• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Cop pulls guy on biker. Pt. II - He could get 16 years in the slammer

clutchslip said:
The Maryland court will allow a witness to an incident to testify in court, like in any court. If that testimony was not surreptitiously obtained, nor during the act of a crime, then it will be admissible.
Click to expand...
Then why can't a witness who requires hypnosis to recall the details of an incident be allowed to testify?
 
clutchslip said:
Let me illustrate the viewpoint that I would take to strike down ANY law that prohibited recording of a public official in public. Or anyone else for that matter.

The Maryland court will allow a witness to an incident to testify in court, like in any court. If that testimony was not surreptitiously obtained, nor during the act of a crime, then it will be admissible.
Click to expand...

Unless it is hearsay, and doesn't fall under one of the exceptions for admitting hearsay evidence.

Unless you are going to tell bystanders and witnesses to close their eyes, cover their ears, and hold their noses, then there is no difference between a witness who sees something through a camera lens and one seeing something though their own eyes, which they had to do to make the video in the first place.

There are countries where this kind of suppression may be acceptable. In the United States, I do not believe that it should be tolerated.
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference. A recording is just that -- a recording. A witness' testimony concerning what they saw is an entirely different beast. There are all sorts of reliability issues with eyewitness testimony, for one thing, compared with recordings of conversations.

All that said, I agree that the Maryland law is a terrible law -- and not just because it is a biker in trouble, but, in large part, for the reasons you articulate. That said, it doesn't mean that the law is necessarily unconstitutional. Maybe it is -- I guess we will have to see what happens in the trial.
 
Archimedes said:
Holy shit, you know that post was a joke, right?
Click to expand...

Oh my bad... I get it now... you insult me and tell me I can't read and when I point out what you said and how your a hypocrite you throw a joke back. OK nice recovery.... hahahaha great joke btw. :rofl:rofl

:wtf:twofinger
 
Last edited:
I once spent 5 days in Baltimore MD for a conference and went to other parts. Baltimore was a shithole and much of what I saw outside of it wasn't much better.

I understand that a ton of people who work in DC live in Maryland. Maybe that's what is wrong with the state....too many politicians and their minions living there.
 
We'll see what happens.

I have the following setup in one of my cars:

Front and Rear bumper-mounted Cameras.

GPS device overlaying direction, speed and time of day on top of the feed from the cameras. It also has the relevant raw data from the satellite signals.

A laser and radar detector overlaying detection status on the feed from the cameras.

Redundant hard drives @ full 24FPS video. One is hidden remotely on the car away from the recoding device.

Audio recording linked into the bluetooth on demand.

Yes, I'm hyper paranoid. I got completely railroaded once by a bogus racing/reckless charge. I was speeding, but not racing. Cost me my license and untold thousands of dollars. So I built this system to protect myself from the cops. Now, they want to tell me I can't use it in court? F* you. I'll just sue your ass.

Does anybody know the relevant law in civil court?
 
Climber said:
The city lawyers probably took this tact to avoid paying a big lawsuit.

This is NOT good for America, it just brings us one step closer to a police state.
Click to expand...

:thumbup that's exactly right. Intimidation. We are headed towards a full blow police state with no rights, where our liberty is decided at the end of a billy club.
 
Climber said:
Maybe that's what is wrong with the state....too many politicians and their minions living there.
Click to expand...


Now it is starting to make sense. IF one can't film no doubt the restriction was put in place to protect the aristocracy and the leo is just an unintended beneficiary.
 
NorcalblkR6 said:
We'll see what happens.

I have the following setup in one of my cars:

Front and Rear bumper-mounted Cameras.

GPS device overlaying direction, speed and time of day on top of the feed from the cameras. It also has the relevant raw data from the satellite signals.

A laser and radar detector overlaying detection status on the feed from the cameras.

Redundant hard drives @ full 24FPS video. One is hidden remotely on the car away from the recoding device.

Audio recording linked into the bluetooth on demand.

