Ducati Monster Forum

Maryland Attorney General Upholds Right to Video Traffic Stops
Maryland attorney general rules that state police were wrong to charge motorist with felony for recording his traffic stop.

Making a recording of a police traffic stop is not a crime in the opinion of Maryland's attorney general. In a ruling issued last month from the state's top law enforcement office, Chief Counsel Robert N. McDonald found the legal grounds weak for felony wiretapping charges of the type brought against a motorcyclist who posted a video of himself being arrested on YouTube. Maryland State Police had taken advantage of ambiguity in the law to prosecute Anthony Graber, 25 for the April 13 recording.

"No appellate decision in Maryland specifically addresses the application of that law to recording of police activity," McDonald wrote in his opinion.

Graber had been stopped for speeding on Interstate 95. While driving an unmarked car in plain clothes, Maryland State Trooper Joseph David Uhler cut off Graber as he brought his motorcycle to a stop. Uhler then jumped out of his car, gun drawn, commanding, "Get off the motorcycle" before identifying himself. Graber had a camera on his helmet that recorded the entire incident, which he later posted on YouTube (view video). The sight of Uhler wielding his weapon in public over a traffic infraction drew a storm of criticism. Uhler responded by ordering his colleagues to raid Graber's residence and confiscate all of his computer equipment as evidence of wiretapping. By filing charges that could send Graber to prison for sixteen years, the state police wanted to send a clear message to anyone who might consider documenting police misconduct in the future.  :o  :o  :o

Under the interpretation of the state police and prosecutors, a police officer has an expectation of privacy while working on public streets. Ordinary citizens on those same streets, however, have no such expectation and are subjected to constant monitoring by the state's red light cameras, speed cameras and recently expanded automated license plate recognition systems. The attorney general's office examined the question of whether the conversation in a traffic stop constituted an "oral conversation" that is "intercepted" under the wiretap act if a citizen records the arrest. After considering a related attorney general ruling from 2000, McDonald ruled that there is no difference between a police officer and a citizen as far as the statute is concerned.

"The reasoning of that excerpt, which suggested that a police officer would not face prosecution or liability under the act for recording an arrest or traffic stop in a public place, would apply equally well to a private person involved in the same incident," McDonald wrote.

Several other states, with the exception of Massachusetts, have developed case law that clearly allows the recording of police traffic stops. The attorney general's ruling did not directly consider the details of the Graber case, but it concluded that the most likely outcome should it come to trial would be acquittal.

"A court could hold that a police stop of an individual necessarily is not a 'private conversation' and therefore does not involve an oral communication covered by the state wiretap act," McDonald ruled. "This conclusion would be consistent with the suggestion made in the 2000 opinion and with the holdings of the courts in most other states construing state eavesdropping statutes. Given the language of the Maryland statutes, this seems the most likely outcome in the case of a detention or arrest."

E'll let this thread keep going as it does directly relate to bikes.   Please follow ducatiz's lead and keep it civil.   

Artful, please leave off editorials like pinko state etc.  That type of political talk would get this thread locked elsewhere on the forum. 

I was also stunned at this story and figured it was one of those where there must be more to it that the news missed... Nope. 

Dash cams are non-problematic as they are used in evidence collection and MOST do not record sound (which is the issue in this situation in MAryland -- NOT the video)

"Uhler responded by ordering his colleagues to raid Graber's residence and confiscate all of his computer equipment as evidence of wiretapping. By filing charges that could send Graber to prison for sixteen years, the state police wanted to send a clear message to anyone who might consider documenting police misconduct in the future."

hang on if MD is two party consent. then getting pulled over you can politely say, "i do not consent to being videotaped. please turn off the dash cam" ?

hang on if MD is two party consent. then getting pulled over you can politely say, "i do not consent to being videotaped. please turn off the dash cam" ?

Morning news just reported that the wiretapping and related charges were dropped. At least according to the news MD requires all parties to concent to recording a private conversation. But the officer did not have a reasonible expectation of privacy on the side of a busy highway, thus his permission to record the event was not needed

Traffic charges against the rider still stand

Not to gloat, but that's exactly what I said would happen.  Now, I want to see the lawsuit against the cop and judge who signed the warrant for abuse of authority and false arrest/imprisonment. 

unless he lost a job or serious income because of it...I seriously doubt you will see one...a judge would not have issued a search warrant unless they thought they had grounds...and under the impressions of charges being initially presented to the judge for to issue said warrant, it would have seemed reasonable for to do so...

this guy will get nothing but a ticket and fines.  there is no judge alive that will let a case go forward against the  [leo].

Sorrell v. McGuigan, in the 4th Circuit  (http://"http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011565.U.pdf")(which covers Maryland) regards an officer arresting the individual under incorrect interpretation of law (i.e. length of a knife possessed -- Maryland has no length restriction for a folding knife).  The officer arrested Sorrell believing that Maryland had a 3" restriction on folding knives.  Sorrell sued and won.

In the present situation, the rider was perfectly within his rights to videotape and record the officer during a public stop.  The officer incorrectly interpreted the Maryland wiretap statute to require 2-party consent and obtained an arrest warrant based on that misinterpretation.

This has NOTHING to do with the stop and citation for speeding/stunting.  The officer was perfectly within his power to do so (although, there is still the question of force involved as he drew his gun without identifying himself, but I think there is leeway on that -- cops are armed for a reason).  This suit solely deals with what the cop did AFTER he left the scene and saw his face on youtube.

