evidence - Maryland Criminal Defense Lawyers

Because the police needed an official rule to alert them to the fact that citizens can record them while on duty and not face arrest, the Metropolitan Police Department of DC has issued a new general order making it very clear. The order came on the heels of a lawsuit where a citizen working with the ACLU sued the city for violating his rights when he was arrested for taking photos of police while on duty.

According to The Legal Times, the order, “explicitly recognizes and instructs all the members of the police department that people have a constitutional right to video and audio record them while they’re doing public business in a public place.”

Gwendolyn Crump, a spokesperson for the department said that the rule was already a part of departmental policy, but that the new statement simply affirms and clarifies the people’s right to free speech in regards to police action.

The lawsuit involved a man who was taking photos of traffic when he police confronted him in Georgetown. He said they told him it was illegal to take such photos without permission from the office of public affairs. He was detained and asked for identification. The lawsuit was eventually settled on July 13, shortly before the statement came out from the Metropolitan Police Department.

If you are recording police while they are acting within their official duties and in public, they cannot harass you. However, if you interfere with their work or if your footage may contain evidence from a crime, they can take action to stop you or request you send the footage or photos in to the department.

If police do seize the camera or recording device, the order notes that they can’t review anything without a warrant or, in “exigent circumstances,” without permission from the watch commander. It also notes that police can’t delete or order someone to delete photographs, videos or audio recordings.

Erasing photos and footage has been a problem in a few jurisdictions when police didn’t want their images captured and certainly didn’t want evidence of their work being made public.

Attorneys suggest the language of the statement from the police department was part of the settlement.

What constitutes as interfering with police work? Well, that’s largely up to the police officer in question. Simply mouthing off at the wrong time could give an aggravated officer enough motivation to take your camera and arrest you for a criminal offense of disorderly conduct.

Sometimes, the way law enforcement works puzzles even legal experts. But if you are charged with a crime, the assistance of a local defense lawyer can be invaluable. Contact our offices today to discuss your case and how we might be able to help.

When Cops Use Cameras Too

The Maryland Supreme Court ruled last week that taking the DNA of a criminal suspect is a violation of the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. But, despite this high court ruling, law enforcement agencies across the state are continuing to collect the genetic information without a warrant.

According to the Baltimore Sun, agencies including the state Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (who also collect DNA for Howard County and Baltimore City), and police officials in Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties are among those sticking to their guns, waiting to see whether or not the state will appeal the ruling before making any changes.

Currently, DNA samples are collected when you are arrested for a criminal offense. This DNA is run through a database to see whether or not your genetic sequence can match you to any other unsolved crimes. Then it is stored indefinitely in the database.

So far, in the three years the DNA database has been utilized, it has resulted in 65 arrests and 34 convictions in cold cases, according to the governor’s office. For those law enforcement agencies resisting the high court ruling, this is evidence enough that the practice should be continued.

“The DNA database is critically important for all public safety agencies, as it not only helps solve crimes of violence, but also eliminates suspects who may have been erroneously accused,” said Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.

But not everyone is convinced the public safety aspect is reason enough to ignore the Constitutional protection of the 4th Amendment.

“I think the U.S. Supreme Court would rule in a similar fashion,” remarked one local defense lawyer in speaking with the Baltimore Sun. “You have to have a warrant, point blank, end of discussion. Before you take my DNA, you have to have a warrant for that as well. You have a lot of innocent people who are constantly being violated.”

The 4th Amendment protects all citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. It’s in this amendment that we find justification for warrants being required in arrests and searches. Anytime law enforcement wishes to search you or seize evidence they must have a warrant or exigent circumstances, meaning crucial evidence could be lost or additional crimes committed if they have to wait for a warrant. DNA collection should be no difference.

If there is enough justification to collect the DNA of someone, getting a warrant shouldn’t be a problem. But, to collect DNA from every arrestee or even every violent suspect without a warrant and before they have had access to the due process of the courts, seems to be a clear violation of the constitutional protections, and the state supreme court agrees.

When you are accused of a crime, even when the cops think it’s a “slam dunk,” even if you confess, you are still protected by the Constitution. You still have rights.

Call Us Free Legal Consultation

(888) 205-9314

DC Officially Recognizes Citizens’ Right to Record Cops

Related articles

Police Continue Collecting DNA Despite Court Ruling