Motorcyclist Charged for Recording

[pauldun170]

http://www.abc2news.com/news/local/story/Motorcyclist-Charged-for-Recording/pfFRVeEePU6qFr5fAq-tlA.cspx

A Harford County man now faces up to five years in prison after he recorded a bizarre traffic stop last month in Harford County.

Anthony Graber was riding his motorcycle with a camera attached to his helmet recording his ride.

It happened near the Riverside exit of I-95. A Maryland State trooper in an unmarked car pulled over Graber for speeding. The trooper is seen in a YouTube video that Graber posted, jumping out of the car and tells Graber "Get off the motorcycle, get off the motorcycle! Get off the motor cycle, State Police."

The trooper is seen pulling his gun immediately after getting out of the unmarked car. It's not until five seconds after he exits the car that he identifies himself a Maryland State trooper.

Click on the video to the right to watch the story by ABC2 News investigative reporter, Brian Kuebler.


Copyright 2010 The E.W. Scripps Co. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


thread
http://www.1000rr.net/forums/showthread.php?t=73014

[shmike]

I can't believe the state's attorney would press charges.

They would have to know that this would be a PR nightmare.

I'm more concerned with them backing Mr. Unmarked pulling his sidearm for a speeding violation.

[Kaneman]

Well he shouldn't have been doing anything wrong and he wouldn't have gotten pulled over.

[Sean]

Uh, random dude in street clothes runs up to you and pulls a gun on you? How is that legal?

[TommyHotWheel]

If an unmarked car pulled in front of me blocking me, I would back up too. This is gonna be a clusterfuck for all involved.

[Rider]

It's ok for police to record traffic stops but it's not ok for citizens to do so? Give me a fucking break.

[smileyman]

We were just discussing doing this on another forum. A local trooper has a history of making rude and even racist remarks to bike riders he has pulled over.

I cannot believe that it would be illegal to record it. I can't believe officers can be such dicks.

One of our local officers just got off unpaid suspension for firing 2 shots at a car that pulled away from a traffic stop.

[Particle Man]

What the hell? Since when is it illegal to record a traffic stop?

Sounds like the state is all butt-hurt because their foot soldier got caught doing something illegal.

[CrazyKell]

It's not okay to record AUDIO. at least that's what the video said. :idk:

[OneSickPsycho]

Totally buying a helmet cam.

[z06boy]

I saw this on another forum as well a while back.

I don't normally conceal carry while out riding on the bike but I have.

Sometimes it's in the easily accessible zippered section of my tankbag.

I'm not saying "well I would have done this or that"...but this sure had the potential to get nasty real quick.

I didn't see any blue lights flashing on this guys car. :idk:

Was the guy running from the marked car behind him and then this plain clothes guy intervened ? That's the ONLY way I can give this plain clothes guy any credit.

Imho the ONLY thing he should have been flashing was a badge and his blue lights.

[Homeslice]

Total BS, but typical for cops who are just pissed that everyone has video cams these days.

[was92v]

g4

[Homeslice]

FUCKING Gestapo is what that is. Where do I contribute to his defense fund?

No doubt. When I get some time I'm going to find someone to write to in that jurisdiction.

[OTB]

Welcome to the People's Republic of Maryland, where you can be jailed for just about anything.

The shape of things to come...

Remember the broohahah about Linda Trip being prosecuted for recording her conversations about BC with the Cigar Girl?????

That was in Maryland, too.

[sherri_chickie]

I watched the video and if I were the guy I would have been terrified of a guy coming at me telling me to get off my bike with a gun in hand. Cops a lucky bastard he didn't stop someone who carried!

The video law is stupid...

[nhgunnut]

Unauthorized recording of audio without a warrant is a Federal not a state offense. It appears that the state prosecutor is using this fact to bully this guy.
This in fact means if you use your cell phone to capture audio without the consent of another you can be prosecuted. The fact that it was spontaneous meaning that no plan was made to record the officer and if no threat was made based on the existence of the recording meaning "Drop the Charge or I release the recording" conviction is unlikely.

