THEY WILL ATTACK YOU … DESTROY YOUR PHONE
|| By FITSNEWS || In the aftermath of last year’s Ferguson, Missouri drama, this website advocated for the “independent wiring” of all police officers – local, state and federal. And in the aftermath of the North Charleston, S.C. shooting of an unarmed 50-year-old black man by a 33-year-old white cop, we all learned how important it is for citizens to be able to film police actions.
Of course a lot of police officers don’t like to be filmed … as evidenced by a video clip that’s surfaced of a U.S. Marshal attacking a California woman and destroying her phone this week.
According to the Fox affiliate in Los Angeles, the incident occurred Sunday as federal agents were serving warrants on San Juan Avenue near Venice Beach.
The woman, 34-year-old Beatriz Paez, was standing on the sidewalk filming the agents (as is her right to do). According to her, the Marshals had “around eight people including women … held at gunpoint on their stomachs with their hands held behind their back.”
Then this happened …
(Click to play)
(Vid: Via)
Wow …
Fortunately for Paez, another cell phone was recording the cop who destroyed her phone.
Like … destroyed it …
(Click to enlarge)
c
(Pic: Via)
Again, unreal …
At this point, the U.S. Marshals Service has only said it is “reviewing the incident.” What the hell is there to review, exactly?
An example needs to be made of this cop. It’s not enough to simply affirm the right of the public to record their law enforcement officers in action, cops who improperly seize or destroy private property must be made to pay.
Seriously … as long as citizens are not obstructing the police from performing their duties, they can film them. And police are not allowed to seize cell phones without a warrant.
“There is no situation in which an officer can intentionally grab and destroy a camera being used to lawfully record law enforcement,” a spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) told The Los Angeles Times. “The officer’s conduct is a blatant and deliberate violation of the Constitution and his duties as an officer to abide by the law.”
We agree …
111 comments
I don’t have a problem with her recording them. But why the hell is she chirping at them the whole time they’re trying to do their jobs? It’s not legally justifiable, but she probably deserved what she got for being an annoying bitch.
Yes, I agree that these citizen “journalists” need to stand back at a safe distance, STFU and record without interfering or antagonizing law enforcement. This is clear case where she probably could have been arrested for impeding their investigation. I’m not excusing the officers actions, I’m just saying that she’s probably lucky all she left with was a smashed up phone.
Yes, you are excusing his actions by your statement, “I’m not excusing the officers actions”
If you weren’t, why did you need to include that?
Welcome to the police state of ‘Murica.
cackling bystander + aggravated cop = broken phone
Welp, I guess that makes it perfectly okay = not.
No, it doesn’t. But maybe the dolt hen pecking at the cops will STFU next time.
She has a right to talk to the cops. ‘Murica.
Was she talking? Sounded more like she was chanting some nonsense and interfering with a crime scene. ‘Murica.
Honestly, just watched the video – it looks staged.
Honestly, sounds like Rosie Goddamned Perez yammering on and on about citizens rights. How about a cops right to do his job without some halfwit like this standing 10 feet away from their crime scene crowing like a retarded parrot?
You’ve obviously never been harassed by police. Me personally either, but I have been witness to such things, so I have a different view.
How in world would you know what my life experiences are?
She’s probably woken up in a dark alley behind a dumpster at least once in her life, and thinks she can relate.
Really? I guess I am starting to see their are few differences in the religious right and left. A lot of hate and inability to relate.
I don’t, but the fact you think the cop is automatically in the right and she is a “halfwit… retarded parrot” ….. pretty strong statement.
I guess the upside is that the cop broke the cell phone and not her neck. No severed spinal cord and crushed larynx. At least I’m happy for that. ‘Murica.
I have never recorded the police, maybe I have become paranoid over the years due to what I have witnessed, however, if a cop asked me to step out of my vehicle, I “might” offer him a seat in mine, but I’d probably have the camera rolling.
— I “might” offer him a seat in mine
Wench..!!
Damn Right! LOL
Dang. I can’t even remember to pull my phone and take a photo when I see a fox on the side of the road. Happened to me and the wife this week. Saw a red fox nursing on the side of the road, right on the side of the road. We stopped the car and watched – in awe. Never thought to pull Mr. iPhone out and snap a photo.
We have a whole feaking den of coyotes near home, but, I have yet to capture on tape. I have thought of it, but my phone was not at the ready and they are quick!
I can’t tell you how many sasquatch sightings I’ve let get away for that very reason!
So FITS – who claims to be a fiscal conservative – DEMANDS we raise taxes to respond to irresponsible, irrational and ignorant haters of the police department…
Where will the BILLIONS of dollars come from for these cameras that are all-of-the-sudden imperative, according to Liberals….because a miniscule number of cases are being b!*ched about by extremist idiots…
You see – it isn’t about the money spent, it is about “where” it is spent.
I am not saying FITS condones spending money on body camera’s, but the whole debate between the left and right isn’t about taxes as much as it is about where those tax $ are spent. My personal opinion.
Liberals invent a crisis…and tell us the PEOPLE must FUND your hand-wringing and ignorance…because the media tells you so…
You have F*#ked the economy…so good people are suffering under Obama- but you ignore that…then you indict EVERY police officer in the nation…because you have criminals who hate getting caught for breaking the law…
You – like FITS – are the epitome of a Dumb@$$…and par for the course for liberal pop culture….
We need to drive fools like you from any control. You are a DISASTER…
Dear gawd, I thought we had reached a consensus, maybe FITS is paying you, otherwise where do you come up with these outrageous ideas?
Whooo – a tornado coming your way?
Damned Tango is a maroon beret, a Keyboard Kommando in the 101st Chairborne Brigade.
“what a maroon!” – bugs bunny.
Texas introduced a bill to make it illegal to film or take pictures within 25 feet of officers in the act of performing their duty.
Seems plenty close enough to the action to capture the next viral sensation.
zoom lenses and futuristic lenses in the next few years on every phone will change 25 to 250… especially when videos start showing up in starlight conditions of “Columbia’s finest” getting blow jobs and buying crack.
I have no doubt the latter is true! What kind of world do you want to live in? One where you point fingers? Or are you a true socialist?
In your world, everything seems fine as long as someone else is paying for it? Yes, I am aware you make enough money to take care of yourself. Maybe you feel guilty? I have not idea where your views come from and you are interesting, so if/when you decide to educate the rest of us – I am all ear.
You don’t want to hear what I have to say about money and hardship… really. I’d just end up saying the same old shit that you’ve heard before…
There’s a big difference between hearing and listening.
On the contrary, I do want to hear. But I would like it if you could be a little less ambiguous, so I might understand.
Euwe – I grew up, as I have said repeatedly, white trailer trash. Do I consider myself that today? No. Did I learn lessons? Yes.
I do want to hear
———-
You asked for it: Non-ambiguous and concise:
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Is. 61.2
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Ps. 37.11
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Is. 55.1, 2
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Ps. 24.4, 5
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: 1 Pet. 3.14 for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 1 Pet. 4.14
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets 2 Chr. 36.16 · Acts 7.52 which were before you.
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Mk. 9.50 · Lk. 14.34, 35
Ye are the light of the world. Joh. 8.12 ; 9.5 A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.
Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; Mk. 4.21 · Lk. 8.16 ; 11.33 and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. 1 Pet. 2.12
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Lk. 16.17
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; Ex. 20.13 · Deut. 5.17 and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee;
leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: Ex. 20.14 · Deut. 5.18
but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Mt. 18.9 · Mk. 9.47
And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Mt. 18.8 · Mk. 9.43
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: Deut. 24.1-4 · Mt. 19.7 · Mk. 10.4
but I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. Mt. 19.9 · Mk. 10.11, 12 · Lk. 16.18 · 1 Cor. 7.10, 11
Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, Lev. 19.12 but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: Num. 30.2 · Deut. 23.21
but I say unto you, Swear not at all; Jas. 5.12 neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: Is. 66.1 · Mt. 23.22
nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: Is. 66.1 neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Ps. 48.2
Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: Ex. 21.24 · Lev. 24.20 · Deut. 19.21
but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, Lev. 19.18 and hate thine enemy.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Deut. 18.13
That wasn’t exactly what I meant by being less ambiguous, but thank you for sharing :)
socialist or capitalist?
Me?
Jesus.
IMO he was more of a socialist liberal.
well, there you go.
But imagine how rich he would be today if he could turn water to wine ;). Just messin’ with you.
I think the Jesus philosophy is about as good as any, I just don’t buy into the whole afterlife nor Son of God.
Interesting enough, I can’t understand why religion is an issue the right claims, but it seems the left is more inclined to live to fight for the concepts. Yet, it is an issue both will fight to save in different ways.
reasonable,,,
“What are you doing?”
Police aren’t celebrities, so they’re not always used to being photographed in public. So even if you’re recording at a safe distance, they might approach and ask what you are doing. Avoid saying things like “I’m recording you to make sure you’re doing your job right” or “I don’t trust you.”
Instead, say something like “Officer, I’m not interfering. I’m asserting my First Amendment rights. You’re being documented and recorded offsite in real-time.”
I’d be interested to know how many times they warned this cackling fool to STFU before he went all Hulk Smash on her “smart” phone. I imagine an ample number.
“if you’re going to exercise your rights in *this* country, you have to be fast, like a bunny rabbit… do you understand?”
“yes, daddy”
“and what did we say you do when they arrest you and put you in that uncomfortable little room, and ask you to explain yourself?”
“I want a lawyer.”
“and then?”
“and then I don’t say anything.. unless they ask me if I’m sure, and that cooperation will make things go easier on me.”
“in that case what do you say?”
“I want a lawyer.”
“good BOY!“
Sad thing is, I’ve already had a variation of this conversation with my young kids.
That makes no difference whatsoever. He broke the law. And broke her camera. He was in the wrong. Period.
This is a clear case of two wrongs not making a right. This infatuation with cops just doing their jobs and the incessancy of pedestrians to record, shout at, preach to, or otherwise be a complete pain in the ass for no reason needs to be addressed just as much as power mad law enforcement.
The above is so idiotic it doesn’t even deserve a response.
Your former comment fell into that category…..
Yet you responded, so you must be an idiot.
I trust, then, that you will be deleting that message.
Euwe max, I don’t usually agree with your statements, but I appreciate your articulation. What is your stance on the comment (below I think) about federal DEA agents being recorded? If they are engaged in undercover and non-undercover work, and they are being recorded while making an arrest in public, what do you believe would be the appropriate response of those agents when being recorded?
I’ll think on that one…
“The ACLU of Maryland defended Anthony Graber, who faced as much as sixteen years in prison if found guilty of violating state wiretap laws because he recorded video of an officer drawing a gun during a traffic stop. … Once [the Maryland State Police] learned of the video on YouTube, Graber’s parents’ house was raided, searched, and four of his computers were confiscated. Graber was arrested, booked, and jailed. Their actions are a calculated method of intimidation. Another person has since been similarly charged under the same statute. The wiretap law being used to charge Anthony Graber is intended to protect private communication between two parties. According to David Rocah, the ACLU attorney handling Mr. Graber’s case, ‘To charge Graber with violating the law, you would have to conclude that a police officer on a public road, wearing a badge and a uniform, performing his official duty, pulling someone over, somehow has a right to privacy when it comes to the conversation he has with the motorist.'”
On July 7, 2010, the Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler released an opinion advising a state legislator that, contrary to the claims of Harford County State’s Attorney Joseph Cassilly, a traffic stop is not an instance where a police officer can claim a reasonable expectation of privacy.
On September 27, 2010, criminal charges against Graber were dropped.[6] The court threw out the charge of “recording illegal activity” on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional, noting that “the video taping of public events is protected under the First Amendment.”[6] The judge ruled that Maryland’s wire tap law does not prohibit recording of voice or sound in areas where privacy cannot be expected and that a police officer on a traffic stop has no legal expectation of privacy.[6] Overall, Harford County Circuit Court Judge Emory A Plitt Jr. dismissed four of the seven charges filed against Anthony Graber, leaving only traffic code violations.
Taking a picture of an undercover officer is constitutional, but connecting the picture with his identity by posting both together on facebook, for instance, “hampers or impedes that officer in the performance of his duties.” So that’s a no-no. But once you have it in your possession, you are certainly allowed to introduce it into evidence in a court of law.
As I said in the reply to that post, it’s your constitutional right to film them, but not to publish it. DEA agents don’t have the power of prior restraint.
That is BS. Other states are doing the same, one of the reason I am not so opposed to body cams.
of course it’s 100 feet, if you’re armed.
You pay for people in prison, based on false evidence. Or you pay for body cams. In states I have seen body cams, the people arguing against the system drop significantly – maybe 80%? Those officers pressing charges for …. drop by about 60%. Which costs most.
You won’t empty the prisons by eliminating false evidence – you can’t only do that by eliminating religious laws, dietary laws, zero tolerance, and .. well, you know… Republicans.
It will take a few minutes to reply adequately – cooking…..arrgh! BRB
I laugh at the ones who, after the last 20 years of abysmal presidents, still don’t see the 2 party system as a two headed snake.
Republicans try to make it seem like stealing millions is no worse than smoking pot… or abandoning their parents, the poor, the sick, and the mentally ill is merely a “Darwinian Imperative,” no worse than not going to church on Sunday.
There are rats in both camps. How many millions does that democrap Al Sharpton owe the IRS? They are all a bunch of amoral crooks.
I don’t have a problem with that statement… rats in both camps… however, it’s a matter of degree…
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2f2ywPBeTyM/SUO6ETXeBMI/AAAAAAAACqc/KsAq3eLAItQ/s400/rats_in_Paris.jpg
http://www.chukw.com/Critters/Redwall_Detail_1.jpg
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/castleage/images/8/86/Monster_Bonegnasher.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130827205014
https://cinemaknifefight.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/rats.jpg?w=450&h=247
The dramatic epic of the rats–the scampering, scurrying horde of obscene vermin–the lean, filthy, ravenous army which sweeps all before it; devours the poor, the innocent, the disadvantaged, the weak, the trusting, the ill, the sick, the elderly… wresting from each of them the pittance of their life’s work to amass great greedy heaps in rotting silos upon hills looking down upon the suffering they’ve caused… dirtying and defiling all that is pure and cherished and innocent, chugging the miser of others, suppressing their struggle… until finally, their dark desires are spent. Around that unforgettable Republican scum, a whole separate cycle of misdeeds revolves, bringing curses and horrors in its evil, remorseless wake.
I do agree with you, not entirely, but in large.
Euwe – if you stopped labeling people, your point would be much more valid. This isn’t about labels. It is about people.
I personally think the body cams might have an unexpected surprise for everyone. First, if an officer has conveniently “lost” his body cam. There should be laws about that, that protect citizens. Not to say no one ever loses one, otherwise justice will shift the other way. But they should be held accountable.
Body cams can’t eliminate false evidence – people are responsible for that and no amount of legislating is going to fix that. However, it will prevent police officers from doing that and let’s be real, they have a sucky job at a sucky pay, how much are they willing to risk?
I also think people should have the right to record them, just like they record us. Yes, some say not admitted into evidence – BS.
I agree with you on the zero tolerance. If a man has done his time, he has paid for his crime, unless he commits 3 of the same crimes, same way, and there is a pattern. Each crime should be treated according to law v. record IMHO.
I wouldn’t think of labeling someone. I let them do it. I mean, it’s completely different between saying “I hate child molesters,” and labelling with a statement like: “You are a child molester.”
I let the child molesters label themselves.
And how do you label yourself? A democratic socialist? What label do you wear as a badge of honor?
I know you don’t give a care about money as a socialist you think it is ok to spend someone else’s, but you as an engineer, you are smart enough to do the math and keep your freedom.
I did the meth… and I think my freedom is insured by protections *from* the law, as well as *by* the law.
*snif*… [rub]… is there anything on my nose?
Ha!
It introduced the bill, but it didnt pass.
That was not “another cell phone” it was a video camera.
Well – that explains the difference (sarcasm alert).
If you want to look at scuzzy cops, just look at Laurens County Sheriff Ricky W. Chastain. He actually aborted (murdered) two of his own children in order to further his political career.
“He actually aborted (murdered) two of his own children in order to further his political career.”
and succeeded!
It only makes sense that criminals don’t want to be video recorded.
That goes both ways.
looks like she was also running her mouth like a fucking wombat. cops are not pro ball players. they don’t get paid millions to put up with every asshole telling them how to do their job. my guess is that if someone showed up at your office, pointed a camera at you and loudly insulted you while you did your job, you’d probably react inappropriately.
Zing! We have a winner!
As a civilian, if another civilian showed up doing that – hell yes. But, if you are in the public eye, no matter how crappy your pay is, you are subject to that.
If we had a smaller better paid force, I question if this would be an issue?
There are existing laws that shield law enforcement officers from harassment as they do their jobs.
Just because the leftwing – and the media – is S#tti*g all over itself, since Obama is attacking police…does not give F*#king idiots –like you– the right to unilaterally do what you please…
I’d love to see you try it..and get the S#!t slapped out of you…then find out, the cop was acting within the law…It’s HILARIOUS to see liberals get their teeth kicked in…and the courts back the LAW, instead of the extremists…
I have clean record, not even speeding ticet for roughly 20 years.
That slapping shit, goes two ways. A officer ever slap me, I will slap him with everything I have. I will stop at nothing. So don’t go there GT. I am a law abiding citizen, but I dated a criminal lawyer and I know the F*cking games.
I just hope if you did get prosecuted by an officer…no one is around to film…and you’d find out that boffing some slime-ball ambulance chaser does not mean a D#m# in the real world– when you resist arrest….LMAO…
Well you know GT. Money has a strange way of fixing shit. Cops take shit, judges pardon/prosecute shit. Really depends on who you know. Or not.
Yeah…police, judges and er’body else- who is actually working for a living – is on the take….yet there ain’t a guilty man in Shawshank…LMAO….
You liberals – on a crusade- are some naive, easily-led (and hilarious) Some Beeches….Hahahaha…
………………………………..
And they will probably bury you, idiot.
They might – and my response was more emotional than thought out based on GT’s comment “I’d love to see you try it..and get the S#!t slapped out of you…then find out, the cop was acting within the law…It’s HILARIOUS to see liberals get their teeth kicked in…and the courts back the LAW, instead of the extremists…”
However, I seriously doubt a cop would ever slap me, I don’t give them reason. If they just decided to slap me for no reason – yes I would slap back, assuming I had no kid in the car.
What law gave him the right to attack her and destroy her property?
Looked like an ‘accident’ to me…Just like if I saw you making one of your Black Helicopter claims on the people you Bully…and they F*#ked you up…I can see that being an “accident”…LMAO.
Obama does what he wants…why should ANYONE else follow the law…LMAO….
hope you didnt expect GT to actually answer a straight forward question, haha
I’m not sure I want a more capable/competent police force.
I’d rather they get low pay so it’s mostly the rejects of society. If we get smart sociopaths in law enforcement, look out.
*do
Stupid id as stupid does. These are the Feds…she’s lucky she’s not dead.
