If you have a helmet cam, take note

thehypercube · Post by **thehypercube** » Fri Apr 16, 2010 3:24 am

http://www.abc2news.com/mediacenter/loc ... avCatId=14

Says the guy will be arrested and charged with a felony for audibly recording the officer without his consent. I'm not sure I agree.

Skootz Kabootz · Post by **Skootz Kabootz** » Fri Apr 16, 2010 3:33 am

Another cop out of control/over reacting. Ridiculous case for the state attorney to pursue too. They probably just want to scare others out of recording any other out of control officers.

TVB · Post by **TVB** » Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:12 am

It's crap like this that makes me stop and wonder if the libertarian nutjobs complaining about the loss of personal liberty and about unchecked police powers might have a point. Eventually one of these cases will make its way to the Supreme Court. Hard to say whether that'll turn out well or not.

Roose Hurro · Post by **Roose Hurro** » Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:37 am

Ummm... the guy wasn't recording the officer, he was recording his illegal activities, and the officer willfully stepped in front of the camera. I doubt I'd either think to turn the camera off or ask the officer if he minded, were I in the same position. Not only that, but how would this rider even know such a ridiculous law existed?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

bigbropgo · Post by **bigbropgo** » Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:51 am

kinda strange. the cop jumps out of his car with his weapon drawn and says a few times to get off the bike before he identifies himself. if the rider tried to run was he going to shoot him?

overly agressive?.....yea probably. but every time some idiot is driving like a maniac on the freeway i wish they would get caught. i want to jump to the defense of the rider but who knows how crazy he was driving.

Roose Hurro · Post by **Roose Hurro** » Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:07 am

bigbropgo wrote:kinda strange. the cop jumps out of his car with his weapon drawn and says a few times to get off the bike before he identifies himself. if the rider tried to run was he going to shoot him?

overly agressive?.....yea probably. but every time some idiot is driving like a maniac on the freeway i wish they would get caught. i want to jump to the defense of the rider but who knows how crazy he was driving.

We have a video of him speeding by traffic and popping a wheelie, also in traffic. So, yes, we do know how crazy he was driving.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

bigbropgo · Post by **bigbropgo** » Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:13 am

okay? i have not seen the full youtube vid that was yanked just the 3 seconds posted by the news station. was it crazy enough to have a cop pounce on him with glock ready? i didn't say the guy didn't deserve a ticket.

TVB · Post by **TVB** » Fri Apr 16, 2010 1:30 pm

Whether he deserves a ticket isn't the point. For the sake of argument, let's supposed that he deserves to have his license revoked. There's still the problem of A) the officer approaching him after he stops with a weapon drawn, and B) the abuse of a privacy law to cover it up. Police aren't issued firearms so that they can look badass; they are issued firearms for use in self-defense and (when necessary) apprehending dangerous suspects. From what I've seen of the video it doesn't look like it was necessary in this case, and a law that prevents a member of the public from scrutinizing the conduct of law enforcement agencies is a Bad Law. For example, a law against recording people without their permission for privacy reasons should have an exception for police activities (which are not private) precisely to document possible abuse of authority. After all, they have the right to do it to the public....

Vic · Post by **Vic** » Fri Apr 16, 2010 3:27 pm

I am at work and can't hear the program (anyone know if this is in text anywhere? The thing that strikes me is that this guy in what appears to be an unmarked vehicle pulls in front of the motorcycle, hops out with a gun drawn, it does not look like he showed any identification-other than the handgun.

That is absolutely terrifying! The fool on the bike was stopped, so no danger to anyone at that point. The idiot in the car (poorly trained police officer, I am guessing) had no business exiting his vehicle with his weapon drawn like that.

As for the law that prevents private citizens to record things that others are doing to them on a public road... that scares the hell out of me, but I will stop there or this will become a political commentary.

-v

Ray Knobs · Post by **Ray Knobs** » Fri Apr 16, 2010 3:39 pm

What if the guy on the bike was armed?

