Posted on 09/11/2009 4:32:43 PM PDT by icwhatudo
Baltimore, MD – September 11, 2009 – We have received inquiries from citizens and the media asking whether the Baltimore City State’s Attorneys Office would initiate a criminal investigation for acts allegedly committed at ACORN offices located in Baltimore. The only information received in reference to this alleged criminal behavior was a YouTube video. Upon review by this office, the video appears to be incomplete. In addition, the audio portion could possibly have been obtained in violation of Maryland Law, Annotated Code of Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article §10-402, which requires two party consent.
If it is determined that the audio portion now being heard on YouTube was illegally obtained, it is also illegal under Maryland Law to willfully use or willfully disclose the content of said audio. The penalty for the unlawful interception, disclosure or use of it is a felony punishable up to 5 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at wbal.com ...
They won’t prosecute. They’ll chicken out because of the severe blowback.
++++++++++++
And we must make it SEVERE.
Why does this absurd upside down way of looking at the big picture not surprise me?
The Attorney General must be thinking of retirement. We will pink slip him for sure.
They’ll be hearing from me, and their asses will hurt from my phone call.
Talk about ‘sick twisted freaks’! Did they prosecute other news sources when they USED to do investigative reporting????
stay w/me for a second....this it may not be a bad thing....
it would put zero’s administration in such a bind and would cause such an outrage that the tea party’s would look like tepid sunshowers considering what would erupt....
who performs that song?
Disgusting.......absolutely disgusting
Not suprised...here is an overview...
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/index.html
Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most also have extended the law to cover in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as “one-party consent” statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)
Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as “two-party consent” laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.
Regardless of the state, it is almost always illegal to record a conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent to tape, and could not naturally overhear.
Federal law and most state laws also make it illegal to disclose the contents of an illegally intercepted call or communication.
At least 24 states have laws outlawing certain uses of hidden cameras in private places, although many of the laws are specifically limited to attempts to record nudity. Also, many of the statutes concern unattended hidden cameras, not cameras hidden on a person engaged in a conversation. Journalists should be aware, however, that the audio portion of a videotape will be treated under the regular wiretapping laws in any state. And regardless of whether a state has a criminal law regarding cameras, undercover recording in a private place can prompt civil lawsuits for invasion of privacy.
EXCUSE ME...IF THIS DIDN’T HAPPEN THEN HOW THE H WOULD THIS ACORN IDIOT “KNOW” THAT IT HAD BEEN ALTERED.
Democrats are so stupid I wonder how they manage to get out of bed everyday. GEEEZZZZ
The courts usually throw out cases against undercover journalists. The term has been expanded due to the ‘net. I don’t know if MD has an anti-SLAPP statute, or a First Amendment Coalition (or similar), but Big Brother would get trounced - if not in the initial stages, later. The problem, of course, is expense. My bet - no prosecution.
You have got to be kidding me!!
Toby Keith, Willie Nelson, “Beer for my Horses”
Toby Keith and Willie Nelson.
Lets demand they prosecute the State for recording people on traffic cameras.
W... T... F...
*Sigh*...why am I not surprised..!
Looks like a great 1st amendment issue go ahead AG try it. Get a change of venue out of the ghetto and no jury would convict anyway.
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.