Wilsons Sandbox

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 6:35 PM, spike55_bmw wrote: This occured in May 2007 near Harrisburg, PA Seems to be a long standing problem. Wiretap charge dropped in police video case Posted by Matt Miller/The Patriot-News June 21, 2007 04:00AM A case that attracted nationwide attention has ended with the dropping of a felony wiretapping charge against a Carlisle man who recorded a police officer during a traffic stop. Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed said his decision will affect not only Brian Kelly, 18, but also will establish a policy for police departments countywide. "When police are audio- and video-recording traffic stops with notice to the subjects, similar actions by citizens, even if done in secret, will not result in criminal charges," Freed said yesterday. "I intend to communicate this decision to all police agencies within the county so that officers on the street are better-prepared to handle a similar situation should it arise again." Freed's decision came a week after a story in The Patriot-News caused a storm of criticism over Kelly's May 24 arrest by a Carlisle police officer on the wiretapping charge, which carries a penalty of up to seven years in prison upon conviction. Kelly's father, Chris, called the withdrawal of the charge "fantastic." "That's what should have happened to begin with," he said. District attorneys in two other midstate counties said they don't have policies regarding how police should deal with similar situations. Police officers usually confer with his office before filing charges if they encounter cases that "are a little out of the ordinary," Perry County District Attorney Chad Chenot said. "We handle these on a case-by-case basis," Dauphin County District Attorney Edward M. Marsico Jr. said. "The facts are always different." Kelly was arrested under a Pennsylvania law that bars the audio recording of anyone's conversation without consent. Taking pictures or filming without sound in public settings is not illegal. Brian Kelly said he spent 26 hours in the county prison after his arrest. He was released when his mother posted her house as security for his $2,500 bail. According to the police and Brian Kelly, he was arrested after a pickup truck in which he was riding was stopped by an officer on West High Street for alleged traffic and equipment violations. Kelly said he filmed the incident and was arrested after obeying the officer's order to turn off and surrender his camera. The wiretap charge was filed after the officer consulted a deputy district attorney. The Patriot-News received more than 100 e-mails, phone calls and other communications from across the area, state and country in response to a June 11 story on Kelly's arrest. None of those messages supported the arrest, and several sharply criticized Pennsylvania's wiretap law, which is among the most stringent in the U.S. Freed and other law-enforcement authorities also reported receiving e-mails and calls critical of the decision to charge Kelly. Freed said he withdrew the charge after reviewing evidence in the case and state court rulings regarding application of the wiretap law. Even in voiding the charge, Freed praised Carlisle police for their "hard work and cooperation" in the investigation of the Kelly case. He said the officer who charged Kelly acted in a "professional manner." The law itself might need to be revised, Freed said. "It is not the most clear statute that we have on the books," he said. "It could need a look, based on how technology has advanced since it was written." Don R100, A6F --- In DSN_KLR650%40yahoogroups.com, Lourd Baltimore wrote: > > A little while back I posted a story of a motorcyclist in MD who was pulled over > by MD State Police. His helmet camera was running and he managed to record part > of the stop. In addition to the traffic violation charges filed against him, he > was also charged with violating the state's wiretapping law for recording the > encounter. > > I'm happy to hear that the judge sitting this case, Judge Emory A. Plitt Jr. > (incorrectly noted as "Pitt" in most articles covering this story), has dropped > the wiretapping charge. > > The full article from the Washington Post is here: > http://blog.washingtonpost.com/story-lab/2010/09/wiretapping_charges_dropped_ag.html > > > Justice Plitt's reasoning is best summed by his quote from the article: > > "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? )." > > > > > > So, those who were planning to avoid MD because of this, you breathe a small > sigh of relief. > I say small, because as the article points out, this is just a circuit court > ruling and so is not legally binding. > However, if appealed, then it would set a very bad precedent. I can't see the > state DA pushing this matter further toward appeals, but to be honest, I don't > think think it should have gotten a far as it did. > > Note: I'm not a lawyer, but maybe someone else on the list is. Will this send > a message to the MD law enforcement and the DA or will they attempt to test this > again in the near future? > > Josh > . >

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Fortner" To: "spike55_bmw" Cc: "DSN KLR650" DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 5:50:25 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: [DSN_KLR650] Re: NKLR: Helmet Camera Legality Revisited   Common sense. The least common of all. On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 6:35 PM, spike55_bmw wrote:   This occured in May 2007 near Harrisburg, PA Seems to be a long standing problem. Wiretap charge dropped in police video case Posted by Matt Miller/The Patriot-News June 21, 2007 04:00AM A case that attracted nationwide attention has ended with the dropping of a felony wiretapping charge against a Carlisle man who recorded a police officer during a traffic stop. Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed said his decision will affect not only Brian Kelly, 18, but also will establish a policy for police departments countywide. "When police are audio- and video-recording traffic stops with notice to the subjects, similar actions by citizens, even if done in secret, will not result in criminal charges," Freed said yesterday. "I intend to communicate this decision to all police agencies within the county so that officers on the street are better-prepared to handle a similar situation should it arise again." Freed's decision came a week after a story in The Patriot-News caused a storm of criticism over Kelly's May 24 arrest by a Carlisle police officer on the wiretapping charge, which carries a penalty of up to seven years in prison upon conviction. Kelly's father, Chris, called the withdrawal of the charge "fantastic." "That's what should have happened to begin with," he said. District attorneys in two other midstate counties said they don't have policies regarding how police should deal with similar situations. Police officers usually confer with his office before filing charges if they encounter cases that "are a little out of the ordinary," Perry County District Attorney Chad Chenot said. "We handle these on a case-by-case basis," Dauphin County District Attorney Edward M. Marsico Jr. said. "The facts are always different." Kelly was arrested under a Pennsylvania law that bars the audio recording of anyone's conversation without consent. Taking pictures or filming without sound in public settings is not illegal. Brian Kelly said he spent 26 hours in the county prison after his arrest. He was released when his mother posted her house as security for his $2,500 bail. According to the police and Brian Kelly, he was arrested after a pickup truck in which he was riding was stopped by an officer on West High Street for alleged traffic and equipment violations. Kelly said he filmed the incident and was arrested after obeying the officer's order to turn off and surrender his camera. The wiretap charge was filed after the officer consulted a deputy district attorney. The Patriot-News received more than 100 e-mails, phone calls and other communications from across the area, state and country in response to a June 11 story on Kelly's arrest. None of those messages supported the arrest, and several sharply criticized Pennsylvania's wiretap law, which is among the most stringent in the U.S. Freed and other law-enforcement authorities also reported receiving e-mails and calls critical of the decision to charge Kelly. Freed said he withdrew the charge after reviewing evidence in the case and state court rulings regarding application of the wiretap law. Even in voiding the charge, Freed praised Carlisle police for their "hard work and cooperation" in the investigation of the Kelly case. He said the officer who charged Kelly acted in a "professional manner." The law itself might need to be revised, Freed said. "It is not the most clear statute that we have on the books," he said. "It could need a look, based on how technology has advanced since it was written." Don R100, A6F --- In DSN_KLR650%40yahoogroups.com, Lourd Baltimore wrote: > > A little while back I posted a story of a motorcyclist in MD who was pulled over > by MD State Police. His helmet camera was running and he managed to record part > of the stop. In addition to the traffic violation charges filed against him, he > was also charged with violating the state's wiretapping law for recording the > encounter. > > I'm happy to hear that the judge sitting this case, Judge Emory A. Plitt Jr. > (incorrectly noted as "Pitt" in most articles covering this story), has dropped > the wiretapping charge. > > The full article from the Washington Post is here: > http://blog.washingtonpost.com/story-lab/2010/09/wiretapping_charges_dropped_ag.html > > > Justice Plitt's reasoning is best summed by his quote from the article: > > "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? )." > > > > > > So, those who were planning to avoid MD because of this, you breathe a small > sigh of relief. > I say small, because as the article points out, this is just a circuit court > ruling and so is not legally binding. > However, if appealed, then it would set a very bad precedent. I can't see the > state DA pushing this matter further toward appeals, but to be honest, I don't > think think it should have gotten a far as it did. > > Note: I'm not a lawyer, but maybe someone else on the list is. Will this send > a message to the MD law enforcement and the DA or will they attempt to test this > again in the near future? > > Josh > . >

> The video: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK5bMSyJCsg