[Tmall]

I've always been respectful of the police. But, more and more, I'm thinking... FTP..

[Switch]

I'm thinking... FTP..

Since Day 1.

[azoomm]

Unauthorized recording of audio without a warrant is a Federal not a state offense. It appears that the state prosecutor is using this fact to bully this guy.
This in fact means if you use your cell phone to capture audio without the consent of another you can be prosecuted. The fact that it was spontaneous meaning that no plan was made to record the officer and if no threat was made based on the existence of the recording meaning "Drop the Charge or I release the recording" conviction is unlikely.

How is that charge possible? That is, in Texas it is legal to record any conversation as long as at least one party is aware. What you're saying.... this could trump that?

Kaneman, I'm in your camp on this.

[Avatard]

The camera was in use in full view. The cop willingly entered his video frame.

This will be tossed in nanoseconds, if it comes to trial.

Bogus charge, and the cop is a fucking amateur.

[101lifts2]

Fucking cops...fucking laws...both fucking suck.

This country is turning into nothing more than a legal shitpile of laws to try to control every aspect of our lives.

I hope this makes Fox News.....

[pauldun170]

Unauthorized recording of audio without a warrant is a Federal not a state offense. It appears that the state prosecutor is using this fact to bully this guy.
This in fact means if you use your cell phone to capture audio without the consent of another you can be prosecuted. The fact that it was spontaneous meaning that no plan was made to record the officer and if no threat was made based on the existence of the recording meaning "Drop the Charge or I release the recording" conviction is unlikely.

First of all,
Unauthorized (meaning recording in away that violates federal law )recording of audio is a Federal offense

Recording without a warrant simply means that you cannot use the audio against someone in court because its unconstitutional. (due process)

If I remember correctly, under federal law ONE party has to be aware of the recording and a party to the conversation. In other words, you can record your interaction with another but you cannot record when you are a third party.

There are several states (state law) that require all parties to be notified of the recording;
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Massachusetts
Maryland
Michigan
Montana
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Washington.

In the case of the guy in question, he was not recording "the officer". The officer rudely interrupted a private recording and when the officer asked the individual to shut off the camera he did. Though Maryland allegedly has a law regulating recorded conversations SURPRISE that is a state law. Since the there is no indication that the officer was the target of the recording and it is quite apparent that the guy was simply recording his own personal activity there is no reason for him to be charge much less convicted.

Its like walking in on someone taking private notes on a voice recorder, yell at the guy to shut it off then charge him for recording you telling him to shut it off.

The standard that they apply here means that any security camera in a public place may be illegal.

more details

Officials Upset Over Posted Traffic Stop Video

Video of a traffic stop in Maryland is now spreading across YouTube. It's a video that's landed one man in serious trouble with the law.
As Kelly McPherson reports, police are now going after the man with the camera.

It was a highway confrontation caught on camera.

"Get off the motorcycle, get off the motorcycle. Get off the motorcycle, state police," yelled the officer involved.

The video is causing a stir online, but also with state police and now the Harford County State's Attorney.

Fitted with a helmet camera, Anthony Graber was recording his ride when an unmarked trooper car pulled him over for speeding.

"I was afraid. I thought the person -- at the time I didn't know it was an officer -- was going to shoot me," said Graber.

The father of two and Air National Guardsman could go to prison for recording the audio of the traffic stop ultimately because he posted it on YouTube.

"I posted it on YouTube because my mom was worried about the legality of it, and she was upset that a police officer pulled a firearm on me because I'm not a criminal," said Graber.

"When that plainclothes trooper witnessed this, initially he got out of his car, he held that gun at his side, momentarily. When he saw the situation was under control he quickly put it away. He never pointed it at the individual. We think he acted appropriately," said Greg Shipley, Maryland State Police.