Yes, I'm hyper paranoid. I got completely railroaded once by a bogus racing/reckless charge. I was speeding, but not racing. Cost me my license and untold thousands of dollars. So I built this system to protect myself from the cops. Now, they want to tell me I can't use it in court? F* you. I'll just sue your ass.

Does anybody know the relevant law in civil court?
Click to expand...

That's pretty neat... but can you play video games on it?
 
macadamizer said:
All of those links cover state-law issues, though, not federal issues.
Click to expand...
Got it.

Glenn Reynolds (University of Tennessee law prof) at Instapundit agrees that it's a state issue and that federal legislation would be required to protect people photographing police. In Popular Mechanics he writes on Taking Photos In Public Places Is Not A Crime:
Police and prosecutors in Maryland have been taking a particularly hard line. In one case, motorcycle rider Anthony Graber left his helmet cam on while he was pulled over by a state trooper. A grand jury indicted him on several violations of the state's wiretapping laws. If convicted on all charges, Graber could face up to 16 years in prison. In alleging that the GoPro video camera on Graber's helmet constituted a "surreptitious" wiretapping device, prosecutors are making the claim that a person recording his own arrest is violating the police officer's right to privacy.

This is the sort of thing you might be tempted simply to toss in the crazy file. But, in fact, this is one of the comparatively few issues that could merit a new federal civil rights law. Under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, Congress is empowered to pass laws protecting civil rights against infringement by state and local officials, and that seems to be what's happening here. A clear federal law would limit cases, like Maryland's, in which local officials use their power to harass those who might keep an eye on them. Passing such a law would make us all safer.​
 
DataDan said:
Got it.

Glenn Reynolds (University of Tennessee law prof) at Instapundit agrees that it's a state issue and that federal legislation would be required to protect people photographing police. In Popular Mechanics he writes on Taking Photos In Public Places Is Not A Crime:
Police and prosecutors in Maryland have been taking a particularly hard line. In one case, motorcycle rider Anthony Graber left his helmet cam on while he was pulled over by a state trooper. A grand jury indicted him on several violations of the state's wiretapping laws. If convicted on all charges, Graber could face up to 16 years in prison. In alleging that the GoPro video camera on Graber's helmet constituted a "surreptitious" wiretapping device, prosecutors are making the claim that a person recording his own arrest is violating the police officer's right to privacy.

This is the sort of thing you might be tempted simply to toss in the crazy file. But, in fact, this is one of the comparatively few issues that could merit a new federal civil rights law. Under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, Congress is empowered to pass laws protecting civil rights against infringement by state and local officials, and that seems to be what's happening here. A clear federal law would limit cases, like Maryland's, in which local officials use their power to harass those who might keep an eye on them. Passing such a law would make us all safer.​
Click to expand...

Finally a post that hits the nail on the head and summarizes the issue succinctly. Only took 96 posts for us to get there. :teeth
 
Climber said:
I once spent 5 days in Baltimore MD for a conference and went to other parts. Baltimore was a shithole and much of what I saw outside of it wasn't much better.

I understand that a ton of people who work in DC live in Maryland. Maybe that's what is wrong with the state....too many politicians and their minions living there.
Click to expand...

California breeds awesome snobbery.


5 days - he's not impressed people. :laughing
 
boney said:
Not this. ^^^

If you are in a public place, your privacy is not guaranteed by any means. If someone walking down the street felt like taping you and putting it on YouTube, you have no recourse whatsoever so long as they're not making money off it- and even that is questionable.

Same with photography.

What I see going on here is that it's okay for someone standing on the sidelines to videotape the confrontation between these two, but the person involved cannot tape it himself. I think that this is B.S.
Click to expand...

ok since you "know" go to santana row is a camera bag with cameras strapped around your neck and see what happens. Go take pictures on the side of HWY 9 and see what happens. Go to the hollywood area with a 70-200mounted up and see what happens.

Public places are not so "public" when it comes to cameras and video.

I' only saying this becuase I have to follow alot of these rules when I'm out shooting.:rolleyes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top