8 ms·

Maryland Judge finds that it is legal to record police in public

176 points by MartinCron 16y ago

jakewalker 16y ago
This has been a major issue recently, and Radley Balko of the libertarian-themed Reason magazine has done a great job covering the issue (from the pro-taping side, anyway), viz.: http://reason.com/archives/2010/09/20/how-to-record-the-cops http://reason.com/archives/2010/09/20/how-to-record-the-cops http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/14/cops-and-cameras http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/14/cops-and-cameras http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/27/maryland-judge-tosses-the-felo http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/27/maryland-judge-tosses-the-... EDIT: Radley, sorry.
- bbatsell 16y ago
  *Radley
adamsmith 16y ago
I'm pretty surprised the police department thought they could ever win this. The best interests of the public seem pretty clear cut here.
- kjuhjk 16y ago
  Well if they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear ...
  - 1337p337 16y ago
    Or if they have nothing to hide, we have nothing to fear.
- chaosmachine 16y ago
  They didn't have anything to lose. And if they somehow managed to win, all the better for them. Just bringing the case is intimidating enough. Even if it's legal, the fact that you might have to go to court to defend yourself will deter some people from filming them.
  - 1337p337 16y ago
    It is a personal hobby of mine to record cops in the off-chance anything happens. Usually it's stuff like driving on the median to get around a traffic jam (ugh) or parking in front of fire hydrants. With the proliferation of camera phones, I think the world would be a better place if everyone pulled out cameras and started shooting as a matter of principal. I don't sympathize much with Rodney King, but the LAPD is more civilized (at least in public) since then.
    - drunkpotato 16y ago
      > I don't sympathize much with Rodney King Why not? He was beaten far beyond what was necessary to restrain and arrest him. I sympathize with him for what happened to him. It was a brutal assault.
      - philwelch 16y ago
        He was drunk driving at over 100 miles per hour, didn't pull over for the cops, then he resisted arrest. No one deserves to be beaten up by the police unnecessarily, but he's not innocent in this. If a criminally violent asshole beats up a criminally reckless asshole, I don't have sympathy for either one. The police were in the wrong, and Rodney King was also in the wrong. There's no sympathy to be had in the entire incident, not from me.
        rgrieselhuber 16y ago
        Whether or not he was innocent has nothing to do with whether he deserves sympathy for being beaten within an inch of his life. There is no excuse for that kind of behavior from police.
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
        philwelch 16y ago
        You can be against police brutality without sympathizing with drunk driving morons like Rodney King just like you can be against the death penalty without sympathizing with murderous madmen like Charles Manson, or against political censorship without sympathizing with the Ku Klux Klan. That's the essence of civil liberties--you don't have to be an object of sympathy or respect in order to have rights. You can be a common criminal, a mass murderer, or even a racist and you still have your rights, as well as plenty of people (you and me included) standing up for your rights even if on a personal level we wouldn't give you the time of day.
bigsassy 16y ago
As a former co-worker of Anthony, I'm so happy the charges have been dropped. You couldn't meet a nicer guy. As much as I'd like to see this case continue to higher courts so it can set a higher precedent, I hope they don't appeal and Anthony can put this behind him.
- shpxnvz 16y ago
  An appeal seems unlikely given that the Attorney General's office issued their own opinion that recording an officer during a stop is legal under state law, but who knows?
jasonwatkinspdx 16y ago
This is a great ruling, but now the fight will shift to regulators. It may be another year or two, but I predict we'll see bills both at the state and national level restricting the recording of public servants.
baddox 16y ago
> An attorney representing [the police] said the ruling, “will make it more difficult for the police to do their jobs.” If your job as a cop is hindered by being videotaped while in public areas, then your job is by definition not in the public's interest, and you should not be allowed (and especially paid) to conduct it.
- stretchwithme 16y ago
  amen. not always the case, but certainly true most of the time. I haven't heard a satisfactory explanation from police of why the job becomes so hard all of a sudden. Unless its necessary to break the law to do your job and lack of a record keeps you from being prosecuted. I know the real world is different than most people think, but I also think most of the pressure to break the law probably comes from having to enforce laws that shouldn't be on the books anyway, like drug laws.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  It seems to me that the logical conclusion of their claim is that people shouldn't even be allowed to watch the police -- not only shouldn't there be a recording, but there shouldn't be any witnesses either.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Are there sensible scenarios under which it's reasonable for a cop to want to avoid being filmed? For instance, certain organized crime and/or labor union groups will often threaten reprisals against individual cops who enforce the law against them. If you're a cop whose job it is to escort people across a particularly unruly picket line then I can see how you could reasonably object to being filmed.
  - anonymous245 16y ago
    Organized crime AND/or labor groups? Really?
    - hugh3 16y ago
biturd 16y ago
Why isn't the cop getting sued or under any investigation? As far as I can see, he was plain clothed, in an unmarked car, no walkie talkie, no gear, a gun, and did not identify himself until after the third yell of "get off the bike". I am not even sure that an off duty officer should be able to make a traffic stop. That creates a situation where people are expectant of it, which gives much more leverage to criminals who want to pretend to be police. Now anyone can pull someone over and say they are a cop and most are going to take their word for it? This could prove to be the most calm and non violent form of car jacking I have heard of... 1) Approach person at a stoplight while out of breath 2) Ma'am, I need your car for official police business, get out, leave your belongings and the keys as they are. Contact the XXPD in 4 hours to retrieve your car. 3) Oh... Yes sir, thank you! A great yet small win for possibly getting a chance to re-visit the original wire tapping laws that are being abused. However, there are other more superficial issues that are related directly to law enforcement that are seemingly going overlooked. I can understand, as the guy is probably relieved to know he is not going to jail for 7 years, but hope that over time he will at least smell the cash he could possibly make; or more ideally, do it for the sake of doing the right thing for society.
- Gupie 16y ago
  There is a regular marked police car and uniformed officer behind the bike so that should have made it clear that the guy with the gun was also police, or perhaps a very stupid criminal.
  - stretchwithme 16y ago
    so you understand the confusion then huh?
    - Gupie 16y ago
      No, the "very stupid criminal" comment was just an attempt at humour. If you get stopped by two cars and one of them is a marked police car then it is obvious that the other car is also a police car.

