Can this happen in Texas??

[Jon C.]

‪Man Gets Arrested, Posts Video of Plainclothed Officer on You Tube, Gets Raided‬‏ - YouTube

I'm pretty sure we are allowed to film everything, even police officers (that's what I'm learning in law school) and even w/o police permission. I want to keep a camera on me as well just in case something like this ever happens (with or without police involved).



Anyone have any experience with this?

[pinball]

Repost, but...yeah, it's possible. Not sure how it would hold up in Texas, but some states thoroughly abuse the wiretapping law so you cannot video tape their police. If it was a video of that same cop kissing a baby, they wouldn't have any issues with it.

Look on YouTube for I-45 Jelly, and then look for the response video. Guy had a rear-mounted camera rolling when he was pulled over and ticketed by a trooper. He edited the video, added some music, and made the trooper "dance." The troopers got hold of it, found out where he worked (the idiot didn't edit out the footage of him going to work), and walked in to arrest him for illegally videotaping a peace officer. Turns out it was a joke, and the troopers got the last laugh, but I talked to a L.E. buddy awhile back, and he said it's an arrestable offense but that you won't necessarily be convicted for it (in Texas).

[Jon C.]

oh damn, alright . . . I'll do a little more reading when I get the chance and report back!


(oh and sorry for repost!)

[pinball]

oh damn, alright . . . I'll do a little more reading when I get the chance and report back!


(oh and sorry for repost!)

No worries. Stuff like this should be brought back up regularly to keep people aware.

[buzzltyr]

damn that sucks!! but yeah, police abuse too many of the laws they try to enforce. it only applies to everybody else but themselves.

[derekvercher]

So do you guys think the cop needed to pull the firearm. Power trip? What say you

[pinball]

So do you guys think the cop needed to pull the firearm. Power trip? What say you

He shouldn't have pulled his gun without identifying himself, which he didn't do until after he was in the process of holstering it. The rider was already coming to a stop in traffic, and the LEO could have had his badge in his hand when he got out instead of fumbling for his gun. I gotta go with power trip on this one...for the cop and the whole department.

[Jon C.]

Hell yeah, shit . . . how the hell are you going to pull out your gun when your hands are on in the open and not doing anything threatening??

Not a very smart cop if you ask me. . . and what if that cop pulled his gun out on the "wrong" kind of guy? Then what?

[pinball]

The cop just wasn't thinking. It could have turned out very bad for both parties if the rider had an easily accessible gun. Hell, the rider could have simply gunned it and kicked the cop on his way by as soon as he saw him reach under his shirt. It was a stupid move, but the rider wasn't very bright, either for doing wheelies at 128 in traffic.

There's also a noticeable gap in the video, so there's no telling what went on between the time he set the bike down and the time the cop jumped out of the car. For all we know, the cop had already identified himself while beside the rider in traffic.

[Jon C.]

There's also a noticeable gap in the video, so there's no telling what went on between the time he set the bike down and the time the cop jumped out of the car. For all we know, the cop had already identified himself while beside the rider in traffic.

True that :nod:

[pinball]

Here's the full vid, but it doesn't have sound. FF to 2:20 to see where he passes the cop. He's not even doing 80 when he goes by. I'm estimating that by counting how many hashes he passes in one second. He passes two and doesn't make it to the third. At 80, you'll pass two and get to the beginning of the third. (My speedo went out on my truck a few years ago, so I needed a method to ball park it.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7PC9cZEWCQ&feature=player_embedded#at=147

[pinball]

Charges were dropped in September 2010.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/story-lab/2010/09/wiretapping_charges_dropped_ag.html

Judge Emory A. Pitt Jr. had to decide whether police performing their duties have an expectation of privacy in public space. Pitt ruled that police can have no such expectation in their public, on-the-job communications.

Pitt wrote: "Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public. When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation. 'Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes' ("Who watches the watchmen?”)."

Graber was also charged with possessing a “device primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of oral communications" -- referring to the video camera on his helmet. The judge disagreed with the prosecutor that the helmet cam was illegal, and concluded the state's argument would render illegal “almost every cell phone, Blackberry, and every similar device, not to mention dictation equipment and other types of recording devices."

Pitt's decision is the first ruling in Maryland to address the legality of citizens taping police in the course of their duties. Because it is a circuit court ruling, it is not binding on other judges. However, unless it is appealed, said Graber's attorney, David Rocah of the ACLU of Maryland, "it is likely to be the last word" on the matter and to be regarded as precedent by police.

No word yet on whether the state's attorney will try to appeal the decision. Graber still faces traffic charges stemming from the incident.