State police saw the video online, reopened the investigation and turned Graber's traffic ticket into reckless and negligent driving charges.

"Anybody driving over 100 miles per hour on one wheel up Interstate 95 ought to expect to be pulled over," said Shipley.

Maryland is a two-party consent state. That means you can't record somebody without telling them. It's a felony to break that law.

That's exactly what state police told the motorcyclist when they came to his house more than a month after he'd been pulled over.

"I don't want to go to jail. I haven't really done anything wrong. It wasn't a violent crime. No one was injured. No one was hurt," said Graber.

The Harford County State's Attorney is handling the case, but has not charged the motorcyclist.
http://wjz.com/local/traffic.stop.youtube.2.1621320.html

[pauldun170]

Fucking cops...fucking laws...both fucking suck.

This country is turning into nothing more than a legal shitpile of laws to try to control every aspect of our lives.

I hope this makes Fox News.....

If this story makes the major outlets, it will likely be an anecdote on the speeding \ dangerous behavior on those 200mph racebikes allowed to be sold to the public followed by the "there should be a law banning those things" segment

[nhgunnut]

How is that charge possible? That is, in Texas it is legal to record any conversation as long as at least one party is aware. What you're saying.... this could trump that?

Kaneman, I'm in your camp on this.
First the Disclaimer I am not a Lawyer. But yes Audio Recording without a mutual consent or a warrant as I understand it is illegal under federal statutes. "That is why if you have ever been in a jail you will see signs that phones are monitored or recorded. Again I am not the expert and you should check locally but non consensual recordings as I understand it are illegal.

[was92v]

beep

[Rider]

He is allowed to record himself. His intent was not to record the officer. He simply did not have time to turn the recording device off before the officer ID'd himself. So I don't believe this guy did anything wrong because there was no intent. I believe this will be thrown out of court.

[Homeslice]

"Anybody driving over 100 miles per hour on one wheel up Interstate 95 ought to expect to be pulled over"

Given that he's military, he'll definitely get some heat for this

[t-homo]

"When that plainclothes trooper witnessed this, initially he got out of his car, he held that gun at his side, momentarily. When he saw the situation was under control he quickly put it away. He never pointed it at the individual. We think he acted appropriately," said Greg Shipley, Maryland State Police.



This is what pisses me off the most about the whole deal. How can they say that pulling a gun in a traffic stop right off the bat is appropriate?

[Kaneman]

This is what pisses me off the most about the whole deal. How can they say that pulling a gun in a traffic stop right off the bat is appropriate?

:lol: Because they're cops dude, that's pretty much what they do. Cops think everything should be a shock and awe campaign.

[z06boy]

I posted that I thought the plain clothes officer acted inappropriately and I STILL DO...nothing has changed with that opinion.

I also have posted that I think this charge about videotaping is BS...HOWEVER now that I see that "Maryland is a two-party consent state"...the guy did fvck up by posting this on YouTube. :idk:

[Kaneman]

HOWEVER now that I see that "Maryland is a two-party consent state"...the guy did fvck up by posting this on YouTube. :idk:

Just because it's written in law doesn't make it right. His Youtube posting exposed something that the public very much needed, and has a right, to see.

[z06boy]

Just because it's written in law doesn't make it right. His Youtube posting exposed something that the public very much needed, and has a right, to see.

I'm with you on this...I too think this is all BS...the officer on the side of the road was wrong in his approach imho and police coming to the guy's house and confiscating his stuff and arresting him was wrong imho as well HOWEVER they had a legal right to do this once he posted it in public without dual consent.

Here in NC only one of the two parties involved has to know it's being recorded so that $hit wouldn't fly here but in Maryland obviously it's different and I didn't know that until this thread was posted.

[Apoc]

Apparently its fine in Canada, as long as your part of the convo.. I had heard of this, but just looked it up for clarification. Cool law.


Canada requires "one-party notification" - only one person in the
conversation needs to be aware that the conversation is being taped.
In other words, the person taping the conversation must be
participating in it. You will find this law in the Criminal Code of
Canada.

CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA: PART VI: INVASION OF PRIVACY:

Section 183.1: Where a private communication is originated by more
than one person or is intended by the originator thereof to be
received by more than one person, a consent to the interception
thereof by any one of those persons is sufficient consent for the
purposes of any provision of this Part. [1993, c.40, s.2.]"
http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc.183.1.html

Definitions:
"A one party state means one party to the telephone conversation has
to have knowledge and give consent. In a two party state, all parties
must have knowledge and give consent."
"In Ontario, Canada... it is only legal to tape a conversation when at
least ONE of the people involved in the conversation is aware that it
is being recorded."
http://www.telephonemagic.com/call_recording_equipment.htm

[Sean]

This kind of asinine behavior is just going to make more people run. Pulling a gun on someone from an unmarked car, out of uniform, pulling them off the bike, charging them with recording...they're insane. This is absolutely inexcusable behavior and people are going to vote against it with their right wrists.

[Avatard]

Just because it's written in law doesn't make it right. His Youtube posting exposed something that the public very much needed, and has a right, to see.

This is what so many miss. Laws are written, usually to fix a social problem.

The problem with written law is that it can be misinterpreted, and sometimes, the act that the law is meant to prevent, is not what the law is "used for". People will use the law "as written", as a means of accomplishing another goal...like COVERING ONE'S ASS FOR BEING A BAD POLICE OFFICER...which is what happened here.

Law win, justice fail.

The People lose.




...time to revise.

[azoomm]

I posted that I thought the plain clothes officer acted inappropriately and I STILL DO...nothing has changed with that opinion.

I also have posted that I think this charge about videotaping is BS...HOWEVER now that I see that "Maryland is a two-party consent state"...the guy did fvck up by posting this on YouTube. :idk:

OK, so it's a two party state... it was a helmet cam, I'm assuming ON his helmet. Isn't it then a similar situation as a person standing there HOLDING a video camera recording a situation?

So, why not just repost the video without audio?

[Avatard]

OK, so it's a two party state... it was a helmet cam, I'm assuming ON his helmet. Isn't it then a similar situation as a person standing there HOLDING a video camera recording a situation?

So, why not just repost the video without audio?

It's all ridiculous.

http://poopnugget.com/files/helmetcam.jpg

Here's his camera. Do you think the cop knew he might be recorded?

I think the only thing that would have made it more obvious is if he had a sound man, with a boom mic riding two up with him.

Thrown out of court in 3 seconds, if his lawyer is so much as even awake.

[azoomm]

It's all ridiculous.


Here's his camera. Do you think the cop knew he might be recorded?

I think the only thing that would have made it more obvious is if he had a sound man, with a boom mic riding two up with him.

Thrown out of court in 3 seconds, if his lawyer is so much as even awake.

I just had an opportunity to watch the video. Yes, it's incredibly ridiculous. I'm floored by the story to begin with - then to see how he was just cut in front of at a light and the guy comes flying out with a gun :panic: They say HE escalated it by backing up the bike... WHAT??!?!! Really?? What would YOU do if a car cut in front of you like that and a guy got out coming at you with a gun? I might do more than just back up slowly like he did.

The AUDIO isn't what makes this incredible.

[Avatard]

Actually, without the audio, this appears to be a carjacking...er, bike-jacking.

It's actually more damning, if you then know it's a cop.

[z06boy]

OK, so it's a two party state... it was a helmet cam, I'm assuming ON his helmet. Isn't it then a similar situation as a person standing there HOLDING a video camera recording a situation?

So, why not just repost the video without audio?

Good questions and I would "assume" so. I haven't sided with the police anywhere...just stating what the law is and what I again "assume" is the angle the cops used to persue this guy.

I hope he wins in court. I carry a firearm at times and may have shot the officer in this situation. :idk:

[Avatard]

I love how the cops insisted he saw the marked unit behind him.

I don't think ANYONE'S gaze would have been on anything but the guy with the gun YELLING.

[sherri_chickie]

And since when do cops come hollering up to a vehicle screaming at them to get out ( off) with a gun in their hand?

What was this officers ( term used loosely) problem?

[azoomm]

Good questions and I would "assume" so. I haven't sided with the police anywhere...just stating what the law is and what I again "assume" is the angle the cops used to persue this guy.

I hope he wins in court. I carry a firearm at times and may have shot the officer in this situation. :idk:

No, you and I are on the same page here... I didn't quote to argue, I quoted to just question.

[101lifts2]

This is what so many miss. Laws are written, usually to fix a social problem.

The problem with written law is that it can be misinterpreted, and sometimes, the act that the law is meant to prevent, is not what the law is "used for". People will use the law "as written", as a means of accomplishing another goal...like COVERING ONE'S ASS FOR BEING A BAD POLICE OFFICER...which is what happened here.

Law win, justice fail.

The People lose.




...time to revise.

Laws are written to have governmental control people and collect revenue.

[z06boy]

No, you and I are on the same page here... I didn't quote to argue, I quoted to just question.

:cheers: Gotcha...hard to tell on the net sometimes :lol:.

[Full Throttle]

This thing is total BS. Ill be really surprised if this guy goes to jail for this. Ima getting me a Helmet cam now lol.

[Papa_Complex]

I just checked the Maryland statute that he's charged under. It specifies "The wilful interception, use, or disclosure of a protected communication..." Under that specification he might have to worry about the disclosure aspect, as he posted it publicly. Here's an interesting little document that was issued in 2000 though:

http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opinions/2000/85oag225.pdf

[pauldun170]

I just checked the Maryland statute that he's charged under. It specifies "The wilful interception, use, or disclosure of a protected communication..." Under that specification he might have to worry about the disclosure aspect, as he posted it publicly. Here's an interesting little document that was issued in 2000 though:

http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opinions/2000/85oag225.pdf

I cannot consider his interaction with the police officer in the video as protected communication.

[Full Throttle]

After watching that and hearing this guy is getting screwed over somthing like this i think im going to spend my money on this baby.

http://vholdr.com/

http://vholdr.com/contourhd/img/overviewLeft.jpg

[Papa_Complex]

I cannot consider his interaction with the police officer in the video as protected communication.

Despite what you may or may not feel, the courts might find differently. This is especially the case when a police officer is involved.

[pauldun170]

Despite what you may or may not feel, the courts might find differently. This is especially the case when a police officer is involved.

Screw that touchy feely crap,
Legally I can't find any indication that the interaction qualifies, either through Maryland code or precedent.

At the very least, if cruiser behind them (the one that allegedly pulled up behind them) captured the same events and that is not considered protected communication then why would the individual recording the same event be threatened with man rape?

Protected or priveledged communications usually fall under areas where a person may reasonably expect to be safe from unauthorized surveillance.

Malpas v. Maryland, 695 A.2d 588
Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., 649 F. Supp. 9



What these asshole are doing is trying to scare the guy by throwing wiretapping laws around.
Typical of stupid entitlement driven authority figures who get caught being assholes.

[Papa_Complex]

The fact that an authority figure is flexing his muscles after one of his people acted like a dick-head in no way invalidates the possibility that a court will make a stupid decision in said dick-head's favour. It happens every day.

[pauldun170]

...

