Video of a police stop = fellony......

skadistic

Caomhanach
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
15,239
Location
Land of Mary
Not for the cop but for the guy who was a passenger in the car that was stopped!

http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews/2007/06/brian_d_kelly_didnt_think.html

Spoiler :
Brian D. Kelly didn't think he was doing anything illegal when he used his videocamera to record a Carlisle police officer during a traffic stop. Making movies is one of his hobbies, he said, and the stop was just another interesting event to film.

Now he's worried about going to prison or being burdened with a criminal record.

Kelly, 18, of Carlisle, was arrested on a felony wiretapping charge, with a penalty of up to 7 years in state prison.

His camera and film were seized by police during the May 24 stop, he said, and he spent 26 hours in Cumberland County Prison until his mother posted her house as security for his $2,500 bail.

Kelly is charged under a state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent.

The criminal case relates to the sound, not the pictures, that his camera picked up.

"I didn't think I could get in trouble for that," Kelly said. "I screwed up, yeah. I know now that I can't do that. I just don't see how something like this should affect my entire life."

Whether that will happen could be determined during Kelly's preliminary hearing before District Judge Jessica Brewbaker in July.

No one seems intent on punishing him harshly.

"Obviously, ignorance of the law is no defense," District Attorney David Freed said. "But often these cases come down to questions of intent."

According to police, Kelly was riding in a pickup truck that had been stopped for alleged traffic violations.

Police said the officer saw Kelly had a camera in his lap, aimed at him and was concealing it with his hands. They said Kelly was arrested after he obeyed an order to turn the camera off and hand it over.

The wiretap charge was filed after consultation with a deputy district attorney, police said.

Kelly said his friend was cited for speeding and because his truck's bumper was too low. He said he held the camera in plain view and turned it on when the officer yelled at his pal.

After about 20 minutes, the officer cited the driver on the traffic charges and told the men they were being recorded by a camera in his cruiser, Kelly said.

"He said, 'Young man, turn off your ... camera,'¤" Kelly said. "I turned it off and handed it to him. ... Six or seven more cops pulled up, and they arrested me."

Police also took film from his pockets that wasn't related to the traffic stop, he said.

Freed said his office has handled other wiretapping cases, some involving ex-lovers or divorcing couples who are trying to record former partners doing something improper for leverage in court battles, he said.

Such charges have been dismissed or defendants have been allowed to plead to lesser counts or enter a program to avoid criminal records, he said.

The outcome hinges on whether the person had a malicious intent, Freed said.

Carlisle Police Chief Stephen Margeson said allowing Kelly to plead to a lesser charge might be proper.

"I don't think that would cause anyone any heartburn," he said. "I don't believe there was any underlying criminal intent here."

But Margeson said he doesn't regard the filing of the felony charge as unwarranted and said the officer followed procedures.

John Mancke, a Harrisburg defense attorney familiar with the wiretapping law, said the facts, as related by police, indicate Kelly might have violated the law.

"If he had the sound on, he has a problem," Mancke said.

Last year, Mancke defended a North Middleton Twp. man in a street racing case that involved a wiretapping charge. Police claimed the man ordered associates to tape police breaking up an illegal race after officers told him to turn off their cameras.

That wiretapping count was dismissed when the man pleaded guilty to charges of illegal racing, defiant trespass and obstruction of justice. He was sentenced to probation.

An exception to the wiretapping law allows police to film people during traffic stops, Mancke said.

Margeson said his department's cruisers are equipped with cameras, and officers are told to inform people during incidents that they are being recorded.

First Assistant District Attorney Jaime Keating said case law is in flux as to whether police can expect not to be recorded while performing their duties.

"The law isn't solid," Keating said. "But people who do things like this do so at their own peril."

Kelly said he has called the American Civil Liberties Union for help in the case.

His father, Chris, said he's backing his son.

"We're hoping for a just resolution," he said.



This is a horrible law and is not good.

Can it be turned around that the cop could be charged with the same crime for taping the stop?

Thoughts?
 
Can it be turned around that the cop could be charged with the same crime for taping the stop?
Uh....no.
An exception to the wiretapping law allows police to film people during traffic stops, Mancke said.
For good or for ill, though, these kinds of laws will become increasingly pointless as the information society progresses.
 
I wonder what would happen had he videotaped a store robbery. I bet the police would jump at that tape and use it in court.
 
I absolutely support the police using "dashboard cams" and filming encounters with potential suspects. Makes it trivially easy to deflect fraudulent police brutality claims in court (or before it gets to court).

I also absolutely support allowing suspects or the general public to film/record police activities. Makes it trivially easy to support actual police brutality claims in court.
 
Umm.. what is the point of this law? Why aren't you allowed to videotape with sound on in public?
 
I would argue that there was consent here. The officer was performing a public function and thus consented to his acts being filmed (with sound recording) while he was out in public.
 
I agree with JollyRoger here. While I believe the law agaisnt videotaping without consent is good, it public videotaping should be exempted. I mean look at all those cameras in stores...
 
Wow. I used my digital camcorder to record cops shoving around a guy in a neck brace years ago. I wonder what they would have done if they saw me?

This case is BS and no one can possibly defend what happened to this guy. He video taped public servants in a public setting. The law hates it, no doubt about it, and I hear cops will sometimes threaten and intimidate people who video tape them. BUT its not against the law in the vast majority of places, so as usual when there isn't a law against something, they have to twist other laws to make em fit. You gotta love it.
 
I agree with JollyRoger here.

I do too and it makes me feel dirty.

I can see where these no taping laws would be good in combating things like upskirt shots or other humiliating things but I've seen video of a cop just start spraying pepper spray in a car and tape of other cops doing messed up stuff. This law is just wrong in the way it was used.
 
er, why is your source a poop-based game ><
 
Damn right this is BS. I would also say this violates the US constitution, which means this law should be tossed out.

and how the hell can you allow video but not sound? When someone says this, you know its a BS law
"The law isn't solid," Keating said. "But people who do things like this do so at their own peril."
What ever happen to the idea of "it's better to send 10 guilty people free then one innocent person to prison." LOL How can you convict a person beyond reasonable doubt when the "law isn't solid." That sure sounds like reasonable doubt to me.

"I will show these 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt that we are somewhat sure he broke the law"... wut lol?
 
does this mean anyone with a security camera is breaking the law? I think people working for the public should always be subject to videotaping when on duty. they are working for us afterall
 
First of all, this is a state law we're talking about. Second, it applies only to sound, not video. Most security cameras don't record sound.

Presumably, had this boy not been recording sound, he would have been in the clear legally. That doesn't mean the cops wouldn't have worked him over, of course. As a rule, they don't like things that challenge their authority.
 
Actually the thing to realize is it's strictly about the wiretapping, not the video footage. It's a peculiar law of Pennsylvannia, that has to do with protecting the rights of people against wire tapping, and nothing about protecting a physically aggressive police force (e.g. LAPD). It's a pretty old law IIRC. Well before the Rodney King era. The intent is actually to protect privacy, not cops.

I'm not sure, but I believe most official (e.g. cop) tapings are certified and hard-coded to prevent tampering. Figure that in the digital age, it is pretty easy to mess with audio files and dub over video.

Hopefully they'll just confiscate the tape and give him a real light fine. That this went to court is kind of bizarre. That this could be used to protect a cop doing something unlawful is unlikely.
 
Top Bottom