176 points by MartinCron 16y ago

This has been a major issue recently, and Radley Balko of the libertarian-themed Reason magazine has done a great job covering the issue (from the pro-taping side, anyway), viz.: http://reason.com/archives/2010/09/20/how-to-record-the-cops http://reason.com/archives/2010/09/20/how-to-record-the-cops http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/14/cops-and-cameras http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/14/cops-and-cameras http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/27/maryland-judge-tosses-the-felo http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/27/maryland-judge-tosses-the-... EDIT: Radley, sorry.

bbatsell 16y ago
*Radley

adamsmith 16y ago

I'm pretty surprised the police department thought they could ever win this. The best interests of the public seem pretty clear cut here.

kjuhjk 16y ago
Well if they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear ...
- 1337p337 16y ago
  Or if they have nothing to hide, we have nothing to fear.
chaosmachine 16y ago
They didn't have anything to lose. And if they somehow managed to win, all the better for them. Just bringing the case is intimidating enough. Even if it's legal, the fact that you might have to go to court to defend yourself will deter some people from filming them.
- 1337p337 16y ago
  It is a personal hobby of mine to record cops in the off-chance anything happens. Usually it's stuff like driving on the median to get around a traffic jam (ugh) or parking in front of fire hydrants. With the proliferation of camera phones, I think the world would be a better place if everyone pulled out cameras and started shooting as a matter of principal. I don't sympathize much with Rodney King, but the LAPD is more civilized (at least in public) since then.
  - drunkpotato 16y ago
    > I don't sympathize much with Rodney King Why not? He was beaten far beyond what was necessary to restrain and arrest him. I sympathize with him for what happened to him. It was a brutal assault.
    - philwelch 16y ago
      He was drunk driving at over 100 miles per hour, didn't pull over for the cops, then he resisted arrest. No one deserves to be beaten up by the police unnecessarily, but he's not innocent in this. If a criminally violent asshole beats up a criminally reckless asshole, I don't have sympathy for either one. The police were in the wrong, and Rodney King was also in the wrong. There's no sympathy to be had in the entire incident, not from me.
      - rgrieselhuber 16y ago
        Whether or not he was innocent has nothing to do with whether he deserves sympathy for being beaten within an inch of his life. There is no excuse for that kind of behavior from police.
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
        philwelch 16y ago
        You can be against police brutality without sympathizing with drunk driving morons like Rodney King just like you can be against the death penalty without sympathizing with murderous madmen like Charles Manson, or against political censorship without sympathizing with the Ku Klux Klan. That's the essence of civil liberties--you don't have to be an object of sympathy or respect in order to have rights. You can be a common criminal, a mass murderer, or even a racist and you still have your rights, as well as plenty of people (you and me included) standing up for your rights even if on a personal level we wouldn't give you the time of day.

