Fourth Circuit: Individuals Have a First Amendment Right to Livestream Their Own Traffic Stops
eff.orgSubmitted by mepper t3_11aeick in technology
DBDude t1_j9tmwya wrote
Reply to comment by Jaedos in Fourth Circuit: Individuals Have a First Amendment Right to Livestream Their Own Traffic Stops by mepper
Two party consent state.
Jaedos t1_j9tn7rn wrote
As far as I know, it had nothing to do with consent. Regardless, it was on the side of a street in public so there's no expectation of privacy in the first place.
DBDude t1_j9tp7uj wrote
The laws are written so that if you make any audio recording without consent of one of the parties, it's illegal. The cop was one of the parties. It's against wiretapping, but it's written so broadly as to cover this.
Jaedos t1_j9tpx1r wrote
I found the judge's statement. I knew you can't have an expectation of privacy in a public setting.
"As to the wiretapping charges (contained in Counts one and two, which alleged the interception and dissemination of a “private conversation”), Judge Plitt found that police have no expectation of privacy in their public, on-the-job communications, and thus held Graber’s conduct could not be a crime: “The encounter in this case took place on a public highway in full view of the public. Under such circumstances, I cannot, by any stretch, conclude that the Troopers has any reasonable expectation of privacy in the conversation with the Defendant which society would be prepared to recognize as reasonable.”"
DBDude t1_j9tw6zi wrote
Right, but any target of such recording likes to leverage such laws to strike back. I’m glad this was overturned.
Jaedos t1_j9txi1m wrote
No, you know good and well that if you or I tried to get WT charges pressed against someone, the cops would laugh right in your face. This was done solely in retaliation for evidencing the cops bad behavior.
rshorning t1_j9wiylb wrote
You are correct that if you called a cop to have an ordinary person prosecuted for filming you in a park or at the side of a road that they would laugh at you and tell you to ignore it and move on.
The issue is if a pissed off cop doing something stupid would get his corrupt buddies to prosecute in this manner? Sure, rules for me but not for thee. It is seriously unbalanced and a form of corruption. Why a judge would accept that argument and convict for this reason is also something to condemn? Because they are a cop you recorded and nothing else.
It absolutely is in retaliation and because the judicial system gives different rules for police behavior than for us peons.
DBDude t1_j9u1eeo wrote
It can be done, especially by the targets of undercover journalists. It really depends on whether the prosecutor doesn't like the message.
And yes, it was retaliation. But the laws are written so broadly that it was easy to do. Had to go way up to get this crap stopped.
choicesintime t1_j9uqp03 wrote
Are you a cop? You are literally defending retaliation
CosmicBoat t1_j9us9au wrote
Leather is in his diet
DBDude t1_j9uujp8 wrote
No, I'm complaining the law is written so broadly that it invites such retaliation.
[deleted] t1_j9w5fpf wrote
[removed]
rshorning t1_j9wh3sv wrote
You missed his argument. The law as written is unjust and violates the first amendment, but still can be interpreted to apply in this situation if a prosecutor wants to press charges.
If a judge buys that the law should be enforced and you agree that you indeed record the cop without their permission, that law applies.
Yes, stupid logic but that is how absurd the law can get if written too broadly.
International_Day686 t1_j9v6lkz wrote
Found the cop.
DBDude t1_j9vcwt3 wrote
Why would a cop be glad the court went against cops?
jlm994 t1_j9tq3cm wrote
Do you have a legal source on this? Because I am pretty sure you are just incorrect.
To my knowledge, police on duty have no reasonable right to privacy performing their and can be recorded at any time and without consent.
The police deciding to charge a motorcyclist with “wiretapping” sounds like a clear abuse of power and corruption. Not sure why you feel the need to defend them seemingly?
It’s not “semantics” when cops purposefully misinterpret laws to benefit their power. For whatever reason as a society we have his huge leeway for cops to be wrong about how laws work- it straight up isn’t “wiretapping” by any definition to record a cop.
[deleted] t1_j9u2hj6 wrote
[deleted]
HaElfParagon t1_j9u4wds wrote
Only as long as you are recording form public property. You can't go onto their lawn to record, with some weird exceptions
okcdnb t1_j9u234s wrote
If it was me recording, I am one party.
Plus you have no reasonable expectation to privacy in public.
DBDude t1_j9u2ui9 wrote
Again, the laws are so broad that they enable such charges, and let the prosecutors prosecute. You have to hope it ends on appeal. There is no downside for them. You can't successfully sue a prosecutor for abusing these laws.
berntout t1_j9uanro wrote
You have zero idea what you're talking about and are completely wrong. Please stop spreading false information.
DBDude t1_j9ubc70 wrote
No, I'm correct because the police can use this law to arrest you, and the prosecutors can use it to prosecute you. That doesn't make it right, but you will end up spending a lot of money to defend yourself until some higher court throws it out, as in this case.
berntout t1_j9vgnv9 wrote
There’s a very good reason you’ve been severely downvoted. Take the hint and shut up
rshorning t1_j9whpkn wrote
He is explaining reality and the mindset of police and their buddies in a prosecutor's office. Those downvoting are just thinking he is defending instead of explaining. That is further from the truth.
Sure, a stupid law that can be abused. Why shoot the messenger?
DBDude t1_j9vjroo wrote
I've been downvoted because people can't read. I've already had two responses thinking I'm on the side of the police.
rigeld2 t1_j9wecwq wrote
Police and prosecutors can find something to charge you with - the fact that this law was written broadly doesn’t matter (and it wasn’t, hence the reason the court threw it out).
The underlying issue is that there’s no penalty for abuse of power.
RunninADorito t1_j9u92gf wrote
In a public space?? No.
[deleted] t1_j9v7v6d wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j9vtmdj wrote
[removed]
Badfickle t1_j9y7lco wrote
There is no consent required in a public place with public officials where there is no expectation of privacy.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments