Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Teen facing felony for taping cop
WorldNetDaily ^ | 6/14/07 | n/a

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."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: carlisle; cumberlandcounty; jackbootedthugs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last
To: fr_freak
Explain to me how the prosecutor feels it is legal for cops to film civilians, but not for civilians to film cops

The courts have held that law enforcement has greater needs than the public. That's why it is against the law for you to lie to law enforcement but it is legal for law enforcement to lie to you.

All of these authoritarian laws are the result of prohibition era judicial activism.
.
61 posted on 06/15/2007 10:51:35 AM PDT by radioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: kiriath_jearim
Carlisle Police Chief Stephen Margeson suggested a guilty plea to a lesser charge might be appropriate.

For whom, your police department and the prosecutor?

I'd be retaining some top gun defense attorney here.

The arrogance of government authority here is punitive.

62 posted on 06/15/2007 10:53:00 AM PDT by dragnet2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kiriath_jearim

“Who watches ‘The Watchers’ ?”

Indeed.


63 posted on 06/15/2007 10:55:38 AM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak
And what reason is that, again?

Because they said so. And you'll stop asking questions, if you know what's good for you.

/

64 posted on 06/15/2007 10:56:07 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Run Fred RUN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: kiriath_jearim
"I don't believe there was any underlying criminal intent here," he said.

Then there's no need to file charges, is there.

65 posted on 06/15/2007 10:56:31 AM PDT by theDentist (Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kiriath_jearim

where is the ACLU on this?

......Crickets Chirping


66 posted on 06/15/2007 11:00:15 AM PDT by Charlespg (Peace= When we trod the ruins of Mecca and Medina under our infidel boots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kiriath_jearim

“The law technically bans the intentional recording of any oral conversation without permission.”

What law? Is that a federal law? A state law? Some sort of municipal ordinance? Really. Does anyone know?


67 posted on 06/15/2007 11:05:41 AM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kiriath_jearim

Thi is outrageous and the kid should fight it. I can’t imagine that there is any law he broke.


68 posted on 06/15/2007 11:41:24 AM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido

They thought they could BS a kid into pleading to a lesser charge ?!?!?!?

What was the “lesser: charge ?!?!?!?

Well this has got my knickers in a nice tight bunch this afternoon............daaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmm !


69 posted on 06/15/2007 11:42:18 AM PDT by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet. ©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: kiriath_jearim
"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."

The intent is pretty clear. The government intends to maintain a police state.

70 posted on 06/15/2007 11:47:23 AM PDT by 3niner (War is one game where the home team always loses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThisLittleLightofMine
apologize for your arrogance

If I were the kid's attorney, I'd demand exactly these words in the public apology.

71 posted on 06/15/2007 11:47:33 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak

Personal possession - e.g. AR-15s.


72 posted on 06/15/2007 11:54:12 AM PDT by RKV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: tgslTakoma; R.T. Delta

Alarming story of video charges.


73 posted on 06/15/2007 12:05:27 PM PDT by BillF (Fight terrorists in Iraq & elsewhere, instead of waiting for them to come to America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kiriath_jearim

bump


74 posted on 06/15/2007 12:19:17 PM PDT by lowbridge ("The mainstream media IS the Democratic Party." - Rush Limbaugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kiriath_jearim

Bump for later reading, hard to believe it’s a felony.


75 posted on 06/15/2007 12:36:02 PM PDT by Kevmo (We need to get away from the Kennedy Wing of the Republican Party ~Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RKV
RKV said: That said, ya wanna ‘splain it t’me how this law is unconstitutional? Seriously, I’d appreciate knowing.

If there is freedom of speech, then is there not also freedom to hear speech? And does that freedom not extend to making accurate records of such speech?

And are the actions of the police not truly expressions of their policies? Is one not allowed to take notes during such a stop? It is only the arrogance of police which allows them to place their own actions outside of the observing powers of the public.

You're not really suggesting that it would be Constitutional to bar NBC from ever filming a police activity, are you? How would NBC's protection not apply to other law-abiding citizens?

76 posted on 06/15/2007 1:21:11 PM PDT by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus said: "Because they said so. And you'll stop asking questions, if you know what's good for you."

Sounds like the Military Police that I have run into. Why not let our local police have the same powers over us that the military exercise over our soldiers.

Especially troubling is the "presumption of innocence". That one gets in the way all the time. Let the accused prove that they are innocent. Saves a lot of resources and simplifies police training.

77 posted on 06/15/2007 1:25:39 PM PDT by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

No there is no freedom to hear speech. You don’t get to tap my phone less I let you. I think you and I agree on MANY issues, but I’m not sure you have a good argument here with “freedom of speech.” Do I believe that citizens should be able to record audio and video of our public servants in action? Yep. Sounds to me like the police get to collect evidence, and we citizens get the shaft.


78 posted on 06/15/2007 2:00:30 PM PDT by RKV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: kiriath_jearim; All

Don’t you all see? Its for the public good! This fine, upstanding officer was engaged in his lawful revenue raising duties, and must not be disturbed or videotaped shaking down a citizen in the name of the State!

I view this as the same as ‘suspicionless’ searches. “Well, if you aren’t breaking any laws, whats the problem?” Ask that grandmother in Atlanta that was gunned down by thugs in the name of a safe State. Broke into her house unlawfully, and then gunned her down when she resisted. And when they didn’t find anything, they planted a small amount of pot in the house.

Ask yourself why these officers were carrying a small amount of drugs on their person during a raid...

And then ask yourself how often does it occur across the country.


79 posted on 06/15/2007 2:06:07 PM PDT by ex 98C MI Dude (All my hate cannot be found)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
This case will go nowhere fast, it sounds like.

In the meantime and innocent teenage boy sits in a prison and his mom has to go through financial turmoil and remortgage her home to get the poor innocent lad out?

What has happened to our country?

80 posted on 06/15/2007 2:28:07 PM PDT by Bon mots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson