Cops throw pregnant woman to the ground, and punch man repeatedly, try to delete evid

[rudeguy]

Do you understand how courts might have their own rules and that situation may not apply to all situations.


Probably not.

I can post a ton of cases, that have no bearing on certain state or even county laws in other locations.

United States District Court has bearing in all states.

 

[alkemyst]

United States District Court has bearing in all states.

And can be challeged.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases.htm

 

[rudeguy]

And can be challeged.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases.htm

In the Court of Appeals is can. And has not been.


Again, you are a moron.

 

[alkemyst]

In the Court of Appeals is can. And has not been.


Again, you are a moron.

Then that says bad things about your level.

Anyway good luck using audio to record people everywhere you go without consent nationally.

Since you have a private jet it should be EASY for you to prove this.

 

[CZroe]

"...easily see or hear..." is the key. If the officer leans over to sa or hear something private, you can't use your parabolic microphone to listen in from a distance further than they would expect the audio to carry. You also can't plant a bug or remote microphone tha TV they don't know about.

 

[rudeguy]

"...easily see or hear..." is the key. If the officer leans over to sa or hear something private, you can't use your parabolic microphone to listen in from a distance further than they would expect the audio to carry. You also can't plant a bug or remote microphone tha TV they don't know about.

And no one has said anything about those things.

We are talking about a guy standing in a public space, recording the cops beating a suspect.

 

[The Merg]

Technically, you're both right. The 1st and 7th District Courts have ruled that eavesdropping laws are basically unconstitutional with regards to the taping/recording of public officials. The Supreme Court did not vote for certiorari, basically saying that they don't object to the District Court decisions. However, that does not mean that the courts in the other Districts have to agree. So, if a case gets to the 4th District Court of Appeals (Maryland, which requires two-party consent) and they rule in favor of the law, the Supreme Court would most likely take the case at that point. It's also very possible that the other District Courts will just go along with the 1st and 7th, which is a very strong possibility.

- Merg

 

[waggy]

"...easily see or hear..." is the key. If the officer leans over to sa or hear something private, you can't use your parabolic microphone to listen in from a distance further than they would expect the audio to carry. You also can't plant a bug or remote microphone tha TV they don't know about.

right.

In a public setting without breaking other laws (harassment and trespassing) You are totally free to get video and audio.

but as you say IF they are talking private you can't bug them, have a direction microphone or such.

IF they are in the public it's fair game wich is what we said.

 

[waggy]

Technically, you're both right. The 1st and 7th District Courts have ruled that eavesdropping laws are basically unconstitutional with regards to the taping/recording of public officials. The Supreme Court did not vote for certiorari, basically saying that they don't object to the District Court decisions. However, that does not mean that the courts in the other Districts have to agree. So, if a case gets to the 4th District Court of Appeals (Maryland, which requires two-party consent) and they rule in favor of the law, the Supreme Court would most likely take the case at that point. It's also very possible that the other District Courts will just go along with the 1st and 7th, which is a very strong possibility.

- Merg

also this.

since one district court ruled and the Supreme court refused to overturn it most likely others will just fallow it.

while a person should win the court case if arrested it won't stop a asshole cop from arresting you.

 

[The Merg]

also this.



since TWO district courts ruled and the Supreme court refused to even hear them, most likely others will just fallow it.



while a person should win the court case if arrested it won't stop a asshole cop from arresting you.

FTFY...

They could arrest you since the law is still valid in their jurisdiction. While Virginia you are fine as the law here is pretty relaxed, Maryland has a strict two party consent law.

- Merg

 

[rudeguy]

also this.

since one district court ruled and the Supreme court refused to overturn it most likely others will just fallow it.

while a person should win the court case if arrested it won't stop a asshole cop from arresting you.

Oh yea...if you are going to do this stuff, you can't be afraid of getting arrested or slapped around.

 

[rudeguy]

FTFY...

They could arrest you since the law is still valid in their jurisdiction. While Virginia you are fine as the law here is pretty relaxed, Maryland has a strict two party consent law.

- Merg

2 party consent does not apply in a public space.

I'm so glad I don't live in a commie state. If you record a cop around here, they are more likely to dance for the camera than they are to try to arrest you for recording them.

 

[Cr0nJ0b]

Hey one point in this story I don't get...How did the video sync to the cloud in the first place? I know with my phone for example, it doesn't automatically sync files to the cloud...and a video file of this size would have take a long time to sync...I would imagine. In his statement the witness made it sound like 1) he recorded the incident, 2) the cops asked him for his tablet 3) they took his tablet and deleted the file 4) he re-synced the tablet and got the file back...which would indicate that the file sync'd to the cloud first and then they took and deleted the file...which, again...seems odd to me. I would guess that he would have had to be syncing or streaming the video for that to work that way.

thoughts?