An unmarked car cuts you off, a guy in a sweat shirt jumps out yelling and draws a weapon.

anyone see the city, it was a Baltimore news website
It figures, didn't the state take over the police force for a couple years because of so many abuse problems.

loodieboy · Post by **loodieboy** » Fri Apr 16, 2010 3:50 pm

Even assuming the validity (and wisdom) of the law as written, for purposes of the criminal prosecution, good luck proving intent. I assume that the prosecution must establish specific intent, particularly given the wide variety of circumstances under which a person otherwise inadvertently could capture the words or actions of a police officer on tape. A tourist filming the sights, for example.

The guy was riding with a helmet cam. No crime there. Then a guy in street clothes jumps out of an unmarked car brandishing a firearm. Could our recalcitrant motorcyclist reasonably be expected to have the presence of mind to shut off the camera? No way. The only thing going the prosecution's way is the apparent fact that a marked policed vehicle was behind the motorcycle. Even assuming, however, that the motorcyclist was aware of its presence, and otherwise aware that he was the subject of a traffic stop, the unexpected appearance of a handgun could reasonably be expected to distract his attention from his responsibility to shut off the helmet cam. Indeed, even assuming he knew the guy with a gun was a cop, it would not have been prudent to move his hands in any sudden movement, toward his helmet or otherwise, until directed to do so. Even then, the appearance of the a handgun under circumstances otherwise not warranting the brandishing of a weapon could reasonably be expected to distract the motorcyclist from his otherwise legal obligation to shut the cam off.

No doubt this is an aggressive prosecution intended to quash an otherwise shocking video.

Most shocking to me, however, is the way the cop slapped his motorcycle. That would SERIOUSLY piss me off.

BuddyRaton · Post by **BuddyRaton** » Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:07 pm

Just my opinion but...

They are both idiots!

Quo Vadimus · Post by **Quo Vadimus** » Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:27 pm

Um, the 'recording device' was certainly more obvious than the trooper's identity. Someone hops outta their car like that at me, I'm yelling "take it!" and running the eff away from my bike...

jasondavis48108 · Post by **jasondavis48108** » Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:37 pm

TVB wrote: It's crap like this that makes me stop and wonder if the libertarian nutjobs complaining about the loss of personal liberty and about unchecked police powers might have a point. Eventually one of these cases will make its way to the Supreme Court. Hard to say whether that'll turn out well or not.

Yup, those crazy libertarian nutjobs (like me) sure do.

If you showed the first few seconds of this stop to most folks they would think the guy was getting bike jacked. The government and thier muscle have way overstepped thier bounds on this one, not that I don't think the rider was riding like a complete jacka** and certainly deserved to have his liscense revoked. Hey I wonder if the guy would have beat the hell out of that cop and the police car in back were to catch it on tape if the rider could have sued for invasion of privacy?

thehypercube · Post by **thehypercube** » Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:08 pm

More info (and text for those who cant see video from the first link)

http://carlosmiller.com/2010/04/16/mary ... -with-gun/

Rider was riding like a jackass no doubt, but the police are way overstepping their boundaries and trying to do a cover up. Looks like it's blowing up in their face. This is the #3 link on Reddit now and loads of folks will be sending it to their friends who ride.

I'm pretty sensitive to this type of police corruption. As I posted here in October I was hit by an off duty cop and then blamed in the police report by the responding officer when no witnesses stayed to give their statement, although the evidence was clearly in my favor. Of course it didnt end up with felony charges, jail time or bail, but something must be done to keep these guys in check.

I have been wanting to get a helmet cam since my accident in case I find myself in another situation where it would provide conclusive proof. Now it may just end up a liability?

nateandcourt · Post by **nateandcourt** » Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:16 pm

If a random guy came at me with a gun w/o identifying himself. I do not know what I would do, good or bad.

But the police should have left it at the ticket. To be honest I have seen uniformed cops do that here to crotch rocket riders, simply because they race off before the cop can give the ticket, but as the video shows this cop was not in uniform, no visible badge, and he approached the guy with the gun before even identifying himself.

