PDA

View Full Version : Massachusetts Case Will Set Precedent Regarding Videotaping Of Cops.



Ponce
1st July 2011, 09:02 AM
This case will tell me if we are now slaves or still free.......I for one am free, no matter what.
================================================== =====


Massachusetts Case Will Set Precedent Regarding Videotaping Of Cops.

By Carlos Miller -... TopicsNews


Four years ago, Boston police officers arrested a man for videotaping them making an arrest in a public park.

They charged Simon Glik with felony wiretapping, disturbing the peace and aiding the escape of a prisoner – even though all he did was hold up a video camera – and the man they were arresting did not escape.

The charges were quickly dropped and Glik eventually filed a lawsuit for false arrest, claiming his First and Fourth Amendment rights had been violated.

The police officers filed a motion to dismiss his complaint on the basis on “qualified immunity,” which is their way of claiming they had no idea videotaping cops in public was completely legal.

A judge denied that motion and they appealed, which brought the issue back to court last week.

Now another judge will decide whether the cops will be granted qualified immunity, which would set a legal precedent that cops can basically make unlawful arrests of citizens who videotape them without fear of repercussions.

The Citizen Media Law Project attended the first day of the hearing last week and did a thorough job of summarizing and analyzing the case on hand.

The ACLU has strongly backed Glik and has summarized the case on this site, including producing the above video, which shows the clip that got him arrested.

The case once again highlights the absurdity of police using wiretapping laws – which were created to prevent telephone conversations from being secretly recorded – to crack down on citizens videotaping them in public.

Massachusetts is a two-party consent state, meaning you are not allowed to secretly record another person without their knowledge.

But Glik was openly recording the officers in Boston Common as many other witnesses watched.

However, because the cops were busy beating up on a man, they did not notice Glik recording them, so they are arguing that it was done in secret.

Under their interpretation of the law, as they told the judge, the man who videotaped the Rodney King beating back in 1991 would have been committing a crime had it been done in Massachusetts instead of California.

It’s pretty much an open-and-shut case, but police are doing all they can to wear Glik out in the hopes he gives up.

But Glik is a Massachusetts-licensed lawyer who emigrated from Soviet Russia, so apparently he is not taking the Constitution for granted.

Let’s hope the judge doesn’t take it for granted either.

http://www.pixiq.com/article/massachusetts-case-will-set-precedent

Dogman
1st July 2011, 09:11 AM
I can not see this passing, because if it did, there would be not any news organization that can film anywhere cops and civil servants work.

And if it did, the howls will be loud and long, because it would violate one of our most valuable rights.

Serpo
1st July 2011, 09:23 AM
Most people in cities have cctv watching them day and night but if anyone of them starts filming back all hell breaks loose.

Ares
1st July 2011, 10:24 AM
Most people in cities have cctv watching them day and night but if anyone of them starts filming back all hell breaks loose.

They have cameras here where I live. Funny thing keeps happening to those cameras though. Someone(s) keeps shooting them with BB guns cracking and breaking the lens.

mrnhtbr2232
1st July 2011, 01:47 PM
Defending state rights over people is exactly why they should be videotaped and held accountable. If they outlaw it then do it covertly. If they outlaw guns are you going to give them up? Of course not. Same theory applies here to freedom of speech. Just don't go out of your way to be obvious or test your version of liberty with armed thugs. Laws erode and change all the time - the only way you can maintain your sanity is to be fluid with them and exercise good judgment. But never surrender to the responsibility you have to hold them accountable.

osoab
1st July 2011, 06:01 PM
So this boils down to we are screwed if we don't know the laws (ignorance of the law thing), but if they don't know the laws they can still do whatever the fuck they want?

Nice.

This will probably go the way Indiana did.