bigsassy 16y ago

As a former co-worker of Anthony, I'm so happy the charges have been dropped. You couldn't meet a nicer guy. As much as I'd like to see this case continue to higher courts so it can set a higher precedent, I hope they don't appeal and Anthony can put this behind him.

shpxnvz 16y ago
An appeal seems unlikely given that the Attorney General's office issued their own opinion that recording an officer during a stop is legal under state law, but who knows?

jasonwatkinspdx 16y ago

This is a great ruling, but now the fight will shift to regulators. It may be another year or two, but I predict we'll see bills both at the state and national level restricting the recording of public servants.

baddox 16y ago

> An attorney representing [the police] said the ruling, “will make it more difficult for the police to do their jobs.” If your job as a cop is hindered by being videotaped while in public areas, then your job is by definition not in the public's interest, and you should not be allowed (and especially paid) to conduct it.

stretchwithme 16y ago
amen. not always the case, but certainly true most of the time. I haven't heard a satisfactory explanation from police of why the job becomes so hard all of a sudden. Unless its necessary to break the law to do your job and lack of a record keeps you from being prosecuted. I know the real world is different than most people think, but I also think most of the pressure to break the law probably comes from having to enforce laws that shouldn't be on the books anyway, like drug laws.
CWuestefeld 16y ago
It seems to me that the logical conclusion of their claim is that people shouldn't even be allowed to watch the police -- not only shouldn't there be a recording, but there shouldn't be any witnesses either.
hugh3 16y ago
Are there sensible scenarios under which it's reasonable for a cop to want to avoid being filmed? For instance, certain organized crime and/or labor union groups will often threaten reprisals against individual cops who enforce the law against them. If you're a cop whose job it is to escort people across a particularly unruly picket line then I can see how you could reasonably object to being filmed.
- anonymous245 16y ago
  Organized crime AND/or labor groups? Really?
  - hugh3 16y ago

biturd 16y ago

Why isn't the cop getting sued or under any investigation? As far as I can see, he was plain clothed, in an unmarked car, no walkie talkie, no gear, a gun, and did not identify himself until after the third yell of "get off the bike". I am not even sure that an off duty officer should be able to make a traffic stop. That creates a situation where people are expectant of it, which gives much more leverage to criminals who want to pretend to be police. Now anyone can pull someone over and say they are a cop and most are going to take their word for it? This could prove to be the most calm and non violent form of car jacking I have heard of... 1) Approach person at a stoplight while out of breath 2) Ma'am, I need your car for official police business, get out, leave your belongings and the keys as they are. Contact the XXPD in 4 hours to retrieve your car. 3) Oh... Yes sir, thank you! A great yet small win for possibly getting a chance to re-visit the original wire tapping laws that are being abused. However, there are other more superficial issues that are related directly to law enforcement that are seemingly going overlooked. I can understand, as the guy is probably relieved to know he is not going to jail for 7 years, but hope that over time he will at least smell the cash he could possibly make; or more ideally, do it for the sake of doing the right thing for society.

Gupie 16y ago
There is a regular marked police car and uniformed officer behind the bike so that should have made it clear that the guy with the gun was also police, or perhaps a very stupid criminal.
- stretchwithme 16y ago
  so you understand the confusion then huh?
  - Gupie 16y ago
    No, the "very stupid criminal" comment was just an attempt at humour. If you get stopped by two cars and one of them is a marked police car then it is obvious that the other car is also a police car.