Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

N/A | National Motorcyclist Wins Taping Case Against State Police

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by undii, Sep 28, 2010.

  1. From slashdot, I just saw this headline. Clearing out the house + garage for our daughters 1st bday bash this weekend, guessing 50-100 people coming so making room!!!! Well, gotta go!

    the case of a Maryland motorcyclist (Anthony Graber) arrested and charged with wiretapping violations (a felony) when he recorded his interaction with a Maryland State Trooper. Today, Judge Emory A. Pitt threw out the wiretapping charges against Graber, leaving only his traffic violations to be decided on his October 12 trial date. 'The judge ruled that Maryland's wire tap law allows recording of both voice and sound in areas where privacy cannot be expected. He ruled that a police officer on a traffic stop has no expectation of privacy.' A happy day for freedom-loving Marylanders and Americans in general

    Relevant pages from the paragraph are:



  2. As it should be. The pigs should now compensate him accordingly. Nothing excessive, of course, but it should come from the pay of the arresting officer, prosecutor, etc. The taxpayer should not be punished for poor policing.
  3. I wouldn't say taxpayers etc are "punished", fines etc are not a 1 to 1 of "tax paid" to "execution of tax paid to *insert payment/fines etc for government*. It's just part of the bigger plan of budget surplus or deficit? Like, say for example, people won't pay more tax directly due to whatever compensation the guy gets or any other people's compensation.

    Happy to be corrected but I thought tax was part + parcel for the "working man" and things like this bear little to no relevance to what % tax rates are set at??
  4. It's more that I want to see the people responsible punished personally, with their own money used to compensate the victim of government aggress. If it comes out of the general fund, lessons will not be learned because that money is stolen from the taxpayers.
  5. his 'victory' will, I'll bet, come at a greater cost than he imagines....

    besides, it's the U.S. where the law is an even bigger ass than it is elsewhere, and the courts triply so....
  6. I'm sorry Paul, but what exactly are you saying here?

    Are yo saying that 'a greater cost than he imagines' means that he will be victimised and mistreated in the future? And what do you mean by the law being an ass in the US? Surely any citizen, of whatever country, has the right to tape or record their conversations with the law?
  7. I would bet that this fracas is not this person's first run-in with the law, and it probably won't be his last. I'm suggesting that with a provocative attitude towards the law, he will undoubtedly come to their attention again.

    Netrider regularly highlights the weird and downright idiotic events of U.S. law enforcement, and the many bizarre decisions of their courts. Not that we are far behind when an ex-Prime Minister of this country can go to court and have the beak throw out the sworn evidence of two Police officers because HE said the opposite.

    And as far as recording conversations is concerned, I understood that it is illegal to do so unless all parties to that conversation are aware that it is being done. (Law enforcement wire-tapping for the purpose of gathering evidence against criminals excluded, of course).
  8. Fair enough, but obviously the law regarding recording in a public place has now been clarified. It's a worry when the law enforcement agencies use their power to silence critics or commentary.
  9. And why is that at all relevant?
    A person is entitled to due process and presumption of innocence.
    Thier previous record is (rightly) inadmissable when deciding guilt / innocence in most cases.

    Now your talking crap, sorry but you are.
    Every person is entitled to give evidence and have that evidence weighed by the fact finder (judge) on it's merits.
    The judge chose to believe the accused over a couple of the plod. So what? Happens every day. Some plod are just lying thugs. Fact. I know, I deal with them.
    We CANNOT say he should have NOT been believed WE were not there.

    It's not "illegal" to record a conversation if you are a party, as a general rule.
    There are also different rules in different states, and different rules for telco devices.
    Secondly, this occured in the USA. Any comparison between the rules there and here is meaningless anyway.
  10. I'm sure many people fall foul of the law harshly applied, but it's also obvious that many go out of their way to provoke confrontation in the hope of scoring points and making a name for themselves.
  11. #11 gordy, Sep 28, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2015
    To add some facts to the discussion, IIRC the motorcyclist was pulled over by an off-duty cop who ran towards him with a drawn gun; here's the video in question.
  12. Ironic coming from someone in a place where the police can revoke your license on the spot.
  13. If the copper asks what I am doing with the camera, I simply say I am gathering evidence just like you are, Which I am entitled to do,
    If he objects or interferes with my equiptment he is Tampering with evidence, which I believe is a criminal offence.
  14. Can happen in some states in the US as well. Alaska and Drink Driving laws spring to mind.
  15. Problem is in NSW at least, IIRC, the police have the power to take the footage from you if it is evidence in the commission of an offence, though I can't recall if that is 'indictable offence' in which case not most speeding/traffic offences.

    Eitherway I would flat out refuse and demand to see their warrant card, get it all on video, and tell them that I wouldn't say anything or hand anything over without speaking to a lawyer and being duly served with a subpoena or warrant to search and obtain.
  16. If I'm thinking of the right situation, he was just recording his ride when he got pulled over by an undercover, unmarked car and plain clothes cop with a drawn gun. He then posted the interaction on youtube.

    IIRC, the bloke himself worked for law enforcement in some way.
  17. isn thanks for the link

    i skimmed through it but the last part caught my eye

    (4) Subsection (1) does not apply to the use of a listening device to record, monitor or listen to a private conversation if:

    (a) a law enforcement officer is a party to the private conversation, and .....

    "private conversation" means any words spoken by one person to another person or to other persons in circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that any of those persons desires the words to be listened to only:

    (a) by themselves, or

    (b) by themselves and by some other person who has the consent, express or implied, of all of those persons to do so,

    but does not include a conversation made in any circumstances in which the parties to it ought reasonably to expect that it might be overheard by someone else.

    i ought to expect that on the side of the road in a public place the conversation can be overheard
  18. judge seemed to think the same thing. I'd bet the cops knew they had nothing to stand on and just wanted to give the guy a hard time for revealing the cop to be a stupid prick.
  19. Wow?!? The vic legislation allows you to record a conversation that you are a party to without all the exceptions.

    Source: http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/LTObject_Store/LTObjSt4.nsf/DDE300B846EED9C7CA257616000A3571/C93F9022F0F6BB34CA2577610032F3F3/$FILE/99-21a020.pdf

    Strange how the "Nanny state" allows it and NSW doesn't? 8-[

    Seriously, I'm suprised that there is such a difference. I wonder what brought that on?