 

[The Merg]

2 party consent does not apply in a public space.



I'm so glad I don't live in a commie state. If you record a cop around here, they are more likely to dance for the camera than they are to try to arrest you for recording them.

That's true in most states, but like I mentioned, not all of them, like Maryland. They are backwards there in many ways. It's interesting how both VA and MD are part of the 4th District, however, each has a completely different view of what is legal and what is not.

Just as another example... Grand Larceny in VA is anything over $200. In MD, they have raised the amount as to what constitutes felony theft from $300 to $500 to $1,000 in recent years.

- Merg

 

[rudeguy]

Hey one point in this story I don't get...How did the video sync to the cloud in the first place? I know with my phone for example, it doesn't automatically sync files to the cloud...and a video file of this size would have take a long time to sync...I would imagine. In his statement the witness made it sound like 1) he recorded the incident, 2) the cops asked him for his tablet 3) they took his tablet and deleted the file 4) he re-synced the tablet and got the file back...which would indicate that the file sync'd to the cloud first and then they took and deleted the file...which, again...seems odd to me. I would guess that he would have had to be syncing or streaming the video for that to work that way.

thoughts?

Google will sync all phones and videos as well as Apple.

I thought about that when I heard him talk about it and he doesn't sound super tech savvy, so I assume the simplest answer: He was using and Android device and had enable auto backup. He was using a tablet and it probably had very low resolution, so the file was not large. Between the time he stopped recording and the time the cop deleted the video, it sync'd.

EDIT:

Now I'm wondering if the sync starts, will it continue even if deleted since the information is still technically there. It would be fun to try out.

 

[Cr0nJ0b]

But I thought it would sync like once a day or so, not on every change in files. I just don't know however. If it syncs all the time, then the cops are in trouble...they can't be sure that the files are destroyed. They will need to start killing the witnesses

 

[rudeguy]

But I thought it would sync like once a day or so, not on every change in files. I just don't know however. If it syncs all the time, then the cops are in trouble...they can't be sure that the files are destroyed. They will need to start killing the witnesses

Oh no, Google syncs all the time.

I use it a ton for work. I'll take pictures of 50 iPads with my phone and by the time I sit down at my desk they are already sync'd. If someone is driving like a douche I'll start recording it and it will be sync'd by the time I get home 10 minutes later.

The only time it doesn't work well is with large files. I recorded my whole drive into work last year for the Southern Ice thread but the video was too large for Google to handle. But that video was over 2 gigs and I'm sure this video was just a few megs.

 

[The Merg]

Oh no, Google syncs all the time.



I use it a ton for work. I'll take pictures of 50 iPads with my phone and by the time I sit down at my desk they are already sync'd. If someone is driving like a douche I'll start recording it and it will be sync'd by the time I get home 10 minutes later.



The only time it doesn't work well is with large files. I recorded my whole drive into work last year for the Southern Ice thread but the video was too large for Google to handle. But that video was over 2 gigs and I'm sure this video was just a few megs.

Yeah, I'm thinking by the time the guy stopped recording and the cop came over to him to take his phone away from him that the video had plenty of time to sync.

- Merg

 

[JEDIYoda]

That's true in most states, but like I mentioned, not all of them, like Maryland. They are backwards there in many ways. It's interesting how both VA and MD are part of the 4th District, however, each has a completely different view of what is legal and what is not.

I am sorry but Maryland is no exception to the 2 party law. The courts have came out and said their is no expectation of privacy in a public place.

From the Maryland State Code

Md. Code Ann., Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 10-402: It is a felony to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication unless all parties to the communication have consented. But all-party consent will not make the recording legal if there is a criminal or tortious purpose behind it.

Disclosing the contents of intercepted communications with reason to know they were obtained unlawfully is a crime as well.

Violations of the law are felonies punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years and a fine of not more than $10,000. Civil liability for violations can include the greater of actual damages, $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. To recover civil damages, however, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew it was illegal to tape the communication without consent from all participants. Md. Code Ann., Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 10-410.

State 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).

