Up to 16 yrs in jail for videotaping police officer... now that's some bullshit

[tyler524]

Shitty journalism. Why no mention of the officer that drew his weapon and what happened or is happening to him?

Well that's more than likely because nothing is/will happen to him. I hope this guy now files a lawsuit against the county, state police, and the judge that signed the search warrant.

[Strictly Street]

The county prosecutor is going to be put in the public stocks and spanked with cold mops dipped in Apple Cider Vinegar.

:lol:

[Casper]

Awesome.

[Scruit]

The supposed crime was never that he *recorded* the conversation, but that he made it public.

It is possible to accidentally record a private conversation (Example: CCTV at your house that records two door-to-door salesment talking at your doorstep before you open the door. Neither knows that audio is being recorded). In that situation it's wasn't illegal to record because you didn't "knowingly" record the private conversation. However, there is a seperate law prohibiting the release of a conversation so recorded. That's where the prosecutor got hung up. It was his opinion that the conversation was "private". The rest of us disagreed. Also remember Maryland is an all-party state. Ohio only requires one person know of the recording.

At the end of day, though, the judge simply rubberstamped what we all knew from day one: A conversation on a public street is not a private conversation.

Edited September 28, 2010 by Scruit

[Kritz]

Great news.

[Cheech]

Well that's more than likely because nothing is/will happen to him. I hope this guy now files a lawsuit against the county, state police, and the judge that signed the search warrant.

Bingo. And that he get all his property returned in the same condition that it was seized (computers, so on)

[Strictly Street]

Bingo. And that he get all his property returned in the same condition that it was seized (computers, so on)

:lol:

You funny!

Those items no doubt have already been destroyed beyond any hope of repair. Legally too, as they were seized with a warrant.

If not they need wiped and reformatted for possible planted trojans and the like. Not saying they have put anything there to try to frame you later like some other agencies have done, but could you ever trust the equipment again?

After all they tried to put him away for 16 years for making them look bad.

[Cheech]

:lol:

You funny!

Those items no doubt have already been destroyed beyond any hope of repair. Legally too, as they were seized with a warrant.

If not they need wiped and reformatted for possible planted trojans and the like. Not saying they have put anything there to try to frame you later like some other agencies have done, but could you ever trust the equipment again?

After all they tried to put him away for 16 years for making them look bad.

I hate to quibble with you Street, but can you tell me where it says that property obtained with a warrant that is meant for use as evidence in a trial can be freely destroyed by the State? I would think that's destruction of evidence, or since the trial is complete, destruction of private property, a crime all by itself. Given that the evidence they are looking for is digital and accessible without having to destroy the property, I'd think that's a little counterproductive.

Now that being said, if there was so much as a scratch on them I'd add it to my suit for wrongful prosecution.

[cg2112]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/03/wiretapping_charges_tossed/

Charges were dropped, and the judge said that they shouldn't have been filed to begin with.

“Under such circumstances, I cannot, by any stretch, conclude that the troopers had any reasonable expectation of privacy in their conversation with the defendant which society wold be prepared to recognize as reasonable.”

[Strictly Street]

I hate to quibble with you Street, but can you tell me where it says that property obtained with a warrant that is meant for use as evidence in a trial can be freely destroyed by the State? I would think that's destruction of evidence, or since the trial is complete, destruction of private property, a crime all by itself. Given that the evidence they are looking for is digital and accessible without having to destroy the property, I'd think that's a little counterproductive.

Now that being said, if there was so much as a scratch on them I'd add it to my suit for wrongful prosecution.

Good luck with that.

Quibble away! I have seen some things "returned" by law enforcement in the past. True they gave it all back, original condition, Not!!

Had a friend whose car was seized, no evidence was found. He was told to pick it up, needed a tow truck and 2 pickup trucks to haul everything away.

Tires demounted, fenders off the car, seats removed etc. And he still had to pay the impound fees.

In the above mentioned case the guy was running for Police Chief at the time taking a very tough on crime attitude. Problem was there wasn't much in the way of crime going on. So he had to create it to be tough on it. Problem with that was nobody was doing anything criminal.

In the real world cops can get away with a lot. Most wont try to and are good guys. But those few that are tools can be real big tools.

[Steve Butters]

gotta agree....friend of mine had his car searched in high school...since it was on school property they were allowed to search without a warrant...they didnt find anything, but they actually broke his back seat so it wouldnt clip anymore, destroyed...he was sol

[Steve Butters]

Bull Fucking Shit.

we signed a waiver saying the school was allowed to search our car for any reason, and if we didnt sign, we werent allowed to have a parking pass....and since we had school resource officers, the principal and the cop we had at school were allowed to go and search through cars without a warrant

[Steve Butters]

high school - public

thats how all public school are, they dont need warrants to search people....they can search you, your locker, your car etc

if a student tells the principal that they saw a gun in the locker next to theirs, they dont have to wait and get a warrant, they can just search it

so if they had a suspicion that my friend may have had drugs in his car, they decided to search it...every public high school is set up that way to my knowledge

[Steve Butters]

No.. they can search lockers' date=' because that is their property, but nobody in my son's school is searching him without my explicit permission. Any activity to the contrary will result in an immediate and unfortunate interview with my attorney(s). The same goes for my vehicle. Nobody opens that car that doesn't have a key to the lock. I'd like to see a couple court cases that involve incidents like this. Just because they have a policy doesn't make it legal.[/quote']

at a diff high school i attended, freshman year (i did 9-10 and 11 at diff schools - grad as junior) i got searched by the police...someone told them i had pills on me, so they brought me to the office and the police searched me, they didnt find anything but it did happen

[Steve Butters]

you sure? youre saying every public school breaks the laws countless times and nobody ever says anything about it?

[Steve Butters]

http://www.acluutah.org/SKYR4.html

Courts have said that school officials can search students in public schools if there is a reasonable suspicion to search. They do not need probable cause.

There are two types of reasonable suspicion:

• Individualized suspicion is when a school official has a reasonable belief that you personally might be doing something illegal.
  
• Generalized suspicion is when school officials are concerned that there might be illegal activity somewhere in the school. This means that student drug tests or metal detectors are allowed when there is a general concern about students using drugs or carrying weapons. However, some courts have ruled that without any evidence of illegal activity, such a search would be unconstitutional.69
  

read through the whole link...it talks about all the circumstances

and yes, i realize thats for utah - but were talking constitutional rights (or you are atleast) so it shouldnt matter which state i post info on, and thats just the first one i found

Edited October 3, 2010 by Steve Butters

[Steve Butters]

Did you argue the search or did you consent? That is a missing factor in your example. If you submit' date=' they haven't broken the law because you gave them permission. If a student has Miranda Rights, then one could easily argue that they have Constitutional Rights, since you can't have the former without the latter.[/quote']

they didnt ask me...i didnt give consent they just did it..and my rights werent read to me because i wasnt under arrest...not sure what youre asking me sorry..

[Steve Butters]

Per your posted article:

oh, they never mentioned my rights...the principal did all the questioning, and he instructed the police officer to search me...they informed my mom of the situation because she knew when i got home, but i doubt they asked for her permissison to search me because she would have told them no

[Steve Butters]

i was 15, btw

[Steve Butters]

my mom withdrew me from the school after that and i used my dads mailing address to finish high school at a different school...the second school was the one where my friends car was searched/broken

[fusion]

Noted' date=' and understood. It's your parents' responsibility to make sure you are aware of your rights at such a young age. That way the school can't push you around like they did. I'm not trying to say you are at fault for this. Far from it, but it would have been better if you were informed of your rights by your parents long before this even occurred.

Isaac is 10, btw.[/quote']

Maybe, maybe not. The courts have ruled on multiple occasions that students can be searched in situations like the one described. You can't go so far as strip searching someone, but checking pockets, purses, lockers and what not have been generally deemed acceptable by the courts and not in violation of the 4th.

[Steve Butters]

Maybe, maybe not. The courts have ruled on multiple occasions that students can be searched in situations like the one described. You can't go so far as strip searching someone, but checking pockets, purses, lockers and what not have been generally deemed acceptable by the courts and not in violation of the 4th.

they checked my locker, my bookbag, had me flip out my pockets, take off my shoes and socks...i think that was the extent of it, i didnt drive yet so i didnt have a car in the lot

[chevysoldier]

they checked my locker, my bookbag, had me flip out my pockets, take off my shoes and socks...i think that was the extent of it, i didnt drive yet so i didnt have a car in the lot

Well the locker is school property, no violations there. But you say they had YOU pull out your pockets and take off your shoes. They didn't do it but requested you to? Did they threaten you that if you didn't comply something worse would happen?

And as far as the cars, I remember something that since it was on their lot, was subject to search if there was reasonable suspicion, or you weren't allowed to drive to school. I remember cars being searched because dogs clued them in but I don't think they were ever searched without dogs present.

[Steve Butters]

Well the locker is school property, no violations there. But you say they had YOU pull out your pockets and take off your shoes. They didn't do it but requested you to? Did they threaten you that if you didn't comply something worse would happen?

And as far as the cars, I remember something that since it was on their lot, was subject to search if there was reasonable suspicion, or you weren't allowed to drive to school. I remember cars being searched because dogs clued them in but I don't think they were ever searched without dogs present.

they just instructed me to pull out my pockets and shoes, they never physically touched me...and i didnt refuse so i wasnt told what would happen if i didnt...i was 15 and sitting there with the police, i was a bit overwhelmed and just flipped my pockets when they asked...i didnt want to fight with them - i got suspended once for having cigarettes - i was 15 also...my mom was going into surgery that morning and couldnt come get me, so instead of in school suspension for the day and then starting my suspension, they filed charges, i had to fill out a police report, and then the police put me in the back of his cruiser and took me home...so i didnt wanna fuck with them any more tbh...had nothing to hide so just did as i was told

as for the dogs - im not sure if they had dogs or not when they searched my friends car...if so, maybe the dogs smelled something because he did smoke in his car sometimes - but they didnt actually find anything in it because he didnt have anything...but they did break his seat and not fix it...again, i dont know if they had dogs or not, he just told me after school that they broke his seat

[Disclaimer]

Must've been hanging with (or being one yourself) a buncha bad apples if you were asked to be searched...