Maryland Criminal Defense Lawyers

Maryland Criminal Defense Lawyers

Call Us Free Legal Consultation

(888) 205-9314

Baltimore’s Speed Cameras A Money-Making Problem

By 1 Comment

Traffic Cameras
Traffic Cameras (Photo credit: Dave Dugdale)

Since 2009, the city of Baltimore has collected more than $70 million in fines from cameras designed to catch speeders. Statewide, more than 2.5 million tickets have been doled out. But both Baltimore City and the state of Maryland’s speed camera systems are seriously flawed, sending tickets to people who weren’t speeding and doing little more than causing headaches for drivers.

The Baltimore Sun reported a few weeks ago on their in-depth investigation into the cameras, finding the system of speed cameras is wrought with problems—problems the city is well-aware of but still they stand with hands outstretched to collect on the fines.

The city has led citizens to believe that when they get a ticket from one of these cameras, they are to pay it, plain and simple. That there is no viable process for contesting it. After all, it’s a computerized machine and they don’t make mistakes, right?

But, the system does make mistakes, and plenty of them. Nearly 6,000 tickets have been “deemed erroneous” by city officials because the cameras were miscalibrated or malfunctioning. But we don’t know how many more tickets were erroneous and never contested, as many people just mail in a check rather than deal with the headache of challenging the ticket.

Also, the tickets generated from these machines usually don’t hold up in court because of “glitches in the data” or the prosecution’s inability to produce evidence. Most citizens don’t realize that in addition to the photo these cameras take, they also take videos that can often be used to exonerate you in court.

Citizens aren’t the only ones critical of the system, several area judges have criticized it in open court.

“With so many problems being reported with the city’s system, the integrity of the program is called into question,” said Regina Averella of the AAA Mid-Atlantic. “It’s difficult for motorists to have faith in the system and believe it’s not about raising money instead of saving lives as it was intended.”

And with so many questions about the cameras’ reliability, one has to wonder if the city cares how they are working, and would just rather have people shut up and pay up. It seems Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake would like nothing more than that, telling people to simply obey the speeding laws if they don’t like it, calling the tickets a “minor inconvenience.”

While speeding tickets may seem like a minor concern—too many can cause you to lose your license. And if you are speeding too fast, you could be charged with a criminal traffic offense.

Enhanced by Zemanta

DC Officially Recognizes Citizens’ Right to Record Cops

By Leave a Comment

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.

Related articles

  • When Cops Use Cameras Too

Enhanced by Zemanta

Maryland Red Light Cameras Doing Away With Officer Privilege

By Leave a Comment

If a red light camera catches you speeding through an intersection it will lead to a ticket—regardless of who you are. As a matter of fact, red light cameras aren’t only catching off duty police in driving infractions, they’re catching on duty ones as well. And according to officials, it’s up to the officer to prove that they were legitimately responding to an emergency in order to get out of the ticket.
As this article from the Baltimore Sun points out, cops used to get off from a ticket simply by flashing their badge, regardless of where they were headed or if they were on duty. Red light cameras, however, seem to be the equalizer, however, turning cops into just another driver.
When an officer is caught speeding or running a red light, investigators review dispatch records to confirm whether or not they had a legitimate reason to be in violation. If not, they face penalties like any of the rest of us would.
While the president of the Baltimore Fraternal Order of Police union states he hasn’t heard too many complaints, a few officers actually sued the department and lost.
Like “regular folk”, police officers don’t want to be caught on camera. Last year two were accused of using fictitious plates on their unmarked cars. It was assumed they were hiding from the cameras or trying to stay inconspicuous among local drug dealers.
Whatever the case, there’s not a whole lot you can say when you are caught violating the law on camera. A dire emergency would perhaps be the only thing that might garner you some leniency in court. Such footage is perhaps the most damning evidence there could be in a criminal case.
Right up there with video footage is eyewitness testimony, or at least this is true in the eyes of jurors. We’re not talking about speeding tickets here though, we are talking about serious criminal charges. Jurors are said to put a lot of weight on eyewitness accounts at trial—this despite the fact that eyewitnesses are prone to error.
Just like the cops caught speeding on tape, being told someone saw you commit a crime or heard you confess can be a slap in the face. This is particularly true if you know their account to be untrue. Overcoming such evidence in court can seem to be an insurmountable obstacle.
Consulting with a criminal defense attorney in Maryland can help put the evidence in perspective. If you’re curious about your options and wondering how the evidence against you might affect your case, contact our offices today.

