Eroding Civil Liberties?

Well, as usual, here is a case where my legal knowledge is woefully lacking, but my gut instinct tells me a recent trend in arresting citizens for videotaping excessive force or otherwise inappropriate behavior by police is wrong. (For the record, I don't put a lot of stock in gut instinct regarding legal matters, other than I find it sufficient rationale for writing a blog post.)

Gizmodo offered a few accounts of recent cases in their article Are Cameras the New Guns? For example,

A recent arrest in Maryland is both typical and disturbing.

On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III's motorcycle was pulled over for speeding. He is currently facing criminal charges for a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop.

The case is disturbing because:

1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter, he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car, jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents' house (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation of wiretapping law.

2) Baltimore criminal defense attorney Steven D. Silverman said he had never heard of the Maryland wiretap law being used in this manner. In other words, Maryland has joined the expanding trend of criminalizing the act of recording police abuse. Silverman surmises, "It's more [about] ‘contempt of cop' than the violation of the wiretapping law."

3) Police spokesman Gregory M. Shipley is defending the pursuit of charges against Graber, denying that it is "some capricious retribution" and citing as justification the particularly egregious nature of Graber's traffic offenses. Oddly, however, the offenses were not so egregious as to cause his arrest before the video appeared.

It all sounds fishy to me. Furthermore, it just seems like more cases of disallowing citizens to protect themselves - regardless if the intended target of the video is another private citizen or a police officer. Also, it is the shock of the century to find out the "law" is being most strictly enforced in Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland. (Illinois and Maryland having two large metropoli with considerably high crime rates.)

Again, the legality of this issue seems complex - I can't imagine it is acceptable for citizens to videotape whomever they please wherever they please. For example, if some creep is videotaping me outside my window I'm guessing he's on my private property and I have the right to clock him on the head. (Someone please verify.) But what if he's in his own house across the street with a telephoto lens? I mean - take the papparazzi - don't they make their entire living more or less legally by taking photos in public "where no expectation of privacy is expected?" So, if you are being arrested, either in public or in your own private property (your car for example) - wouldn't it be appropriate to assume you have the right to record audio or video?

When the police act as though cameras were the equivalent of guns pointed at them, there is a sense in which they are correct. Cameras have become the most effective weapon that ordinary people have to protect against and to expose police abuse. And the police want it to stop.
Want More? ,

2 Comments:

  1. The way I understood photography law (in Canada and the UK at least, as far as I know) is that if you are either ON public property or can be viewed FROM public property, anything photographed is public domain unless the photographs are defamatory.
    Common sense (and higher legal fees) prevail.
    In the case of the police being taped (or any party in public view) it seems that their issue (according to the Gizomodo) article, is that it is done in secret. Since police are meant to identify themselves, do they ever announce that they themselves are recording events with camera built into police cruisers?
    If there is no expectation of privacy, why would the UK have cameras (HIDDEN!) up and down streets?

    It does seem that it's a case of the law being (ab)used where it's convenient. I'm sure that a loophole would be found whether the taping is legal or otherwise.

    I say let the cameras roll! Everyone should be acting as if they are on tape- perhaps the potential consequences would act as a deterrent to public misbehaviour.
    ReplyDelete
  2. My understanding of photography/recording law in the U.S. is similar to what Nicholas outlined above; I know a number of police officers, active and retired, and they have related to me that, if you are in a public place, others have the right to photograph/record you. The specific conversations pertained to red-light cameras and other automated technologies that the police use to catch/prosecute traffic and vehicular offenses.

    What is disturbing about the case in point in that the arresting officer brandished his weapon at the offender before identifying himself as a cop. What if the traffic offender had been in a state that allows concealed carry weapons and was a lawful CCW holder and duly armed? If a non-LEO accosted the offender brandishing a weapon, and the offender defended himself with his own gun, this would be considered reasonable self-defense in most states that allow CCW. In the event that the individual accosting the offender was a LEO but did not identify himself as such, the results would be potentially tragic; the LEO may have been killed and the traffic offender would be facing charges for the murder of a police officer. Clearly, the traffic offender had to have some idea that he was being pulled over by a LEO (he did pull over, after all), but there are cases where sociopaths have impersonated LEOs in order to perpetrate violence on unsuspecting victims (Ted Bundy, for instance.)

    What is most disturbing to me is the fact that prosecutors in many cases seem more concerned with protecting police who commit civil liberties violations than in doing what they are constitutionally bound to do, which is to enforce the rule of law set forth in the U.S. and state constitutions.
    ReplyDelete

I'm curious to see what you are thinking...

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)