Man May Go to Prison for Taping Traffic Stop

azconservative ^ | 16 June 2007 | John Semmens

[John Semmens]

Eighteen-year old Brian Kelly of Carlisle, Pennsylvania is facing a felony charge and a possible 7-year prison sentence for videotaping police as they issued a traffic ticket to the driver of the pick-up truck in which he was a passenger. Kelly is charged under a Pennsylvania “privacy” law that bars the recording of anyone's oral conversation without that person’s consent.

Carlisle Police Chief Stephen Margeson defended the officer’s actions. “We already videotape our officers,” Margeson said. “There’s no need for others to duplicate these efforts. Multiple tapes of the same incident could lead to different interpretations and cause confusion. It’s best if the Department controls the recording of arrests and other confrontations.”

District Attorney David Freed brushed aside contentions that the intent of the law was to guard private citizens’ privacy. “The law says you can’t record anyone without his consent,” Freed pointed out. “We think that covers police officers. An officer’s ability to control a potentially volatile situation would be hampered if he had to worry that his words or actions might be monitored by unauthorized persons. We don’t need another ‘Rodney King’ type episode to undermine respect for law enforcement officers.”

Freed said he may be willing to drop the felony recording charges if Kelly were to plead guilty to a charge of obstructing an officer in the performance of his duty.

“I wasn’t obstructing anything,” Kelly said. “I was just recording what happened. I don’t see how I was invading the officer’s privacy. Presumably everything he would be saying is something he would be repeating in traffic court if the case went that far. If the police aren’t doing anything wrong they shouldn’t object to being taped on a public street.”

[TommyDale]

“There’s no need for others to duplicate these efforts. Multiple tapes of the same incident could lead to different interpretations and cause confusion. It’s best if the Department controls the recording of arrests and other confrontations.”

Translation: "We don't want someone else to show us beating the guy's head in. We will decide what gets taped, not them."

[NRA1995]

We ain’t gonna have no damn Rodney King episodes in THIS town, nossirree!

[ClearCase_guy]

I'm thinking of "Sixty Minutes" laying in wait outside a slum lord's home. The guy comes out -- the camera is immediately in his face: "Sir! Just a few questions!" and the slum lord covers his face and hurries away, "Ain't saying nothing to you #$%^$#!!!"

But, we see that on TV, because he signed a consent form, right?

[traditional1]

On the one hand, I like the idea to stop all these phony "police brutality" videos, where the edited video is given to the MSM, minus the events and actions of the perp leading up to it which are intentionally omitted, to garner public favor and depict police as storm-troopers. (Ambulance-chasers LOVE to parlay the edited video into a multi-million-dollar lotto ticket (civil suit), to be paid by the taxpayer).

On the other hand, in very limited instances, police can over-react to traffic violators and a one vs. one argument in front of a jury will usually result in the jury accepting the "law officer's" version over that of John Q. Citizen.

I'm sure if you carry a video camera and tell the arresting officer you will be taping the citation issuance, they will act accordingly.

[weegee]

Funny how those tapes “disappear” when they don’t show what LEOs want them too.

[gdani]

According to the courts, cops have much more leeway to search your car, etc outside your home because you're in public & have a lessened expectation of privacy.

How ironic that these cops don't feel they should have the same lower expectations.

[Half Vast Conspiracy]

"We already videotape our officers,” Margeson said. “There’s no need for others to duplicate these efforts. Multiple tapes of the same incident could lead to different interpretations and cause confusion. It’s best if the Department controls the recording of arrests and other confrontations.”

You cannot make this stuff up. What a ridiculous fool.

[Copernicus]

This could be tough, because sooner or later ONSTAR is bound to invent an ONSTAR(TM) traffic stop legal assistance service.

*Click* ONSTAR, help, I have just been pulled over by a police officer.

Officer, this is ONSTAR Legal Assistance. Please explain why you have interrupted my client's peaceable journey?

Best regards,

[ButThreeLeftsDo]

IT'S SATIRE,PEOPLE....

[Michamilton]

> IT'S SATIRE,PEOPLE....

The incident did happen. Here's a fuller news account -

Video recording leads to felony charge

[CharlesWayneCT]

You cannot make this stuff up. What a ridiculous fool.

Actually, you CAN make this stuff up :-)

[snowsislander]

You cannot make this stuff up. What a ridiculous fool.

Actually, that's exactly what the author, Mr. Semmens, does.

All of his posts are supposed to be satirical, and I assume humorous. However since they are usually closely based on actual events, many people mistake them for serious postings.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Yes, much of this particular source’s satire is based on real events that already are somewhat absurd.

The satire can often illustrate the absurdity by being absurd.

[Always Right]

So they government can record you, but you can’t record them. If that ain’t ashbackwards.

[GoldCountryRedneck]

Kelly is charged under a Pennsylvania “privacy” law that bars the recording of anyone's oral conversation without that person’s consent.

Ok, so theoretically a person could charge the police with a felony if that person doesn't consent to the police video, with sound, taping???

No more 'Candid Camera' in PA...

[relictele]

What a complete load of b*****ks from the Chief.

How will having two different camera angles cause confusion? If it were true (which it isn’t of course) why do they have multiple cameras at sporting events? Perhaps the chief would be happy with a static camera shot from the top of the press box.

Idiot.

[relictele]

me = sucked in

oops

[dashing doofus]

District Attorney David Freed brushed aside contentions that the intent of the law was to guard private citizens’ privacy. “The law says.... We don’t need another ‘Rodney King’ type episode to undermine respect for law enforcement officers.”

True that. The DA seems quite capable of undermining respect for LEOs all by himself with idiotic comments like that.

[dashing doofus]

It happens in many states. There are what are known as “two-party” states, where both parties must consent to being taped.

Here is a similar, recent story from the Land of Live Free or Die.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/NEWS01/106290121