Felony for recording arrests?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • BloodEclipse

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 3, 2008
    10,620
    38
    In the trenches for liberty!
    Debate Sparks Over Video Recording Of Arrests

    mikehellgren.jpg
    Reporting
    Mike Hellgren
    BALTIMORE (WJZ) ―
    Kelly.jpg
    Click to enlarge 1 of 1
    A bloody fistfight breaks out between a Baltimore City police officer and a Preakness spectator. Now the video is circulating across the web. CBS



    Several Marylanders face felony charges for recording their arrests on camera, and others have been intimidated to shut their cameras off.

    That's touched off a legal controversy. Mike Hellgren explains the fierce debate and what you should do to protect yourself.

    A man whose arrest was caught on video faces felony charges from Maryland State Police for recording it on camera.

    "We are enforcing the law, and we don't make any apologies for that," said Greg Shipley, MSP.

    Video of another arrest at the Preakness quickly made its way online, despite an officer issuing this warning to the person who shot it, "Do me a favor and turn that off. It's illegal to videotape anybody's voice or anything else, against the law in the state of Maryland."

    But is he right? Can police stop you from recording their actions, like a beating at the University of Maryland College Park?

    The American Civil Liberties Union says no.

    "For the government to be saying it has the power to prevent citizens from doing that is profoundly shocking, troubling, and particularly in the case of Maryland, simply flat-out wrong," said David Roach, ACLU.

    Under Maryland law, conversations in private cannot be recorded without the consent of both people involved.

    But can that be applied to incidents such as one caught on tape three years ago where a Baltimore officer arrested a teenager at the Inner Harbor?

    "When you tell me to turn it off because it's against the law, you've proven to me that I'm not secretly taping you," said law professor Byron Warnken. "He doesn't have the right to say, if you don't stop recording me, I'm going to arrest you."

    The last official interpretation of Maryland's law came from the previous attorney general saying it was legal for officers to record video on dashcams.

    Delegate Sandy Rosenberg is pushing the current attorney general for his opinion on whether you can record them, too.

    "If he finds that there are circumstances when it's illegal, under existing law, to tape public actions by police or other public officials, then it's appropriate for me to introduce a bill to change that statute," said Rosenberg, Democrat, District 41, Baltimore City.

    At this point, the attorney general has not indicated whether he will issue an opinion clarifying this law.
    Under Maryland law, conversations in private cannot be recorded without the consent of both people involved.

    Maybe they need to understand that an arrest is not a private conversation.
    It will be PUBLIC record.
    It is being conducted by a PUBLIC servant.
    "We are enforcing the law, and we don't make any apologies for that," said Greg Shipley, MSP.
    This should have said "We can stretch any law we want to justify our behavior".
     

    Ogre

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 4, 2009
    1,790
    36
    Indianapolis
    That all sounds like something from a movie about the gestapo or KGB.... There are many videos on youtube... of people bein harrassed for recording their dealings with the police. Anytime a cop tells someone to turn off the camera, it make me think they are worried they are gonna be caught doing something at best against procedure and at worst against the law...
     

    Joe Williams

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 26, 2008
    10,431
    38
    There is no reason whatsoever for a police officer performing his/her duties in a lawful and proper fashion to object to, or fear, being videoed while doing their job as public servants. Indeed, an officer who is performing their duties correctly would welcome video evidence to back them up. Only corrupt officers fearful of being caught performing illegal acts or abusing their authority would object to having their public acts videoed.
     

    patton487

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 2, 2010
    458
    16
    In Indiana you DO NOT have to tell someone you are recording a conversation. Only one party has to be informed (you)

    It was origially written that way so police can covertly record. But it works both ways. So, in Indiana, RECORD AWAY, PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS!! You don't need anyones permision.:patriot::patriot:
     

    CarmelHP

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 14, 2008
    7,633
    48
    Carmel
    Maryland, among other states, has an involved wiretaping statute.

    Still, Maryland courts have interpreted the laws to protect communications only when the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and thus, where a person in a private apartment was speaking so loudly that residents of an adjoining apartment could hear without any sound enhancing device, recording without the speaker’s consent did not violate the wiretapping law. Malpas v. Maryland, 695 A.2d 588 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997); see also Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., 649 F. Supp. 9 (D. Md. 1986) (salesman’s presentation in stranger’s home not assumed to carry expectation of privacy).

    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.
     

    SKSnut

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 31, 2010
    956
    16
    There is no reason whatsoever for a police officer performing his/her duties in a lawful and proper fashion to object to, or fear, being videoed while doing their job as public servants. Indeed, an officer who is performing their duties correctly would welcome video evidence to back them up. Only corrupt officers fearful of being caught performing illegal acts or abusing their authority would object to having their public acts videoed.