Maryland Case of Cop Recording Thrown Out by Judge

By Leave a Comment

In a case of videotaping a police officer that I wrote about last week, a judge has issued his ruling, a ruling in favor of police accountability and the rights of the people. A 24 year old National Guardsman was facing felony wiretapping charges for recording a Maryland state police officer during a traffic stop.
At issue was whether citizens had the right to record the police acting within an official capacity—with or without their knowledge. The state argued that this man had no right to record the encounter, while his defense and the ACLU stated there was no “expectation of privacy” on a crowded roadway.
The judge ruled in favor of the defendant, tossing his wiretapping charges while upholding his traffic citations. According to the Baltimore Sun, he recognized that public servants like the police shouldn’t expect to be “shielded from public scrutiny.” He also cited the Rodney King case in his findings and said that with the onslaught of technology, people in general can’t really expect to not be recorded at any given time.
Finally, he affirmed what the ACLU argued in saying, the incident “took place on a public highway in full view of the public. Under such circumstances, I cannot, by any stretch, conclude that the troopers had any reasonable expectation of privacy in their conversation with the defendant…”
Current wiretapping laws were written years ago, long before nearly everyone was walking around with recording devices in their pockets. As technology advances, so must the interpretation of the laws.
The State Attorney for Harford County could appeal the decision if he disagrees with the judge’s ruling. But, at the time of the Sun article, that decision hadn’t been made. He is quoted as saying he believes the ruling will make the police’s job more difficult—though I question how.
With great power comes great responsibility and a potential for abuse. Although the majority of police officers conduct themselves in ethical and responsible manners, we have seen what happens when this isn’t the case. Being able to record police interaction in public is a win on the side of citizen protection.
Without recordings, most cases boil down to he said/she said and other evidence. It’s very rare to have video footage at a criminal trial. However, this other evidence can be used to build a case successfully against a defendant or, on the other hand, can serve to prove their innocence.
When you are facing criminal charges, an attorney will help you analyze all of the evidence against you and that evidence that may work on your behalf. If you have questions about your case or are in need of representation, contact me today.

Is It Illegal to Record the Cops?

By 1 Comment

The cops can record you. Whether it’s a dashboard camera or a red light camera, your objection doesn’t hold any ground with law enforcement. So, why is a Maryland man facing charges for recording an officer during a traffic stop?
Prosecutors argue the man was in violation of wiretapping laws when a camera mounted on his motorcycle helmet recorded his interaction with a state trooper. The defense counters that people should be able to record police acting within an official capacity while in public and that the conversation between trooper and suspect was not a wholly private conversation to begin with.
The case is the first of its kind in Maryland and is definitely one to watch. With recording devices in nearly everyone’s pockets these days, clarifying if wiretapping laws apply to cell phone videos is an important matter. Important not only to clarify the law but also to ensure citizens have the ability to keep officers accountable.
Think of Rodney King and all the other video recordings since that time that have uncovered police abuses. As the Baltimore Sun points out in this important quite from ancient Rome, “Who will watch the watchers?”
The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) has sent several attorneys to represent the man in this case, stating there’s no reason a citizen should be denied the right to record a conversation when there is no “expectation of privacy.” In other words, if you are in a public place where your tone is audible to others, the recording of your conversation is completely legal.
The Attorney General for Maryland issued an opinion in July telling police that it was within the right of the people to record officers and that those conversations could not be considered private. The Attorney General is considered the law enforcement and legal official for the state.
The suspect in this case uploaded his videotaped encounter to the Internet, which is how law enforcement became aware of his recording. He now faces up to 16 years in prison for this felony charge.
There’s little doubt in my mind that the case will go to trial and whatever the result is, it will be appealed. Definitely a case to watch in months to come, this one could have lasting effects.
The bottom line is that citizens should be allowed to record police interactions when officers are acting in the line of duty. As public servants, law enforcement must be held accountable for their actions and having video evidence of their actions should be seen as positive rather than something to fear.
After all, if they are acting with integrity and respecting the rights of the people, why would evidence supporting this be such a bad thing?
You may not have a tape of your arrest, but chances are I can help you regardless. If you’re up against criminal charges and need an advocate on your side in court, contact me today.