OK.
Watch the video above.
It was shot by Anthony Graber using a helmet cam while he rode on his motorcycle.
Nothing happens for the first 3 minutes, but stick with it.
With about :15 to go, you’ll see an unmarked car cut Anthony off and then a guy jumps out and points a gun at him.
My first though would be ‘road rage’ and I would hit the gas as fast as I could.
It turns out that the guy waving the gun was a cop.
Anthony was breaking the speed limit.
OK.
Anthony didn’t deny that he was speeding.
But then he posted the video on Youtube.
This, apparently, is a very dangerous crime.
Graber was indicted for violating state wiretap laws for recording the State Trooper at work.
As video cameras become more ubiquitous, more and more people are using them to record all the stuff that happens to them, including being pulled over by some guy in an unmarked car waving a gun at you.
The police don’t like this one bit.
And so they are using Federal wiretap legislation, which requires all recorded parties to agree to be recorded, as a tool to stop people from recording them at work and posting it.
A recent Gizmodo story, ‘Are Cameras The New Guns‘, makes the point that in three states it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer at work.
This does not seem to stop reality shows from recording and broadcasting popular programs like ‘Cops’, but of course, these are carefully edited to show police only in a positive light. (Trust me, I produced Police Force for TLC for two years. Only heroes).
One might think that this is a pretty clear and obvious violation of First Amendment rights, but it turns out it is a bit more complicated.
The courts, however, disagree. A few weeks ago, an Illinois judge rejected a motion to dismiss an eavesdropping charge against Christopher Drew, who recorded his own arrest for selling one-dollar artwork on the streets of Chicago. Although the misdemeanor charges of not having a peddler’s license and peddling in a prohibited area were dropped, Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.
Carlos Miller, who runs the Photography Is Not A Crime website believes that this is a backlash by the police to protect themselves from being prosecuted for abuse of power, hard to argue when the evidence is both on tape and in the public domain.
Many will remember the Rodney King beating video.
That was a time when having a video camera at your beck and call was a bit of an anomaly.
Today, with every mobile phone video equipped and always at hand, it’s the police are clearly concerned that Rodney King type videos are going to become the standard as opposed to the odd accidental moment.
Is this a violation of the First Amendment?
I would think so, but what do I know?
1 Comment
Bob Kerner July 21, 2010
Something a little fishy here, I think. Why is this guy wearing a helmet cam to begin with? The footage is coma-inducing up to the point the firearms appear. Also too much camera movement. You hate that, as I recall. I wonder if he’s positioning himself to be a test case to challenge the law. And what’s with a plain-clothes cop making a traffic stop? And why the gun drawn, particularly when there’s a uniformed cop coming in from the opposite direction, in the line of fire presumably?
All that aside, law enforcement are not big fans of cameras, particularly when the cameras are pointed at them. For centuries, it has been a police officer’s word against the alleged perpetrator and now the camera provides a different point of view. That’s a good thing and eventually (I hope) the laws will catch up. But it’s also important to recognize that not everyone with a camera is unbiased and they may only see part of the story. For all we know, the dude on the motorcycle flashed a gun at the guy in the unmarked car, conveniently out of view of the helmet cam.
Not sure what the wiretapping law is in other states, but many have “one party” exceptions. Also, this isn’t wiretapping, so maybe the prosecutor is trying to expand the scope of the law. Wiretap laws are meant to protect privacy. The argument here is that the police have no reasonable expectation of privacy when performing their public duties, so long as the recording isn’t interfering with those duties.