Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Jaedos t1_j9tpx1r wrote

Reply to comment by DBDude in Fourth Circuit: Individuals Have a First Amendment Right to Livestream Their Own Traffic Stops by mepper

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.”"

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/wrongful-charges-dropped-against-motorcyclist-prosecuted-videotaping-encounter-police

72

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.

−73

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.

46

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.

1

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.

−6

choicesintime t1_j9uqp03 wrote

Are you a cop? You are literally defending retaliation

11

DBDude t1_j9uujp8 wrote

No, I'm complaining the law is written so broadly that it invites such retaliation.

0

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.

0