It is a misdemeanor to use a hidden camera in a bathroom or dressing room. It is also a misdemeanor to use a hidden camera on private property "for purposes of conducting deliberate, surreptitious observation of a person inside the private residence," or in a private place with "prurient intent." Md. Crim. Law §§ 3-901, -902, -903. A person who is viewed in violation of these statutes has a civil cause of action.

http://www.callrecordingcenter.com/maryland-call-recording-law.php

In-person Conversations



Before recording an in-person conversation, you must determine whether it is considered a private conversation. If a conversation can be overheard naturally in public, without the aid of electronic devices, then the conversation is not considered private and can be recorded. For example, if you are at a park and hear two people arguing loudly in front of you, this is not considered private.


Read more : http://www.ehow.com/list_7298914_audio-surveillance-laws-maryland.html


http://www.ehow.com/list_7298914_audio-surveillance-laws-maryland.html

 

[rudeguy]

meh...I gave up trying to convince people of the truth.

So many people in here are making up the laws they think should exist. The truth is that we live in America and I can record anything in public that I would like to record.

 

[Scarpozzi]

1. Don't break the law
2. If the police approach you, cooperate

That is all. All of these police brutality things are all from guilty parties trying to move blame away from themselves. Michael Brown...guilty of attacking a cop and robbing a store. This guy...guilty of possession of narcotics. They're both criminals in the eyes of the police....it's up the the courts to prove their guilt.

If they attack the cops or do something stupid, all bets are off.

 

[rudeguy]

1. Don't break the law
2. If the police approach you, cooperate

That is all. All of these police brutality things are all from guilty parties trying to move blame away from themselves. Michael Brown...guilty of attacking a cop and robbing a store. This guy...guilty of possession of narcotics. They're both criminals in the eyes of the police....it's up the the courts to prove their guilt.

If they attack the cops or do something stupid, all bets are off.

They were both found guilty of crimes?

Really?

 

[The Merg]

I am sorry but Maryland is no exception to the 2 party law. The courts have came out and said their is no expectation of privacy in a public place.



From the Maryland State Code



Md. Code Ann., Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 10-402: It is a felony to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication unless all parties to the communication have consented. But all-party consent will not make the recording legal if there is a criminal or tortious purpose behind it.



Disclosing the contents of intercepted communications with reason to know they were obtained unlawfully is a crime as well.



Violations of the law are felonies punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years and a fine of not more than $10,000. Civil liability for violations can include the greater of actual damages, $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. To recover civil damages, however, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew it was illegal to tape the communication without consent from all participants. Md. Code Ann., Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 10-410.



State 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).



It is a misdemeanor to use a hidden camera in a bathroom or dressing room. It is also a misdemeanor to use a hidden camera on private property "for purposes of conducting deliberate, surreptitious observation of a person inside the private residence," or in a private place with "prurient intent." Md. Crim. Law §§ 3-901, -902, -903. A person who is viewed in violation of these statutes has a civil cause of action.



http://www.callrecordingcenter.com/maryland-call-recording-law.php



In-person Conversations







Before recording an in-person conversation, you must determine whether it is considered a private conversation. If a conversation can be overheard naturally in public, without the aid of electronic devices, then the conversation is not considered private and can be recorded. For example, if you are at a park and hear two people arguing loudly in front of you, this is not considered private.





Read more : http://www.ehow.com/list_7298914_audio-surveillance-laws-maryland.html





http://www.ehow.com/list_7298914_audio-surveillance-laws-maryland.html

However, you can still be in public and have a private conversation. If I whisper something to you it can be expected that it is private and not public. Of course, that would all depend on the recording capability of the equipment being used and how close the person is that is performing the recording.

I do know that if you are stopped by a MD state trooper and they have a video camera, they are required to tell you that you were being audio and visually recorded at the very beginning of the traffic stop. I figured that was done as part of the two party consent issue, however, I wonder if that is done as it might be considered to be a surreptitious recording as the person being stopped might not see the camera or the audio recording device.

- Merg

 

[CZroe]

meh...I gave up trying to convince people of the truth.

So many people in here are making up the laws they think should exist. The truth is that we live in America and I can record anything in public that I would like to record.

Hey, kiddie porn producers! Film your perversions in public and even though the act is illegal, the video isn't! Just pretend you, as the cameraman, had nothing to do with it. Easy! Someone should call the Girls Gone Wild guy and get him off the hook for those underaged/consent issues he has.

 

[rudeguy]

Hey, kiddie porn producers! Film your perversions in public and even though the act is illegal, the video isn't! Just pretend you, as the cameraman, had nothing to do with it. Easy! Someone should call the Girls Gone Wild guy and get him off the hook for those underaged/consent issues he has.

So you are saying that people should force children to have sex in public?