Posted on 09/27/2010 6:19:54 PM PDT by Notary Sojac
A Harford County Circuit Court judge Monday dismissed wiretapping charges against Anthony Graber, a motorcyclist who was jailed briefly after he taped a Maryland state trooper who stopped him for speeding on I-95. Graber used a camera mounted on his helmet, then posted the video on YouTube.
Judge Emory A. Pitt Jr. had to decide whether police performing their duties have an expectation of privacy in public space. Pitt ruled that police can have no such expectation in their public, on-the-job communications.
Pitt wrote: "Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public. When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation. '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."
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.washingtonpost.com ...
Judge of the Year - Judge Emory A. Pitt Jr.
Pretty soon they’ll arrest you for writing on Facebook about being stopped by the cops.
Woah! - a JUDGE wrote this?!
I'm feeling dizzy, I gotta sit down.
It looks like the judge didn’t sidestep the sticky legal issues either. He took them head on. Good for him!
Next objective. Remove the prosecutor. He does not serve the public interest.
and I have a tagline
GOOD!!
Well, I agree. Kudos for the judge. But the prosecutor’s charge is absolutely insane.
Wiretapping? Wiretapping?
I agree. This guy was desperate to make a case. He really should go.
This is very good news indeed!
After watching the video, the officer should have been tossed from his job for bad decision-making and excessive force. And made a prime training example in what not to do to the citizenry.
Great ruling! That “charge” is certainly a stretch, what sort of prosecutor would allow that? Like you, watching the video really illustrates the point of out-of-control off duty cop IMO. No ID presentation and what’s he so fired up about for Pete’s sake? He needs to find other employment instead of preying on the public.
“...what’s he so fired up about...”
Thanks, good point.
“Wiretapping? Wiretapping?
I agree. This guy was desperate to make a case. He really should go.”
This has gotten pretty common in the last few years, now that nearly everyone carries a digital camera in their phone at all times. Certain states have laws that say you must have consent of all parties being recorded, in advance, or it is wiretapping, and they have started using this as a bludgeon against people who record the police. The prosecution is highly selective, since they aren’t out arresting people who are taping anything else, only people who tape police officers in order to expose misconduct.
Absolutely!!!
It is exquisite in both simplicity and common sense!
It's a very intersting bio. He has been an Assistant AG of MD assigned to criminal prosecution, among other duties. Then he was assigned as the first full time counsel to the MD State Police, defending MSP in civil litigation, EEO litigation, employee discipline, personnel and other issues. And it goes on. He does seem to know from both sides of the fence.
Most interesting is that he was appointed to his present office by MD's past idiot Governor Parris Glendening (D) in 1999. Not to be confused with MD's current idiot Governor Martin O'Malley (D).
I guess even an idiot can make a correct move once in a while.
Thank you, Judge Plitt, for ruling on facts and law.
Hooray! Light scatters cockroaches!
That tape the cops can lose at will. It's the tapes they don't control that make them nervous.
Yes and no. Recall this past week that the Justice Department argued that citizens have no right to privacy in public. While this is consistent with the judge’s decision it takes what makes seeming sense and turns it against the citizens as they were arguing that the gov’t placing hidden GPS devices on your vehicle is appropriate government activity.
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.