A Harford County Circuit Court judge ruled this afternoon that a motorcyclist who was arrested for videotaping his traffic stop by a Maryland State Trooper was within his rights to record the confrontation.
Judge Emory A Pitt Jr. tossed all the charges filed against Anthony Graber, leaving only speeding and other traffic violations, and most likely sparing him a trial that had been scheduled for Oct. 12. The judge ruled that Maryland's wire tap law allows recording of both voice and sound in areas where privacy cannot be expected. He ruled that a police officer on a traffic stop has no expectation of privacy.
"Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public," the judge wrote. "When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation."
This is so great. I know it's weird to cheer for sanity, which should be the status quo, but damned if I am not cheering for some sanity right now.
So, who was it that was saying expectation of privacy and wiretapping laws had nothing to do with this issue?
(Judge Pitt quoted as saying) 'Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes' ("Who watches the watchmen?”)."
Graber was also charged with possessing a “device primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of oral communications" -- referring to the video camera on his helmet. The judge disagreed with the prosecutor that the helmet cam was illegal, and concluded the state's argument would render illegal “almost every cell phone, Blackberry, and every similar device, not to mention dictation equipment and other types of recording devices."
Pitt's decision is the first ruling in Maryland to address the legality of citizens taping police in the course of their duties. Because it is a circuit court ruling, it is not binding on other judges. However, unless it is appealed, said Graber's attorney, David Rocah of the ACLU of Maryland, "it is likely to be the last word" on the matter and to be regarded as precedent by police.
Well... the first bolded part is just funny. He has a camera! It's only purpose is to record things!
...yeah?
The second bolded part is obvious but sad, in a way. I'm glad this guy isn't going to have to waste his life fighting this to stay out of jail, but I wish we could get a blanket supreme court ruling on this basically reading line for line what this judge said.
(Judge Pitt quoted as saying) 'Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes' ("Who watches the watchmen?”)."
Graber was also charged with possessing a “device primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of oral communications" -- referring to the video camera on his helmet. The judge disagreed with the prosecutor that the helmet cam was illegal, and concluded the state's argument would render illegal “almost every cell phone, Blackberry, and every similar device, not to mention dictation equipment and other types of recording devices."
Pitt's decision is the first ruling in Maryland to address the legality of citizens taping police in the course of their duties. Because it is a circuit court ruling, it is not binding on other judges. However, unless it is appealed, said Graber's attorney, David Rocah of the ACLU of Maryland, "it is likely to be the last word" on the matter and to be regarded as precedent by police.
Well... the first bolded part is just funny. He has a camera! It's only purpose is to record things!
...yeah?
The second bolded part is obvious but sad, in a way. I'm glad this guy isn't going to have to waste his life fighting this to stay out of jail, but I wish we could get a blanket supreme court ruling on this basically reading line for line what this judge said.
Probably best not to risk it with this SCOTUS.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Posts
This is so great. I know it's weird to cheer for sanity, which should be the status quo, but damned if I am not cheering for some sanity right now.
So, who was it that was saying expectation of privacy and wiretapping laws had nothing to do with this issue?
Well... the first bolded part is just funny. He has a camera! It's only purpose is to record things!
...yeah?
The second bolded part is obvious but sad, in a way. I'm glad this guy isn't going to have to waste his life fighting this to stay out of jail, but I wish we could get a blanket supreme court ruling on this basically reading line for line what this judge said.
Probably best not to risk it with this SCOTUS.