Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [infoguys-list] This should be interesting to follow

Expand Messages
  • jkleohart22193@yahoo.com
    Funny all the times police tape video and audio from their vehicles and in the police barracks that was OK. They are above the law. I propose that all those
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 22, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Funny all the times police tape video and audio from their vehicles and in the police barracks that was OK. They are above the law. I propose that all those devices are illegal and should be removed. I am just joking of course.

      John Leonard, CPP
      Versatek, LLC
      www.versateksecurity.com
      Sent on the Sprint� Now Network from my BlackBerry�

      -----Original Message-----
      From: "CRAIG-MSN" <csmithlaw@...>
      Sender: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:56:15
      To: <infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com>
      Reply-To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] This should be interesting to follow

      Federal law allows video/audio taping without party consent. Since it was law enforcement and the LEO was funded by state and federal funding the federal law supersedes state law. Under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution the state law must fold.

      The problem this guy will have is finding 1) an attorney with the balls to take the case and challenge it and 2) an attorney that is bright enough to research the law.

      Craig Smith
      LMC
      Davenport, IA.


      ps. I don't like attorneys


      From: suesarkis@...
      Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 5:11 PM
      To: pica_assocation@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [infoguys-list] This should be interesting to follow




      _http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/20/AR201006200
      2532.html?wpisrc=nl_pmopinions_
      (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/20/AR2010062002532.html?wpisrc=nl_pmopinions)

      Maryland prosecutors overstep on wiretapping law
      Monday, June 21, 2010

      ANTHONY GRABER deserved a traffic ticket for speeding on Interstate 95
      while popping wheelies. What the 25-year-old Abingdon, Md., resident did not
      deserve was to find himself, weeks later, facing a lengthy prison sentence
      for violating a Maryland wiretapping law.

      As The Post's Annys Shin explained, Mr. Graber's troubles started when he
      mounted a video camera on his motorcycle helmet. Mr. Graber was pulled over
      by an unmarked car in early March while on his ill-advised romp on I-95. A
      man in street clothes and wielding a gun emerged from the vehicle and
      ordered Mr. Graber to get off the bike. Only then did Maryland State Trooper
      Joseph D. Uhler identify himself as a police officer and holster his weapon.

      The helmet cam captured video and audio of the encounter with the trooper;
      Mr. Graber posted the piece on YouTube one week later. He soon found
      himself the subject of a raid in which law enforcement officers seized computer
      equipment and the video camera from his home. Mr. Graber was indicted for
      violating a Maryland law that prohibits the audiotaping of a person without
      his consent. Between the wiretapping charges and the traffic violations, Mr.
      Graber could face up to 16 years behind bars.

      Maryland law allows soundless videotaping of public activities as long as
      no one's reasonable expectation of privacy is breached. Videos made earlier
      this year of police officers beating University of Maryland students in the
      crowded streets after a basketball game pass legal muster under this
      theory.

      People may be audiotaped without their consent only if they essentially
      forfeit their right to privacy. Tape-recording a neighbor's screaming match
      without his knowledge is permitted. However, all truly private conversations
      -- whether in person or over the phone -- may not be audiotaped unless all
      parties consent. Maryland law enforcement officials contend that Trooper
      Uhler was engaged in such a private conversation with Mr. Graber -- even
      though he was standing on the shoulder of a busy highway, carrying out his
      duties as a public servant and issuing a speeding ticket. This is not the kind
      of "private conversation" the law was meant to protect.

      Maryland lawmakers should revisit the wiretap law to allow those directly
      involved in an official conversation with an on-duty police officer to
      record these conversations. Police officers should generally be notified when
      they are being recorded, but the officer's consent should not be required to
      proceed.

      In the meantime, the absurd prosecution of Mr. Graber should be dropped,
      and prosecutors should remember that the Maryland law was meant to protect
      private citizens from intrusions, not police officers from public
      embarrassment.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.