Biker arrested for videotaping officer story updated

[J5]

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" ?

you can do that but unless you are being stupid and mouthing off then its in your best interest as it can be used in evidence

down here in aus they have had in car cams for quite a while , previously i am sure there was audio recording

if pulled over they advise you straight away that its all being recorded , use your repsonse as you see fit say thats awesome so now i can see it in court and make you look like an idiot

afaik here they are constantly recording on a rolling 30 sec loop , if they hit the lights then it keeps the prev 30 seccs and contiues recording

have a look on youtube there is plenty around in different countries

funny thing it remids me , i had a mate who was working in a call centre and they recorded calls and you were advised of this and you had the option to deny recording

smartarse rings in and says no i dont want it recorded , ok recording off, doofus goes on and on , in the end my mate cracks it and gives it to him with both barrels

numnut says you can talk to me like that

oh yes i can since you decided you didnt want this conversation recorded 

[Slide Panda]

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

[ducatiz]

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. 

[zooom]

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...

[Slide Panda]

They raided his house, took his computer and associated stuff (the Cam etc) and probably some other stuff under the wiretapping charge.

I'm thinking a wiretapping charge and a raid on the dudes house for posting something to youtube is rather overkill - and I'm John Q Public on this one

[MongoReturns]

reasonable expectation of privacy...ack....lawschool flashbacks.....ack

[MongoReturns]

http://hellforleathermagazine.com/2010/09/squid-defeats-thug-cop-in-landmark-recording-case/#more-10329

hahaha the term "squid" will never be un-funny to me.

[Veloce-Fino]

Epic win for constitutional rights.

[ducatiz]

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...

One doesn't need to show loss of income or a job to prevail in a case against a police officer for abuse of authority or wrongful arrest.

The judge will have had testimony regarding the circumstances and if he issued a warrant for such a situation, it is possible he too could be included.  A warrant should not have been issued -- that's the opinion of the court (and the state AG).  Just because you misunderstand the law doesn't give you a pass.  Even if the misunderstanding is 'reasonable' it doesn't absolve you of the negative affects of your action.

Wrongful arrest is actionable under federal law... 42 U.S.C. §1983. Don't have to show loss of income, etc, just have to show it was a wrongful arrest.

[sbrguy]

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

[ducatiz]

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

Sorrell v. McGuigan, in the 4th Circuit (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.

[zooom]

Sorrell v. McGuigan, in the 4th Circuit (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?

[ducatiz]

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?

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)>

[Ahks]

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.

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

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...

[MongoReturns]

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.