    Exactly:+1:
     

    Manan

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 28, 2009
    1,061
    38
    West Central
    I am sure the police are tired of having their actions recorded for others to review. When you are doing something wrong, nobody wants anybody else to know.

    KEEP RECORDING.
     

    UncleMike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 30, 2009
    7,454
    48
    NE area of IN
    There is no reason whatsoever for a police officer performing his/her duties in a lawful and proper fashion to object to, or fear, being videoed while doing their job as public servants. Indeed, an officer who is performing their duties correctly would welcome video evidence to back them up. Only corrupt officers fearful of being caught performing illegal acts or abusing their authority would object to having their public acts videoed.
    True!
    I was recorded/photographed several times making arrests.
    And I was glad to have the photographic record of the facts.
    The only reason for an Officer to be upset about someone filming an arrest would be if he/she were trying to hide something.
    Over the decades I've learned that some Cops, should NEVER have been made Cops.
    VERY FEW!!
    But some.
    Mike
     

    Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,015
    113
    Fort Wayne
    To All,

    I think it is fair and reasonable for LE to request and require anyone filming an incident to not "interfere" with their proper execution of the law. For example, a camera operator should not start asking questions of victims, witnesses, and the accused until LE has finished with them.

    Beyond that whatever occurs in the public by employees of the government is fair game in my opinion. This would apply to census workers, road crews, teacher, anyone.

    We the people have the right and responsibility to understand how our employees are performing their jobs.

    I used to have a very high regard for all LE personnel. Today, after witnessing many filmed abuses of power I have a very high regard for most LE personnel. Were I in a jury box today I would no longer give cart blanche to a police officer due to my understanding that some police can and do abuse their authority. I am glad to say that I believe MOST do not abuse authority, but I must now concede that due to footage of abuse I believe it happens more often than I would like to think.

    Regards,

    Doug
     

    smoking357

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 14, 2008
    961
    16
    Mindin' My Own Business
    Still, Maryland courts have interpreted the laws to protect communications only when the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and thus, where a person in a private apartment was speaking so loudly that residents of an adjoining apartment could hear without any sound enhancing device, recording without the speaker’s consent did not violate the wiretapping law. Malpas v. Maryland, 695 A.2d 588 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997); see also Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., 649 F. Supp. 9 (D. Md. 1986) (salesman’s presentation in stranger’s home not assumed to carry expectation of privacy).

    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.

    I had an "incident" with a cop, and when I asked the cop if the car was recording the action, the cop immediately began threatening me, asking ME is I had a recording device, since it was illegal to record a cop and threatening to search me and my car to search for any such device.

    We have a bad cop problem in America.
     

    ghunter

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Apr 23, 2009
    628
    18
    nap-town
    Cops have the same expectation of privacy as anyone else in a public setting: none. I have arrested people when the camera phones were whipped out, and as long as they gave me my space, they were free to collect all the mundane footage they wanted. The cops who did this need to go back to the academy for some remediation.
     

    smoking357

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 14, 2008
    961
    16
    Mindin' My Own Business
    Cops have the same expectation of privacy as anyone else in a public setting: none. I have arrested people when the camera phones were whipped out, and as long as they gave me my space, they were free to collect all the mundane footage they wanted. The cops who did this need to go back to the academy for some remediation.

    Hot button alert: William Grigg argues that cops see the world in two categories: cops and mundanes (anyone not a cop). Using that word in connection with the view police have of citizens might raise an eyebrow.

    I would like to see every cop be outfited with a camera that records every action. Of course, it will only be a matter of time before they make such recording a condition of parole and probation, as well as requiring it of all the people on the multiple criminal registries.
     

    ghunter

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Apr 23, 2009
    628
    18
    nap-town
    I used the word "mundane" as a way to describe how boring and unsexy most arrests are, not as a knick name for civilians. If people want to tape me as I fill out book-in slips and property lists, hey, whatever floats their boats.
     

    UncleMike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 30, 2009
    7,454
    48
    NE area of IN
    Hot button alert: William Grigg argues that cops see the world in two categories: cops and mundanes (anyone not a cop). Using that word in connection with the view police have of citizens might raise an eyebrow.

    I would like to see every cop be outfited with a camera that records every action. Of course, it will only be a matter of time before they make such recording a condition of parole and probation, as well as requiring it of all the people on the multiple criminal registries.
    And THAT is the proverbial "slippery slope".
    If the Police can be forced to wear recording devices, then EVERYONE can be forced to do the same thing.
    Be careful what you wish for.
    You just might get it.
    Mike
     
    Top Bottom