Anthony Graber // Apr 9, 2010 at 9:17 PM

This is Anthony’s father and I would like to put this in proper perspective. First and foremost the State Police had no clue what my son did prior to the Law Enforcement Officer pulling him over. If you watch the video the State Police that was off duty driving his own POV and started following my son about a mile before pulling him over.
My son was unaware of the State Police car behind him until he turned his head and noticed the State Police after the COWBOY had aggressively approached my son.
For those that want to take the side of the Police Officer they should review the video AGAIN!
Both my son and I serve in the military. I recently retired from the Air Force for over 26 years and my son has served for over 6 years. Our men and women that are currently serving in Afghanistan have more restraints on them pulling their gun than this out of uniform officer. He was at no point in danger. If he would have followed proper procedures and identified himself with the badge none of this would have happened. No video, no youtube, no nothing – My son feared for his life!
You need to ask yourself if someone pulled you over for speeding with gun drawn and not providing you valid ID what would you do? He was scared and concerned that he had someone experiencing road rage. Let’s remember we live in a world where people are crazy. They strap bombs to their chest and blow people up. People kidnap little kids and pose as someone else. People come to others houses and pose as repairman to rob people. Why should this be any different!
So for those that want to defend this officer’s actions I would be glad to discuss this issue. I don’t defend what my son did on this video and he is willing to pay the ticket that he was accessed.
And let’s remember what he was originally charged with. His ticket was for exceeding 80mph. Not 100 mph, not 120mph, not reckless driving, not doing wheelies on the highway but for speeding.
I would think normal protocol is to run his tags to validate that there are no warrants out for his arrest that would verify if he is dangerous. Is this how we want our county to be run? The police doesn’t have to answer to no one.

Mindy Graber // Apr 15, 2010 at 4:34 AM

Thanks Michaelk42 for understanding on this event. Bryan, I have nothing to say to you.
My son is now in jail and has been since yesterday and has a felony record. He has NEVER been in trouble with the law, the only crime he committed was speeding on the highway, having a gun pulled out (not at him, but in visible sight), all of his computers and laptops as well as his camera taken away from his home (~14 pieces of items) all because he was speeding? He ACCEPTED the ticket. He did not cry or complain. He received a ticket for going 80MPH – not any higher, nothing about wheelies or endangering anyone around him. There is a part on the video that he does turn around – there is no cop cars behind him, he sees nothing. He didn’t even know who this person in this car jumping out was, he did not identify himself, he had a gun?!?!! He did not even see the police car behind him until he got off of the bike. Neither POV or police vehicle had sirens or lights.
Lastly, did you see the entire video? There were NO SIRENS OR LIGHTS on either vehicle. There was no high speed chase, nobody was following him for minutes or miles. NOTHING.
Videotaping police in public was comparable to photography and therefore protected under the First Amendment. Illegal wiretapping laws were created to deal with people recording telephone conversations, not people videotaping others in public.
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/
Stop casting stones.

[pauldun170]

http://carlosmiller.com/2010/04/16/maryland-motorcyclist-spends-26-hours-in-jail-on-wiretapping-charge-for-filming-cop-with-gun/

[pauldun170]

The fact that an authority figure is flexing his muscles after one of his people acted like a dick-head in no way invalidates the possibility that a court will make a stupid decision in said dick-head's favour. It happens every day.

I highly doubt it.
Does a police officer have a reasonable expectation of privacy on a public road?

Who the fuck has an expectation of privacy in public?

To rule in the states favor would effectively criminalize all security cameras, speed cameras, red light cameras in the state. Even the state police would run into problems with onboard video.

This is pure intimidation by the DA and police.
Threaten with prison and legal fees to make it go away.

[Apoc]

Its just too bad he hadn't been packing, and shot the cop when he pulled the gun, before he identified himself. Cocksuckers.

[Kaneman]

HOLY SHIT!

They raided his parent's home and seized all the computers? I missed that part of the story? Why is every single person in Maryland not rushing the Capitol right now and demanding this be fixed?

I try not to get carried away, but this is some straight up gestapo behavior. Unfuckingreal.

Worse part? There hasn't been mass rioting....nobody gives a fuck anymore. So sad.

[pauldun170]

HOLY SHIT!

They raided his parent's home and seized all the computers? I missed that part of the story? Why is every single person in Maryland not rushing the Capitol right now and demanding this be fixed?

