My gut feeling leads me to believe that the Officer was up to something...or blew his audition for the next episode of Cops, maybe Reno 911 would be more appropriate
Posted on 06/15/2007 10:11:34 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
An 18-year-old from Pennsylvania is facing a felony charge after he was caught videotaping a police officer handing out a traffic ticket on a public street.
"I didn't think I could get in trouble for that," Brian D. Kelly told The Patriot-News.
Apparently, neither did a long list of members of the public, who have erupted on the newspaper's comment page.
"This is the most asinine thing I have EVER heard. Citizens have the right, and indeed, often the DUTY to film police officers performing their job," wrote ZippoPA. "I will donate right now to a fund to defend this person."
"Don't police videotape you from their car without consent? I think they should be required to obtain consent for dashboard cameras," added TheSabre.
"In the era of Rodney King and such we should have the right to video them, after all they video us … with the dashcam," suggested cd3.
"I'm seriously beginning to question the stability and wisdom of our area police," wrote Liberty1776. "The idea of this man being prosecuted is frightening. Regardless of his attitude during the incident, there are many police who are irrational and abuse the power of their badge. … Sometimes Americans should be afraid of their government."
Prosecutors declined to respond to WND requests for a comment about the situation that developed in Carlisle. Kelly said making movies is a hobby, and he was just recording another interesting event.
But authorities say he's facing a felony wiretapping count, and up to seven years in prison, after his camera and film were seized by police on May 24.
He spent the next 26 hours in the Cumberland County prison until his mother raised security for his $2,500 bail on her house.
The law technically bans the intentional recording of any oral conversation without permission. A preliminary hearing has been scheduled for July, before Judge Jessica Brewbaker.
"Obviously, ignorance of the law is no defense," District Attorney David Freed told the newspaper. "But often these cases come down to questions of intent."
Reports show Kelly was riding in a pickup that was stopped for alleged traffic violations. Kelly's camera was in his lap, running, and he aimed it at the officer. Police said they ordered him to turn it off and confiscated it, filing the felony after checking with a prosecutor.
"He said, 'Young man, turn off your ... camera,'" Kelly said. "I turned it off and handed it to him. ... Six or seven more cops pulled up, and they arrested me."
Carlisle Police Chief Stephen Margeson suggested a guilty plea to a lesser charge might be appropriate.
"I don't believe there was any underlying criminal intent here," he said.
Prosecutors said state law does allow police to record civilians, but not the other way around.
"Welcome to the police state," added deadload on the newspaper comment page. "I would think the only reason the cops don't want to be taped is so that they won't be caught doing something wrong."
My gut feeling leads me to believe that the Officer was up to something...or blew his audition for the next episode of Cops, maybe Reno 911 would be more appropriate
You can photo or videotape them....you cannot tape their conversations without consent of one party partaking in the conversation.
There’s the rub.
We had a counter-protest in Boston with a bunch of cops present. They were talking amongst themselves and an “independent journalist” (read: socialist that took pictures of their protests for publication on personal website) get arrested because he had an audio-recorder and was taping the cops’ conversation. When told to stop because he was in violation of wiretapping statutes...and he didn’t stop....they arrested him.
Probably the same sort of thing here.
These so-called “eavesdropping laws” (that say you can’t even record a conversation in which you are a party, if all other participants don’t consent) were passed by so-called “civil libertarians” (that is, ACLU types). The laws were stupid then, and are now coming back to bite them in the ass.
One commentator noted that under the Illinois “anti-eavesdropping” statute, someone could surreptitiously record their own murder, but the tape would be thrown out as evidence against the perps.
These laws need to be overturned now. They go way beyond the actual definition of eavesdropping. Any event that happens in public, or to which the person doing the recording is an invited participant, is fair game.
This kid needs to be released now and all charges dropped.
Hmmm. Maybe. IANAL, but that doesn’t sound like it to me. As a comparison, its legal for police to buy/own guns that I can’t own legally here.
L
I always thought photographing in public places was fair game as well. I know there are copyright laws regarding buildings and other structures. I cannot imagine the repercussions if this is actually taken to court.
Looks to me like we have some embarassed cops and a DA who doesn’t want to offend them by tossing the case out. I would expect this to be dismissed at the preliminary hearing stage.
I am familiar with the Pa wiretapping statute and it is abundantly clear that anything that happens in a public setting, like a street, is fair game for video or audio recording.
Once they have pulled you over they can handcuff you and put you in jail without charging you for an indeterminate period of time. You're not under arrest until they say you are. If you don't answer their questions, they can conveniently find a weapon or a baggie of meth on you when they search you.
When (not if) this happens, say goodbye to your watch, jewelry and any cash you have on you. You will never see them again, unless it's in a pawnshop. Good luck proving they're yours.
My town has a pawnshop next door to the police uniform shop. They can visit both in one stop.
Incidentally, this is a similar statute that was used agaist Linda Tripp. She allegedly “eavesdropped” on a conversation between herself and Monica by recording it instead of just memorizing it or taking notes. I think her case was dismissed, if I recall correctly.
Both. Certain shotguns and full auto weapons can be sold to Law Enforcement only. That means they show a badge and they can buy it.
Sovereign immunity.
Then why is your department dragging him to court???
BINGO! That is the democrap party perspective of we the people ... we serve their empowerment, the liberal leftist bastards.
traffic cops are useless. If they’re out busting kids for seeds and stems, they’re doing this crap. 6 or 7 cops responded? Now there’s a cost effective use of taxpayer dollars. I feel safer already
The clear question here is WHO'S PERMISSION? Generally, in most states, permission may be granted by either single party involved in the conversation and since he was riding in the truck at the time, one has to wonder ...? Off the top, it sounds a lot like the officer got torqued for some reason (maybe not even because of this stop) and desired not to be taped. Once the ball starts rolling officially, it gets hard to stop and at some point an 'official' reason has to be attached. It will be interesting to see how this eventually turns out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.