Charges dismissed against Md. man who taped traffic stop A Harford County Circuit Court judge Mond

[JohnyCanuck]

A Harford County Circuit Court judge Monday dismissed wiretapping charges against Anthony Graber, a motorcyclist who was jailed briefly after he taped a Maryland state trooper who stopped him for speeding on I-95. Graber used a camera mounted on his helmet, then posted the video on YouTube.

In April, a few weeks after the traffic stop, Harford County state's attorney Joseph I. Cassilly charged Graber, a staff sergeant in the Maryland Air National Guard and a computer systems engineer, with violating the state's wiretapping law. That law dates back to the 1970s and was originally intended to protect citizens from government intrusions into their privacy. If convicted on all charges, Graber faced up to 16 years in prison.

Judge Emory A. Pitt Jr. had to decide whether police performing their duties have an expectation of privacy in public space. Pitt ruled that police can have no such expectation in their public, on-the-job communications.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/story-lab/2010/09/wiretapping_charges_dropped_ag.html?hpid=moreheadlines

[FiveGoodMen]

1. One small step for man...

[ThomCat]

2. Good.

This idea that police have a right to be "protected" from video cameras in public is nothing less than police departments giving themselves permission to be corrupt.

It is police departments giving their police officers permission to do anything they want to violate people's rights, without anyone being able to contradict their lies about it, because they know that juries will believe anything that cops say unless there is a video tape to prove the cops lied.

Video cameras are our only protection against deliberate, willful police corruption. We certainly can't depend on police departments to police themselves. Internal Affairs is a joke, and civilian review boards are usually staffed by people who are there only to protect the police, and have no teeth at all when they occasionally decide show the slightest amount of independence or respect for their true purpose.

[Stinky The Clown]

3. This affirms the public's right to freely monitor police actions. It affirms that police have no ...

.... right to expect privacy when on duty and acting in public.

I believe the overwhelming majority of cops want to do the right thing. But that in no way says we should not be able to defend against the bad apples that we all know exist.

[depakid]

4. That this was even litigated is astonishing

and quite frankly something the Maryland State Bar ought to be looking into.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. Actually, its a good thing it was litigated . . . . .

The MD State Police simply got pissed because the kid posted it on Youtube. They asked him not to, but he went ahead anyhow. The video makes the cops look bad so they went for it. By going this far, they get a court ruling saying what can be done legally. The state cops say they will not appeal.

[guruoo]

6. Door now open for a civil suit? nt

[PoliticAverse]

7. Good.

There have been a bunch of similar cases around the US in the past year.