Jailed For Recording The Police?

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
A Pennsylvania man has been charged with filming police officers during a routine traffic stop and now faces up to 7 years in jail for wiretapping. Huh?!?

Brian D. Kelly is charged under a state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent, reports the Patriot News. The criminal case relates to the sound, not the pictures, that his camera picked up.
Click to expand...
 
Audio or video, there aren't any wires! So the laws about what happens in public only apply to the visual?

Pennsylvania: The New Boston.
 
I can understand the law but it shouldn't apply to government officials (including police). They should be recorded whenever possible for accountability.
 
I found out about this case a few days ago, and I looked at the PA law (though not the case law, which is actually more important).

This kid is in trouble if he tried to hide the camera, but he should have no worries if it was plainly visible at the time he started recording (or probably very shortly thereafter, like if he turned it on in his lap and then immediately held it up where it could be seen)....

The entire case against him would be based on this part of the statute:

"Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if he:

1. intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication;"

Now take a look at how the PA code defines oral communication for the purposes of the code:

"'Oral communication.'
Any oral communication uttered by a person possessing an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation."

So in other words, if it should be obvious to a person they are being recorded then it is not actually illegal to record them, whether they give actual consent or not. After all, if someone is pointing a camera or other recording device at you then you should have no expectation that the communication will not be subject to interception. There is a lot of other stuff in the law that makes it clear the intent of the law is only for recording without informing, such as the fact that it is illegal to sell or possess devices principally designed to surreptitiously intercept communication, but it is not illegal to possess or sell devices principally designed for normal recording. I am pretty sure this is why you can be recorded by the media in PA any time they like, as long as they carry around a nice big camera that can't be missed. So in this case, if the boy holds the camera up where it can be seen then the circumstances do NOT justify the expectation that the officers oral communication will not be intercepted and so it is not illegal to record them.

So if the officer is telling the truth (that the guy was recording him surreptitiously) then the kid is in trouble. However, if the cop is wrong, and video shows this to be the case, then he is doubly hosed, for false arrest, deprivation of rights under color of law, possibly for perjury, and who knows what else... The whole thing will be contingent on what is on the kids camera.
 
The idea is equal protection under the law. If you can film me I can't film you? Alex Jones interviewed this guy yesterday or the day before or something.

www.infowars.com
 
Weird. Here in WA, state patrol sometimes has mics that they use during traffic stops, but they inform you that they have a mic..... "Hello sir, I need to inform you that this stop is being recorded" while he points to the mic. Don't know why that guy would go to jail, though. He may have done something to piss of the judge who heard his case, because that probably doesn't happen every day. Just my guess.
 
Eickst said:
I can understand the law but it shouldn't apply to government officials (including police). They should be recorded whenever possible for accountability.
Click to expand...
Good point. If they are so holier-than-thou then what's thier problem with being taped doing thier jobs? Unless of course they were in the wrong for stopping the guy in the first place. It's not tlike the guy taped the FBI plotting strategy against some mob figure. I mean what's to hide?
 
RoBo said:
See and non of you want to move over to the UK.
Click to expand...

If Rudy G. or Hillary gets elected president I am moving somewhere. It may not be the UK but I won't be staying here, that's for sure.
 
What is to hate.

We have women,
and computers.

Only the small matter of a Poodle running the country.
 
How do you expect police to beat people and plant evidence if they are being taped?
 
Eickst said:
If Rudy G. or Hillary gets elected president I am moving somewhere. It may not be the UK but I won't be staying here, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

Word of advice.

Start saving now.

I started saving in 2004 after the last election and best estimate of when I can leave is Q4, 2008. :(

To move to NZ requires you to have $4200NZ ($3500US, probably more in 2008, as the dollar is declining.) Canada requires over $10000(US). You don't have to -pay- to move in, you just need to prove that you have the funds - basically to imply that they won't pay for your dole if you become unemployed.

That said?

We hear about government atrocities - small scale, yes, but still atrocities - every damn day now. It's gotten to the point that we've gotten dulled to it. "What? A student arrested for holding an Equal Rights For Robots faces 90 days and a $300 fine? - that's nothing compared to 40 years for spyware infections or 7 for recording a cop stop."

I'm getting tired, and saving up for leaving the country is the only thing that gets me up in the morning most days.
 
Good thing we let rapists and murderers out on early parole because of prison over crowding. Got to make room for the new threats to society - people looking at pictures, recording public events, and stealing free Internet offered to the public. I know I feel safer at night knowing these people are behind bars.
 
Sounds a lot like the French law against recording and reporting news if you aren't an official news reporter.

This wouldn't happen in Colorado. Our recorded conversation laws only require that one of the people involved in the conversation be the person making the recording. Much more sensible in my opinion.
 
Well the Oinker's want their asses covered.

Many states have a similar law, like MA, and it has been abused. But Federal law provides for exemptions, such as taping a call from a bill collector, for use in court. So even if a state law is totally FK'd the guys lawyer will find Federal exemption likely to cover it. Also, he can claim he is an amatuer journalist (gee I JUST started) and First amaendment freedom of the press takes precedence.

In cases like this if the state wants to push it, will end up in Federal court (after conviction on the unconstitutional law) and ultimately get squished like a "bug" (pun, get it) by a Federal judge.

As for escaping the US... fk that, the Founding Fathers made it clear and gave us an entire amendment (the 2nd) to cover that potentiality, if it gets that bad, people are gonna start dying.... IT's THE LAW! :eek: :p :D
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
As for escaping the US... fk that, the Founding Fathers made it clear and gave us an entire amendment (the 2nd) to cover that potentiality, if it gets that bad, people are gonna start dying.... IT's THE LAW! :eek: :p :D
Click to expand...