I try not to get carried away, but this is some straight up gestapo behavior. Unfuckingreal.

Worse part? There hasn't been mass rioting....nobody gives a fuck anymore. So sad.

He rides one of those rice rockets. We all know they terrorize the roads and the officer likely saved a life getting that dangerous individual off the road.
Officer keeps us safe.
Wheelie popping rice racer makes us not safe.

[z06boy]

Its just too bad he hadn't been packing, and shot the cop when he pulled the gun, before he identified himself. Cocksuckers.

You know...there's alot of truth in that...he should have been flashing badge and identifying himself FIRST...period !!

[OneSickPsycho]

This is a great 'abuse of power' news story... I wonder why nobody has picked it up...

[Kaneman]

This is a great 'abuse of power' news story... I wonder why nobody has picked it up...

Getting out of the car with his weapon drawn while issuing commands is one thing...that's just a bad cop...hell, those are a dime a dozen.

But getting a judge to sign a search warrant and raiding this guy's parent's home? I mean, physically entering their home under threat of jail or death and rummaging through your things....then seizing (see: stealing) the computers...

That just blows my mind.

[Avatard]

Getting out of the car with his weapon drawn while issuing commands is one thing...that's just a bad cop...hell, those are a dime a dozen.

But getting a judge to sign a search warrant and raiding this guy's parent's home? I mean, physically entering their home under threat of jail or death and rummaging through your things....then seizing (see: stealing) the computers...

That just blows my mind.

Dontcha know? Latest fashion. Search you, confiscate what they want, and if they find anything they want to fuck you for, they retroactively justify it as probable cause, and shred the Constitution. Happens every day. Just another day at the cop shop.

*Most frequent cause of this unwarranted search is the "DWB" stop.

[Kaneman]

Dontcha know? Latest fashion. Search you, confiscate what they want, and if they find anything they want to fuck you for, they retroactively justify it as probable cause, and shred the Constitution. Happens every day. Just another day at the cop shop.

*Most frequent cause of this unwarranted search is the "DWB" stop.

Sure, sure...that's all day to day business. Hell, its even happened to me before and I'm just an innocent ol' white boy.

But this seems to be of a bit different flavor than the usual "Constitutional Shredding" in that after the initial dickmove they got a search warrant and served it at this guy's home, his parent's home actually.

That's different...

[Full Throttle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YPc8FYA6D8

[Sean]

This is a great 'abuse of power' news story... I wonder why nobody has picked it up...

Cuz it's an evil sportbiker, and "you know how those guys are, he was probably going 350mph on half a wheel in rush hour traffic." It's infuriating.

[Homeslice]

I don't think the pulling the gun is a big deal, considering the rider was backing up and could potentially pose a threat to the officer if he had charged him or whatever. And it wasn't even pointed at him anyway. The bigger deal in this case is the video seizure. Cops and the DA are just mad that they got embarassed on Youtube, and want revenge.

[Avatard]

I don't think the pulling the gun is a big deal, considering the rider was backing up and could potentially pose a threat to the officer if he had charged him or whatever. And it wasn't even pointed at him anyway. The bigger deal in this case is the video seizure. Cops and the DA are just mad that they got embarassed on Youtube, and want revenge.

...An hopefully a judge will see that, and not just an evil sportbiker.

I think he needs a jury of his peers; riders!

[Particle Man]

Cuz it's an evil sportbiker, and "you know how those guys are, he was probably going 350mph on half a wheel in rush hour traffic." It's infuriating.

exactly. Think of the children! :eek:

[Sean]

I don't think the pulling the gun is a big deal, considering the rider was backing up and could potentially pose a threat to the officer if he had charged him or whatever.

By that logic every person on the planet that is not restrained is a potential threat.

[Sixxxxer]

Wow.

This shit is Ridiculous.

I fucking hate The law. I really do.