Major Redneck · Post by **Major Redneck** » Sat Apr 17, 2010 12:25 am

yesterday i was stopped by a local police... the reason he said he stopped me was i crossed the centerline... NO WAY!!! i was about 2 foot from it ... i said i did not cross the centerline he said he seen me cross the centerline... he check me out for everything asked me if i was ok to drive that i was swerving all over the road... i told him i had to swerve in order to avoid the pot holes and other road hazard that the city well not fix... and that i did not cross the center line... he did let me go with a warning...

after this i really want a helment cam now for just this reason... this is the 3rd time in a year iv been stopped saying i did something wrong when in fact i did not... its my word aginst the officer... first rule of officer ingagement is not to argue...

jmkjr72 · Post by **jmkjr72** » Sat Apr 17, 2010 12:32 am

thats a crock the courts have ruled in many cases that if the cops can record you you can record them
how is this possible that the traffic stop occures in public and what happens in public is public domain

bigbropgo · Post by **bigbropgo** » Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:14 am

jmkjr72 wrote:thats a crock the courts have ruled in many cases that if the cops can record you you can record them
how is this possible that the traffic stop occures in public and what happens in public is public domain

the town i live in has caught up to the rest of the country and installed cameras at all major intersections. the mall i go to has them. the high school i attended years ago has them. the bank has always had them. and cops use them for the protection of the officer and a tool used in court. there are many reality television shows devoted to replaying many clips from a dash mount camera.

so some citizen has a camera both for fun and safety catches a officer overstepping his authority a bit, and the sport bike rider is faced with a felony?

thats a bit messed up.

"RESPECT MY ATHOURITAI"

Cheshire · Post by **Cheshire** » Sat Apr 17, 2010 3:58 am

Sooo...since there was a marked car behind him, can he press counter-charges for them recording HIM w/o consent?

LuvMyScoot · Post by **LuvMyScoot** » Sat Apr 17, 2010 4:28 am

This guy should call the ACLU; they live for this stuff.

jmkjr72 · Post by **jmkjr72** » Sat Apr 17, 2010 3:46 pm

Cheshire wrote:Sooo...since there was a marked car behind him, can he press counter-charges for them recording HIM w/o consent?

ding ding ding we have a winner
lets throw the other cop in prision along with every other cop in that state that has run a dash cam

Hipnerd · Post by **Hipnerd** » Sat Apr 17, 2010 6:05 pm

There are two issues here. The first is "Did the guy drive like an asshat?" The answer is "yes." He needs some major fines and perhaps a suspension.

The other question is, "Did he violate a law by recording a cop?" I'm no lawyer, but I am going to say "no."

I am a journalist, and many states require you to get permission before recording someone. Whenever I do a phone interview, I make sure to get the person's permission on tape before we start. So there is a law that says you can't record someone secretly without permission.

But you are always allowed to record as long as it is not a secret. And with that rig on his head, I think you would have a hard time making the case that he was hiding the recording. You are also generally allowed to record from any public place -- freeways are included there.

The only way this would be illegal is if the cop missed the giant camera on the guy's head.

I have no idea why the DA decided to prosecute this. If the law was broken, it happened unintentionally, and really, no harm was caused. Just let it drop.

sotied · Post by **sotied** » Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:33 pm

Hipnerd wrote:There are two issues here. The first is "Did the guy drive like an asshat?" The answer is "yes." He needs some major fines and perhaps a suspension.

The other question is, "Did he violate a law by recording a cop?" I'm no lawyer, but I am going to say "no."

I am a journalist, and many states require you to get permission before recording someone. Whenever I do a phone interview, I make sure to get the person's permission on tape before we start. So there is a law that says you can't record someone secretly without permission.

But you are always allowed to record as long as it is not a secret. And with that rig on his head, I think you would have a hard time making the case that he was hiding the recording. You are also generally allowed to record from any public place -- freeways are included there.

The only way this would be illegal is if the cop missed the giant camera on the guy's head.

I have no idea why the DA decided to prosecute this. If the law was broken, it happened unintentionally, and really, no harm was caused. Just let it drop.

Same here. I just sent a note to the Society of Professional Journalists with a link to the video. I've been a journo for 21 years and if you're in a public place, you have no expectation of privacy as long as the video is not used to promote a private enterprise and you're not a minor.

Seems like all those things here work in the motorcyclists favor.

And in a two-party state (meaning both parties have to agree to being recorded) the public place issue trumps it. If any citizen could hear the conversation between the copy and motorcyclist, then the conversation can be recorded. That's why I LOVE to pull out my recorder on planes and on subways to capture dinks who shout into their cellphones.

