore Sun

Marylanders appear to have the right to record interactions with police officers with devices such as video cameras and mobile phones, according to an opinion by the state attorney general's office. The advisory letter was issued as several people face or have been threatened with criminal charges for taping police.

It's unlikely that most interactions with police could be considered private, as some law enforcement agencies have interpreted the state's wiretapping act, wrote Assistant Attorney General Robert McDonald. The conclusion is based on prior rulings and opinions of courts in other states.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland is representing a motorcyclist facing criminal charges in Harford County, one of at least two people who are being prosecuted there for recording police. State police raided the home of Anthony Graber in April after he posted a video of a traffic stop that he recorded with a helmet-mounted camera.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-07-30/news/bs-md-attorney-general-wiretap-20100730_1_police-officers-recording-police-law-enforcement

It is highly unlikely that this man will even need to appear in court after the AG's office has publicly stated that law prohibiting video taping a police officer has been misinterpreted by "some law enforcement agencies."

[happyslug]

83. Pennsylvania has the same Statute as Maryland to my knowledge

And in the Case of Pennsylvania it has been long ruled that when it comes to Video Recording with audio, if the intention is to record video the audio portion does NOT violate the Wire Tape Act. Every so often someone tries to have someone arrested for Video taping things on the street, but the Courts have long ruled that such video recording, even if sound is included, does NOT violate the Wire Tape Act. No appellant court ruling (to my knowledge) but long practice.

[Dawson Leery]

96. Then this means

the prosecutor and the coppers are violating the law as a means to silence dissidents.
Telling as to who they really protect.

[DeadEyeDyck]

86. Yes in Seattle a judge ruled that is was okay to point

a camera up the dress of an unsuspecting lady. There is no expectation of privacy of your twat!

[Goldstein1984]

87. Can you say "Police State" boys and girls?

[U4ikLefty]

91. The pigs are still pissed about Rodney King. n/t

[dadzilla]

94. Not seeing it...

Okay, where to start...

First up the taping a police officer bit is bogus. This guy wasn't out to tape the police, he was out to make his own ghost rider video. BTW: He's a damn jackass for pulling those stunts on a busy highway. He was clearly speeding and it appears to me the rider pulled off the exit in an attempt to lose a cop. That and I'm not seeing a cop waving a gun wildly.

Pulling his license is what should have happened here.

[earcandle]

95. This is so wrong. Why would we have a right to bear arms, but to protect ourselves. When we use

cameras instead to protect our constitutional laws from being
violated there can be no violence, just making a record of a
violation of human rights and our laws, witnessed by a
bystander who has a right to have whatever evidence he can
conjure up to prove his point in the bearing of witness.  This
is clearly in violation of finding true cause.  This is bad
distortion of good law.

When are we going to educate Americans about civility codes
and rules of law and fire the fuckers who want to violate
those in the name of some kind of force that should not ever
exist, given the laws.  This is all rather loopy.  Are we
loopy now?