[Apoc]

I don't think the pulling the gun is a big deal, considering the rider was backing up and could potentially pose a threat to the officer if he had charged him or whatever. And it wasn't even pointed at him anyway. The bigger deal in this case is the video seizure. Cops and the DA are just mad that they got embarassed on Youtube, and want revenge.



Are you retarded? He pulled a gun on a man with no indication he was a police officer.

As I already stated, its too bad the rider hadn't whipped out a pistol and shot the cocksucker on sight of his gun with no credentials out.

[Avatard]

Are you retarded? He pulled a gun on a man with no indication he was a police officer.

As I already stated, its too bad the rider hadn't whipped out a pistol and shot the cocksucker on sight of his gun with no credentials out.

It would have been totally justified, and no one would have beefed about the camera.

:shrug:

Too bad.

[101lifts2]

Wow.

This shit is Ridiculous.

I fucking hate The law. I really do.

You don't hate the law...you hate humans who enforce it.

[Homeslice]

Are you retarded? He pulled a gun on a man with no indication he was a police officer.

As I already stated, its too bad the rider hadn't whipped out a pistol and shot the cocksucker on sight of his gun with no credentials out.

Yes, he should have said police a few seconds earlier, but that isn't going to help the rider solve his legal problem, now is it? The rider is in trouble for videotaping. How the officer behaved isn't going to make any difference in the judge's verdict. The judge is simply going to look at the communications/wiretapping law and see if it applies to what the rider did.

[azoomm]

I just do NOT understand. How the hell does this stand? I mean, the code he was charged with reference interception - he didn't intercept anything. He didn't HIDE anything.

Does this guy have a legal fund we can contribute to?

And, sorry - if ANYONE comes at me with their car, THEN a gun without in any way identifying themselves as an officer... you're damn right I'd back-peddle for my life.

[pauldun170]

Yes, he should have said police a few seconds earlier, but that isn't going to help the rider solve his legal problem, now is it? The rider is in trouble for videotaping. How the officer behaved isn't going to make any difference in the judge's verdict. The judge is simply going to look at the communications/wiretapping law and see if it applies to what the rider did.

The law does not.

[karl_1052]

Here is the video leading up to the stop and the stop

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/04/19/motorcyclist-arrested-for-recording-cop-brandishing-gun-with-hel/#continued

[Trip]

Here is the video leading up to the stop and the stop

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/04/19/motorcyclist-arrested-for-recording-cop-brandishing-gun-with-hel/#continued

I think he knew they were back there when he was on the ramp at least. He turned around to look at something. I don't think the cop should of drew his gun in that case though.

[azoomm]

I think he knew they were back there when he was on the ramp at least. He turned around to look at something. I don't think the cop should of drew his gun in that case though.

Right.

So you pull over at a light. He was toward the side. He stopped. If he was evading he would have easily blown past all the stopped cars.

The car was still unmarked. Officer in plain clothes. Unannounced.

Bad form.

[Cutty72]

Just saw the vids, yeah pretty sure I would have been backing up as well with a random car pulling in front of me like that, regardless of the gun being pulled, which just aggravated the scene IMO.

Looked totally like some random guy that had a dislike for bikers up until he said "state police", which by that time he already had his hand on the bike.

[Full Throttle]

After watching the whole video i think he knew the Patrol car was there but still how was he supposed to know there was an undercover cop there as well. Bad move by officer. The cops should of the the one in the patrol car pull up. There would of been no need for the gun in that case and im pretty sure the biker would of just gotten off the bike. Therefore no incident.

Now even though he is getting charged for recording, its pretty easy to miss the massive video camera attached to the top of his helmet. Not!!!!!! the damn cop must be blind or something. That thing is huge!!!!! There is no way the cop would of been able to miss something like that on the helmet of that rider. Thats ridiculous. If the cop did somehow miss "the massive camera attached to the helmet" then he shouldn't be an officer for lack of attention to detail.

I still believe this will fall through in court.

[Papa_Complex]

I'm guessing that he's being charged for releasing the video, not for taking it.