How the hell is that what the 2nd amendment is about? Try reading a history book. It says we can own guns in case anyone (including our own gov't) tries to take us over, not if we don't like how shit's going down.

sam0t said:
Nice going, land of the free eh
Click to expand...

This country's gone so far south of what the founding fathers intended, we may as well rename the damn place. Still, it's better than what's out there today, so I'll hold off on my plane ticket outta here. Not like I have to wonder if the police are going to come and kill me for not paying my "protection money" to some warlord.



Yet... :rolleyes:
 
Huh? The govt implements a Police state rivaling East Germany but THAT doesnt meet your definition of what the Founding fathers meant? That doesn't constitute "taking us over"? :rolleyes: :confused:

In case you missed the news... Habeaus Corpus was just RE-ESTABLISHED... it had been suspended (no big fanfare like under Lincoln) by Bush. Not trying to start a political war, just pointing out the NEWS.

So we had officially already been "taken over" for 3 yrs now. I use a simple definition... if the govt can "disappear" your ass on a whim, you might be taken over :rolleyes: :p :D
 
As much complaining as americans do, they still know that compared to most other countries; they're the most fattened and coddled citizens when it comes to laziness. I live in Philadelphia currently and all i see is fat people.
 
XamediX said:
As much complaining as americans do, they still know that compared to most other countries; they're the most fattened and coddled citizens when it comes to laziness. I live in Philadelphia currently and all i see is fat people.
Click to expand...

Go almost anywhere else in the world, and being fat is a complement and a sign of wealthiness. I'm getting fatter every year, and damn happy about it! :)
And yeah, we may be lazy, but at least we built the highest grade of industry the world had ever seen (not so much now, of course, but still. we were tops.). The rest of the world may take a two hour lunch, but this is America dammit! You have 20 minutes!! :eek:
 
this sounds like double standards. The pigs are being hipocrits. Its okay for police to wiretap but not okay for people to video tape wire tap.
 
Wow, this one really brought the conspiracy theorist out of the wood work. :rolleyes:


The law is completely on this guy's side. The Supreme Court has already (in 1998) ruled that police have no reasonable expectancy to privacy in public. The DA in this case probably won't even pursue the case and has publicly stated that. Several high profile attorneys have already come to the rescue and the case will no doubt be dismissed.

Yeah, that cop was a dick and it sucks that you can be arrested for any ol' thing these days and you basically have to prove yourself innocent (or get big media attention) but this is by far a "police state" etc. etc. etc.

I would mention that you guys can get free medication to treat that paranoia disorder...but that might bring on more "guvmint controllaring me" stuff :D
 
this kind of happened to me in in grapevine, texas @ the parking lot of the grapevine mills mall. Just for the hell of it, for once I had my dv cam with me and thought I might get something good when I was pulled into the mall and pulled into a parking spot and noticed 50 feet a cop had someone pulled over right in the middle of the busy through-way. While I was filming, someone must have went over to the cop and told her I was doing this. It was like 30 seconds and then I put the cam away. Next thing I know this woman cop has her lights on and is all up in my face about she is going to take my camera etc. I rewound the tape and hit record and let it sit there and record for a few mins and then showed her it was off the tape. This woman was yelling at me saying she was out trying to keep citizens safe and I was filming her like her job was a joke etc. I always wondered if she could have taken my video camera or not.
 
America was taken over in 1913 by New World Order. This is not our government. Our central bank is a run for profit private-stock corporation owned by ultra-elite ancient european satanic bloodlines. They have their own intelligence agencies and their own assassins. Their goal is to reduce the world's population by 95% because of "global warming," which is a hoax. They see you as a "useless eater." If you do not accept their religion of freemasonry and openly worship Satan you will be killed by guillotine in a FEMA camp once martial law is declared.

www.infowars.com
 
Eickst said:
I can understand the law but it shouldn't apply to government officials (including police). They should be recorded whenever possible for accountability.
Click to expand...

Uhhh...most are. Where do you think all the footage comes from for World's Wildest Police Chases? The dash cam.

Go out and poll 100 cops at random. You'll find at least 98 of them like the camera in their car or want them installed ASAP. Citizens occasionally make up false complaints against police when they get a ticket/get arrested. The dash cam covers the asses of police, and does it much more often than it hems up a bad cop.

I don't know the particulars of this case, so I can't say if I would have arrested the guy for filming me or not. Where I'm from it's legal to film an officer. That's why, as an officer, don't do anything you wouldn't want your mom to see :p
 
Slow news day or something? The [H] isn't what it used to be when I first started reading here in 1998 or so.
 
bonghitter400 said:
Good point. If they are so holier-than-thou then what's thier problem with being taped doing thier jobs? Unless of course they were in the wrong for stopping the guy in the first place. It's not tlike the guy taped the FBI plotting strategy against some mob figure. I mean what's to hide?
Click to expand...



Wow......

Everytime I watch the US news or hit the net,I find yet another reason why I shouldnt return to my birthplace after graduation. :mad: What the fuk is going on down there !?

Land Of the Free !? .....My ass !!
 
Im a firm believer in 100% of all citizen/police interaction being video taped. I think any cops who don't want the same are out of thier nut (or are corrupt). 100% cover you ass and protection from frivolous BS abuse claims, and 100% Uncle Cammy keeping you in line and away from the billyclub.... win win situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top