I'll let you know what the ruling is by the folks at SPJ.

Jeff

dakotamouse · Post by **dakotamouse** » Sat Apr 17, 2010 9:33 pm

So there is a marked cruise parked behind the bike. Why the heck didn't he pull over the biker? The plain clothes officer would still have been able to assist as backup. Confusion avoided.

Speaking of awkward cop moments. A gal on Scooter Divas was pulled over because someone reported a red MOTORCYCLE carring a rifle.

She had her lacross stick in a carrier on her back. She had to get off her scooter and put her hands on her helmet. I posted that I will never drive in New York with my pool cue case strapped to my back. Sheesh.

michelle_7728 · Post by **michelle_7728** » Sun Apr 18, 2010 7:11 am

That is total BS, and yet another example of how our rights are being eroded. That helmet cam was clearly visible. I hope he does take them to court...and win.

TVB · Post by **TVB** » Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:25 pm

Hipnerd wrote:I have no idea why the DA decided to prosecute this.

It seems pretty clear it was a favor to the police department, either specifically to punish this guy for revealing how this cop had conducted himself, or to intimidate others who might record evidence of police malpractice or misconduct.

bpatrick5 · Post by **bpatrick5** » Mon Apr 19, 2010 4:01 am

Audio and vidio consent is regulated by state law. In Arizona, for example, the party being recording must consent in writing or the consent can be recorded.

However, law enforcement is not required to obtain consent when recording in the line of duty.

kneil67@yahoo.com · Post by **kneil67@yahoo.com** » Mon Apr 19, 2010 12:39 pm

Major Redneck wrote:yesterday i was stopped by a local police... the reason he said he stopped me was i crossed the centerline... NO WAY!!! i was about 2 foot from it ... i said i did not cross the centerline he said he seen me cross the centerline... he check me out for everything asked me if i was ok to drive that i was swerving all over the road... i told him i had to swerve in order to avoid the pot holes and other road hazard that the city well not fix... and that i did not cross the center line... he did let me go with a warning...

after this i really want a helment cam now for just this reason... this is the 3rd time in a year iv been stopped saying i did something wrong when in fact i did not... its my word aginst the officer... first rule of officer ingagement is not to argue...

I dont ride with out my helcam good thing to have for everything. want to get a rear cam soon

iwabj · Post by **iwabj** » Mon Apr 19, 2010 12:56 pm

djelliott · Post by **djelliott** » Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:46 pm

BuddyRaton wrote:Just my opinion but...

They are both idiots!

DING DING DING!

We have a winner.

dakotamouse · Post by **dakotamouse** » Mon Apr 19, 2010 4:45 pm

bpatrick5 wrote:Audio and vidio consent is regulated by state law. In Arizona, for example, the party being recording must consent in writing or the consent can be recorded.

However, law enforcement is not required to obtain consent when recording in the line of duty.

That varies from state to state. In ND only one person in the video ore recording has to be aware that a recording is going on. So I can record a conversation I'm having with someone but I can't record a conversation involving others.

I covet one of those video recorder pens. This way I could just tap my pen in my pocket protector and record my insane supervisor when she goes balistic and send it in to HR.

TVB · Post by **TVB** » Tue Sep 28, 2010 3:09 pm

An update on this case* with (IMHO) a proper outcome: a Maryland circuit court judge has dismissed the "wiretapping" charges, ruling that the police do not have an expectation of privacy when conducting their official duties in a public place, and that his helmetcam did not qualify as a surreptitious eavesdropping device. Both get a "duh" from me. The traffic violations, however... he still has to go to trial for those. (I wonder if they'll subpoena his video?)

*For those who don't want to scroll up: a motorcyclist in Maryland was charged with violating police officer's privacy by continuing to record with a video camera when he was pulled over for hotdogging. The police officer's conduct was... arguably inappropriate, hence his wish to have the video go away.

Skootz Kabootz · Post by **Skootz Kabootz** » Tue Sep 28, 2010 3:50 pm

Sounds like a very reasonable outcome. Throw out the BS, prosecute the actual infraction. What a concept.

charlie55 · Post by **charlie55** » Tue Sep 28, 2010 5:36 pm

Skootz Kabootz wrote:Sounds like a very reasonable outcome. Throw out the BS, prosecute the actual infraction. What a concept.