The Feds? Did you read the article? “At this point, the U.S. Marshals Service has only said it is “reviewing the incident.” What the hell is there to review, exactly?”
Is this page full of idiots who believe the people have no rights? What about a citizens arrest? That used to mean something.
I will say during my time in LA, which I spent a lot of time there on business, the cops are sooooo much more lenient than SC.
My views are based on SC cops. If you have ever lived in Greenville (which I no longer do), then you “might” understand.
However, if they were Federal DEA agents, or others who might often find themselves doing undercover work, the video might be rather dangerous to their lives in the future. Cartel Guy – “you a cop?” Cop – “No!” Cartel Side Kick – “Yes he is. I saw his picture on FITS.”
LOLOLOLOL -good point
These guys were not working undercover. However, I’m curious about the woman’s ranting?
“The ACLU of Maryland defended Anthony Graber, who faced as much as sixteen years in prison if found guilty of violating state wiretap laws because he recorded video of an officer drawing a gun during a traffic stop. … Once [the Maryland State Police] learned of the video on YouTube, Graber’s parents’ house was raided, searched, and four of his computers were confiscated. Graber was arrested, booked, and jailed. Their actions are a calculated method of intimidation. Another person has since been similarly charged under the same statute. The wiretap law being used to charge Anthony Graber is intended to protect private communication between two parties. According to David Rocah, the ACLU attorney handling Mr. Graber’s case, ‘To charge Graber with violating the law, you would have to conclude that a police officer on a public road, wearing a badge and a uniform, performing his official duty, pulling someone over, somehow has a right to privacy when it comes to the conversation he has with the motorist.'”
On July 7, 2010, the Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler released an opinion advising a state legislator that, contrary to the claims of Harford County State’s Attorney Joseph Cassilly, a traffic stop is not an instance where a police officer can claim a reasonable expectation of privacy.
On September 27, 2010, criminal charges against Graber were dropped.[6] The court threw out the charge of “recording illegal activity” on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional, noting that “the video taping of public events is protected under the First Amendment.”[6] The judge ruled that Maryland’s wire tap law does not prohibit recording of voice or sound in areas where privacy cannot be expected and that a police officer on a traffic stop has no legal expectation of privacy.[6] Overall, Harford County Circuit Court Judge Emory A Plitt Jr. dismissed four of the seven charges filed against Anthony Graber, leaving only traffic code violations.
Taking a picture of an undercover officer is constitutional, but connecting the picture with his identity by posting both together on facebook, for instance, “hampers or impedes that officer in the performance of his duties.” So that’s a no-no. But once you have it in your possession, you are certainly allowed to introduce it into evidence in a court of law.
The cops in downtown Columbia work on the buddy system. One
says, “Let’s check out this dark alley.” The other one says, “Not me, buddy!”
LMAO!
It’s 2015 folks, when are we going to understand the difference between filming something and recording something? This woman was not filming anything, that would involve film. She was recording.
Wonder what ever happened to the Miriam Carey investigation?
Just saw the clip from your phone. Why don’t you due your duty as a citizen and stay back for your safety and let them do their jobs. Who are you to say that they need to move away from you when you are all I’m the mix. I hope you never have to call 911 when you need help. Poor little tink tink!!
“The woman, 34-year-old Beatriz Paez, was standing on the sidewalk filming the agents (as is her right to do).”
This is not a bash, only a question as I do not know as much about the law as everyone else might, but could someone show me the writing to where it is written to be a real right? She isn’t a news outlet for freedom of the press and it might not be speech, as that even has limitations (i.e. you cant yell fire in a crowded movie theater, etc..) I am just curious if it is in fact an actual right, or something people say when they claim it to be like they are entitled to it to be a right. Again I don’t know the law and am not trying to debate the point, just asking because I really do not know.
Thanks for any information
She should put it in a bag of rice, I heard it fixes EVERYTHING.
He should be fired for being a bigger “girl” than the one whose phone he bitch slapped