Bruce Maiman of Examiner.com reported that police arrests for videotaping their actions is on the rise.
The story starts in Maryland where a man with a motorcycle is speeding on I-95. Anthony Graber admits to speeding and even showboating (he popped a wheelie at one point). He’s pulled over for speeding but that’s not the problem. He got the ticket but he also had a video camera in his helmet and he’s recording the arrest. At that point, the state trooper –a plainclothes officer– cuts him off and draws a gun.
If you look carefully at the video, you see the plainclothes trooper get out of his vehicle, gun drawn, but no badge, or at least not one plainly visible, not one as readily displayed as the gun.
Graber says he thought he was being robbed. Police say Graber backed his bike up slightly, “creating a brief moment of fear” for the plainclothes officer. In the video, he quickly holsters his gun after getting out of the vehicle. And the point to a marked car behind Graber’s bike and argue that Graber knew what was happening.
Graber received the ticket and forgot about the incident, but after he posted the video on YouTube, police arrived at his home, search warrants in hand, and take his camera, two computers, two laptops, all the hard drives and he’s indicted for violating state wiretapping laws by recording the trooper without his consent.
More and more States are using the draconian measure because, in general, it is not illegal to video tape officers in the performance of their duties. They have resorted to wiretapping laws. This despite the fact that several of the police departments have illegally used the Patriot Act to wiretap people for normal criminal activity.
The problem has not gone totally unrecognized by Congress. Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] introduced on July 15, H.CON.RES.298, Expressing the sense of Congress that the videotaping or photographing of police engaged in potentially abusive activity in a public place should not be prosecuted in State or Federal courts.
The resolution reads:
Whereas prosecutors in several States are applying State wiretapping laws in the prosecution of individuals for the videotaping of police engaged in potentially abusive activity;
Whereas State and Federal wiretapping laws were not intended to be used for such charges;
Whereas some police departments have been using national security as a justification for the harassment, charges, or an arrest of individuals, based solely on a citizen recording, with no additional factors considered;
Whereas a study conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2000 indicated that 22 percent of police officers claim their fellow officers sometimes, often, or always use excessive force; and
Whereas the privacy and safety rights of the police officers in the line of duty must be balanced carefully with the public’s right to transparency and accountability of public servants: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that–
(1) citizen recording fills in gaps in existing checks against law enforcement abuses, when balanced with the needs of law enforcement, police privacy, and citizen privacy;
(2) national security alone is insufficient justification for harassment, charges, or an arrest for otherwise innocent behavior, such as videotaping; and
(3) members of the public have a right to observe, and if they choose, to make video or sound recordings of the police during the discharge of their public duties, as long as they do not physically or otherwise interfere with the officers’ discharge of their duties, or violate any other State or Federal law, intended to protect the safety of police officers, in the process of the recording.
Possibly related articles:
Tags: Bill of Rights, First Amendment, Media, News Item, Police State
Loading ...