And a mere 5 months for the system to circumnavigate it's way to the same conclusion that most reasonably intelligent people had probably reached in 5 minutes. I know they're overloaded, but this was a slam-dunk if ever there was one.

Leif · Post by **Leif** » Tue Sep 28, 2010 7:02 pm

charlie55 wrote:
Skootz Kabootz wrote:Sounds like a very reasonable outcome. Throw out the BS, prosecute the actual infraction. What a concept.
And a mere 5 months for the system to circumnavigate it's way to the same conclusion that most reasonably intelligent people had probably reached in 5 minutes. I know they're overloaded, but this was a slam-dunk if ever there was one.

Now imagine you couldn't make bail and had to sit in Jail for 5 months waiting for the Judge to throw out the case (I know it may not apply in this case, but it does happen). Or you could plead guilty to "some infraction" and be out in 2 weeks. My wife was on a jury case where the guy spent 9 months in jail and was found innocent of the charges.

Post by **ericalm** » Tue Sep 28, 2010 10:48 pm

Because I didn't get to say it the first time this thread was up, I will now:
Please no political opinion, commentary, etc.

Thanks,
Mgmt

BootScootin'FireFighter · Wed Sep 29, 2010 12:10 am

I missed this original thread, or even the story down my way. Cops are nuts around here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GgWrV8TcUc (Baltimore cop harassing teenagers for skateboarding at the Inner Harbor)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAgQKJuriIo (DC off duty detective draws his gun after his Hummer got hit passing through a neighborhood snowball fight.)

The best part of the snowball fight is at the 43 second mark when some jackass blasts him in the face with a snowball.

iMoses · Post by **iMoses** » Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:31 pm

TVB wrote:An update on this case* with (IMHO) a proper outcome: a Maryland circuit court judge has dismissed the "wiretapping" charges, ruling that the police do not have an expectation of privacy when conducting their official duties in a public place, and that his helmetcam did not qualify as a surreptitious eavesdropping device. Both get a "duh" from me. The traffic violations, however... he still has to go to trial for those. (I wonder if they'll subpoena his video?)

*For those who don't want to scroll up: a motorcyclist in Maryland was charged with violating police officer's privacy by continuing to record with a video camera when he was pulled over for hotdogging. The police officer's conduct was... arguably inappropriate, hence his wish to have the video go away.

I am glad that the judge used common sense and more importantly upheld our basic rights. If we start allowing our constitutional rights to be taken away, we have lost. The idea of what America is about is freedom and our ability to shed light on wrongs no matter who committed them is as basic as can be.

This isn't the only city / county / state that have this law on the books. Crafting legislation to rid us of our rights is unfortunately the trend. Let's hope that this judge's decision curtails those a bit.

Without video we would not have the "Rodney King" incident... well the incident would of still taken place, but the light of truth would of been darkened and squashed. By having the video it didn't become a common persons word versus a police officers word.

Whether that common person is innocent, a crook, murderer or thief is a matter for the courts to decide, not a LEO. It is the courts job to give the punishment for the crimes committed if any.

Now that being said, I hope the jerk get the maximum for riding like an ass. He endangered not only himself but everyone else that was on that road.

BootScootin'FireFighter · Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:57 pm

iMoses wrote:Without video we would not have the "Rodney King" incident...It is the courts job to give the punishment for the crimes committed if any.

Agreed, but the justice system failed big time on holding those officers accountable, and unfortunately anarchy rained down on April 29, 1992 for six days.

iMoses wrote:He endangered not only himself but everyone else that was on that road.

Sure he rode like a jackass, but did he really endanger other people that much? I used to drive that stretch of 95 all the time north of Baltimore and 18 wheelers drive almost that hot-doggish, but the state police give them a free pass.

iMoses · Post by **iMoses** » Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:13 pm

BootScootin'FireFighter wrote:
iMoses wrote:He endangered not only himself but everyone else that was on that road.
Sure he rode like a jackass, but did he really endanger other people that much? I used to drive that stretch of 95 all the time north of Baltimore and 18 wheelers drive almost that hot-doggish, but the state police give them a free pass.

It depends on your definition of "much".

He's a jackass either way.