In Maryland, it's illegal to video your traffic stop

Washington Post article here. Read the many heated comments, too. I figure the cops on CPF will want to weigh in.

I think the law should be changed so that on public property, audio recordings are legal (as is the case with photography). I think that in the future it will be common for people to have a video camera recording their point of view, and a dash-cam like the police do etc for the purpose of providing evidence when accidents or crimes occur.

Wow.

I wouldn't think a LEO has a reasonable expectation of privacy during a duty related conversation with a civilian (e.g., during a traffic stop).

Is this making the news? Sure. Will it hold up under scritiny? No. Anyone with the most cursory knowledge of privacy rights knows that a traffic stop - if you can even call this one - does not qualify as private communications where one can manifest an expectation of privacy.

Wow! My first thought is that it seems like a fine example of jackbooted thuggery on the part of the six officers who raided the house where the National Guard Staff Sergeant lived with his wife, his two kids, and his parents.

This could have, and should have, been handled much better than this. :shakehead

I'm all for upholding the letter of the law (even if that law needs to be updated ASAP) but I also think that the Maryland prosecutors should have put much more thought into the outcome of their actions.
Whatever happened to common sense?

Apparetnly it is not illegal in Washington.

Rule #1: Don't push the LEO. Really.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_police_punch

I like the part he didn't turn his audio on until the cop pulled him over :thumbsup:, also what did he plan on doing, shooting a guy for riding a motorcycle?

I guess there cant be any episodes of COPS in Maryland anymore.

smokelaw1 said:

Apparetnly it is not illegal in Washington.

Rule #1: Don't push the LEO. Really.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_police_punch

Click to expand...

I appreciate the tie-in to the current subject, but let's make sure for all the comments we don't turn this into a us vs. them all police are bad discussion. It would be nice to keep the thread open.

LumenHound said:

Wow! My first thought is that it seems like a fine example of jackbooted thuggery on the part of the six officers who raided the house where the National Guard Staff Sergeant lived with his wife, his two kids, and his parents.

Click to expand...

I like that - "jackbooted thuggery".

This defies imagination. What if a private citizen asked a police officer to turn off the camera in his car during a traffic stop?

Police are carrying on a public service and as such are not acting as private individuals in official interactions with the public. The only right to privacy is on the part of private citizens.

I can speak from personal experience that techniques like joint manipulation don't always work on females. They're very limber and don't have the tight tendons that muscular guys have, so they're harder to control. You can see from the video how he tried to torque the lady's arm, but it doesn't do a whole lot.

Also, I don't know why America is under the impression that LEOs are not allowed to deliver strikes to the face. He tried verbal commands and joint manipulation, so when that didn't work, he had to step it up a notch.

These ladies' actions dictated the sequence of events. Why is it ok for people to go hands on with a LEO, but when the officer responds with (justified) use of force, it's hands across America for these people?!?

LumenHound said:

I'm all for upholding the letter of the law (even if that law needs to be updated ASAP) but I also think that the Maryland prosecutors should have put much more thought into the outcome of their actions.
Whatever happened to common sense?

Click to expand...

In some states, a recording has implied consent if you continue to talk around things that are apparently cameras - though I can't recall if Maryland is one of these. The Maryland case was poorly handled, because a person stomping towards you with a gun is a threat to your life - if you shot any old person in that situation, you could defend it in court.

My own gut feeling is that these "illegal wiretap" cases are designed to scare people, mainly to prevent admissibility of the tapes in court, and maybe maybe to defend bad police officers. I would think all good police officers would want records of their actions to protect them from lies like "He punched me in the kidneys while putting cuffs on me because I'm black." Mr. Officer would reply "No, here's the tape and audio - no hitting motion, no sound, you didn't even say 'oomph.'" But then they would have their every action judged in a courtroom by people like me who don't really know policing - and it could well be that good officers don't want that in the back of their heads every second.

I would like to see better education - to us and to police - about what can be recorded, which will allow interpretation of state recording laws as appropriate. We'll probably have to wait for a high court ruling to answer that question.

No one should be prevented from having a video or audio recording device in their car to record the police, or anything else, when they are out in public.

"No reasonable expectation of privacy" is just that. It isn't one-way. If states like Maryland want to argue their contacts by public officials are private, then they run the risk of throwing out decades of convictions whenever law enforcement used a recording device.

It's an Orwellian world when police say they can use a hidden recording to convict you, then claim your recording of the same event is illegal and cannot be used for your defense.

Seriously? Who voted for those lawmakers? That makes just one more state in the East I can to avoid.

get-lit said:

Seriously? Who voted for those lawmakers? That makes just one more state in the East I can to avoid.

Click to expand...

It's not the law - the law makes sense. The issue at hand is a prosecutor applying the law to a situation that simply does not fit.

get-lit said:

Seriously? Who voted for those lawmakers? That makes just one more state in the East I can to avoid.

Click to expand...

I've just added your sig line to my thread that asks for everyone's favorites!

Perhaps the better approach would be not to try to prevent anyone from recording what's in the public view, but instead hold them responsible for how they use it. As evidence in court I see no reason to make it inadmissible provided the person who made the recording can be subpoenaed. However, posting such a recording on YouTube as the motorcycle rider did is another matter, and maybe that's what needs to challenged if Maryland case law on such recordings doesn't already exist.

If you are out in public how can anyone demand privacy? If you want privacy go home and don't come out in public. So if you're in a park in Maryland its a breach of privacy to have your conversation recorded by someone sitting beisde you on the park bench?

The Government should fear the people NOT the people should fear the Government (or their officials) :thumbsup:

That's the kind of law I'd expect from the Kim Jong-il regime! :thumbsdow