Iin Maryland, officers have qualified immunity.  As long as they are acting correctly under the aw, they can make mistakes, however, there is no immunity for acting incorrectly under the law.  In other words:  cops are expected to know the law.

okay...lets say this douchebag sues the state and MSP...what is to be gained?...for him, I think he is just as happy to pay his traffic citations and let this go happily away...he sold his CBR and said he isn't going to ride again...he has some sort of security clearance which means he can retain some level of decent work and pay his debts resulting from this(at least till his next backround investigation for renewal or upgrade of his clearance)...which, he is probably going to suffer his liscence being suspended or perhaps revoked for a period of time due to the nature and point accumulation of the traffic offenses for which MVA CAN make an example of him if the District Court shows no leniancy with him in court for the traffic offenses alone....so where does he gain from sueing the court and/or the MSP?

we can't give this guy his dignity back (i.e. being treated like a criminal when he isn't one)

This seems too easy (i'm certainly no crim atty) but how about a nice demand letter saying he'll sue unless the traffic charges are dropped?  Hmmm that seems improper somehow... Or sue then settle for the charges being dropped.  A felony (guessing 140mph qualifies as that in MD) is a big problem for security clearances.

The guy totally needs an atty to talk to the DA.

let me turn it around on to you:  let's say you were arrested for something either that you didn't do or it wasn't against the law.  cops come into your house with a warrant, take your stuff, arrest and book you.  you sit in jail for a day until your family hires an attorney.  you miss a few days of work, all your computer stuff is locked up at the police station, and now you have to explain to people why you were arrested.

roll forward a few months and OOOPS it turns out they screwed up big -- you shouldn't have been arrested, and no, you actually did not do anything wrong.  in fact, what you did was 100% ok.

now, are you telling me you wouldn't want someone to pay?  i don't mean necessarily money.  if it was me, i'd want to take a crowbar to the guy's head, but i'm an attorney, not a "goodfellah" so i go to court. 

the law provides damages to people who are arrested in this manner (in the present case).  why pass the law unless there is a reason for it?  the reason is simple:  the police make mistakes and we do whatever we can to excuse mistakes, but when they intentionally do their job wrong, or misinterpret the law, we have to make people right.  we can't give this guy his dignity back (i.e. being treated like a criminal when he isn't one) but we can allow him to exact some kind of punitive damages against those who overstepped their authority.

and just because the rider is a douchebag doesn't mean he doesn't have rights or should be treated like a criminal.  sure, ticket him and maybe impound his bike.  take his license.  but arrest and 16 years in prison?  being charged like that would age me a few years, i would want retribution (which is totally proper in our legal system)>

Your 1st thought is basically blackmail. The 2nd (sue first) is a little more normal

And since when is it OK for a LEO to pull is sidearm on someone that isn't and immediate threat. It's not like he had the right to shoot the McSquiddy if he rode away. It should have never left his holster. A hand on the gun in the holster is as far as that should have gone. Identifying himself as a LEO about 3 or 4 seconds faster would have been nice too. Fkn cop is lucky the dude didn't panic when he saw the gun pointed at him.

while I understand the point you make...you are making apples and oranges comparisons...

the guy was doing something blatently illegal to intiate this whole action...there was no question of that whatsoever....he then retaliated against getting caught because of the manner in which he was caught...then enter this whole debacle...

with the example you cite...the same situation doesn't run as far as the statutes and how it would go down....would I want compensation??...maybe/probably....hell...for the legal defense expedatures incurred alone...but this guy started off standing on the wrong foot and the statute is for the protection of innocent folks who are wrongfully charged and prosecuted in the 1st place....

Your 1st thought is basically blackmail. The 2nd (sue first) is a little more normal

that is not really blackmail its called "a settlement" plain and simple.  or "a deal".

no, it's not a settlement when the accused party is agreeing to refrain from a lawsuit.

You can't settle something that hasn't seen arbitration. Saying you'll hold off from doing something negative to someone in return for some payment is the basics of blackmail.

I won't show off the photos of you picking your nose, if you give me your jelly doughnut.
I won't sue you if you give me dropped charges (yes I know the grammar is messed - but I'm using dropped charges as the noun... work with it)

(that and I think Statler's a sleep)

No faith. Perhaps if this was out on General, it might have been banned as it would have had more attention and wild flame statements... But as a general rule, CAM has proven we can self regulate our discussions pretty well... (that and I think Statler's a sleep)

But as a general rule, CAM has proven we can self regulate our discussions pretty well... (that and I think Statler's a sleep)

I think this thread has been very civilized and thanks to the legally informative and factual based rather than just filled with opinions

modified your quote, but the intention was more for to say, if there were more conversations generally like this, less of them would get hammered shut

okay...lets say this douchebag sues the state and MSP...what is to be gained?...for him, I think he is just as happy to pay his traffic citations and let this go happily away...he sold his CBR and said he isn't going to ride again...he has some sort of security clearance which means he can retain some level of decent work and pay his debts resulting from this(at least till his next backround investigation for renewal or upgrade of his clearance)...which, he is probably going to suffer his liscence being suspended or perhaps revoked for a period of time due to the nature and point accumulation of the traffic offenses for which MVA CAN make an example of him if the District Court shows no leniancy with him in court for the traffic offenses alone....so where does he gain from sueing the court and/or the MSP?

And since when is it OK for a LEO to pull is sidearm on someone that isn't and immediate threat. It's not like he had the right to shoot the McSquiddy if he rode away. It should have never left his holster. A hand on the gun in the holster is as far as that should have gone. Identifying himself as a LEO about 3 or 4 seconds faster would have been nice too. Fkn cop is lucky the dude didn't panic when he saw the gun pointed at him.I've only ever been in a holding cell for a few hours at a time... Not having a door on your crapper is the most demoralizing thing I've ever been thru...

Let's steer clear of the cop bashing, shall we?

So saying 'Fkn cop' is the sticking point.

Ahh yeah. I didn't mean it that way :) I was raised by sailors. the "F" word is a very versatile word in my vocabulary  [laugh]