Just last month we blogged about the trouble with Baltimore speed cameras. But B-more isn’t the only metropolitan area having issues with these money-making headaches. Metro P.D. Sergeant Mark Robinson tried to get the city of D.C. to pay attention to the problems with their cameras, but they wouldn’t listen. It wasn’t until he got nailed with one himself and challenged it in court that he found success. And this level of success could be a major problem for D.C. city officials. [Read more…]
DC Officially Recognizes Citizens’ Right to Record Cops
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
Maryland Judge Says ‘No’ To Cops Requesting Access to Cell Phone GPS Data
U.S. District Court Judge Susan K. Gauvey refused this week to issue a warrant to federal authorities who wanted to access the GPS information of a suspect. Law enforcement wanted the information so they could track down the suspect in a felony case, though they had made limited efforts to track him down prior to the request.
In her refusal, Gauvey said limiting the officers’ access to this information “does not frustrate or impede law enforcement’s important efforts, but rather places them within the Constitutional and statutory framework which balances citizens’ rights of privacy against government’s protection of society.”
Courts across the country are exploring cases similar to this one, discussing how police’s access to GPS data should be dealt with. When it comes to placing GPS units on vehicles, appellate courts in both California and Oregon have ruled that police do not need warrants for such tracking. A Washington state Court of Appeals ruled otherwise and the U.S. Supreme Court plans to take up this issue soon.
Police practices and policies have not been able to keep up with the quickly evolving technologies of the day. Because most smart phones now have GPS capabilities built in, it’s possible to track someone even without them making any calls. Phone companies are said to be able to tell you where their customers are within a 10 meter radius, something the cops would love to have unlimited access to.
Cell phones and similar technology has become a top tool in law enforcement investigations. However, the benefits of this technology as an investigative tool must be balanced with the Constitutional rights of the people. “This technology is going to cause more and more of these arguments,” says Douglas Ward of the Division of Public Safety Leadership in the Johns Hopkins University School of Education. “Like anything else, there can be abuses. Justice demands that we weigh that.”
In this specific case, police had the cell phone number of their target and with that information (and a warrant), they could have located the suspect using GPS data. However, they didn’t prove to the judge that the suspect (whose identity and crime were kept secret) posed any flight risk. As a matter of fact, they located and arrested him in the meantime, without the warrant.
Much of the argument in such cases arises about what sort of “expectation of privacy” a person can have in regards to their movements. Should the police have access to your future movements? This is a question that hasn’t arisen in decades past; only with the advent of GPS technology has the ability to track movements in real-time even been possible.
For now, it remains a gray area for law enforcement, where judges can really go either way depending on the facts of the case and evidence presented by law enforcement in pursuit of a warrant.
Area Cops Scan Thousands of License Plates Daily
License plate scanners have been used in the area for years. The Maryland State Police has been using the technology since 2004 and with each year their use seems to expand. These scanners are used to identify stolen vehicles, expired registration, and revoked registrations as well. But they also scan plates belonging to law abiding citizens, something the ACLU takes issue with.
These scanners are usually mounted on the back of a patrol car or stationary, on the side of the road. The police car then has a monitor within the vehicle where the scans are displayed and the system alerts them to any law violations found. In one eight hour shift, a scanner can read 5,000 license plates, according to the Baltimore Sun.
If the system recognizes a car that’s been reported stolen or tags that are expired, it sounds an alert, telling the officer what he violation is and showing the scanned photo. If there’s no violation, the photo is stored for up to a year.
Local law enforcement credits the license plate readers with helping to bring auto theft down in the area. Over the past three years, car theft has dropped almost 40% in the state of Maryland. Though it’s unclear how much of this drop can be attributed to the scans, police say that car theft suspects often mention the cameras when they are being interrogated after an arrest.
Because of the suspected relationship between the scanners and the drop in car thefts, the program has received an additional $2 million from the state, doubling its funding.
Unfortunately, the technology isn’t infallible. The cameras cannot scan a vehicle moving at high rates of speed and often has difficulty scanning the small and sometimes obstructed plates on motorcycles. This has been the case with the tragic accident that killed Maryland State Trooper Shaft S. Hunter, who was killed when he hit a tractor trailer while in pursuit of a racing motorcycle.
The ACLU takes issue with the footage that is saved from the scanners. After all, if no law is broken, what is the purpose of storing the photos? Innocent drivers are, in a sense, being subjected to a search without their knowledge. “Police are not supposed to be keeping files on people who are not breaking the law,” says a spokesperson for the ACLU.
The prevalence of these cameras means more and more cases of auto theft and even driving on a suspended registration are using the footage from these devices as evidence. Even when such footage is not present, the evidence in cases like these can seem difficult to overcome.
If you’re facing auto theft charges or even charges of a traffic offense, contact our offices today to discuss your options.
Maryland Red Light Cameras Doing Away With Officer Privilege
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
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?
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.
More Police Surveillance in Hagarstown, MD
Via the Washington Post, Hagarstown, MD is receiving $900,000 in federal grants to build an elaborate video camera and surveillance “public safety network” throughout the town.
Police Chief Arthur Smith says the department will use the money to link computer, radio, in-car, video camera and other systems for top efficiency.One component will be video cameras. Smith hopes to double the amount of cameras downtown to 60.Thermal imagers, in-car cameras, a supervisor command vehicle camera and moveable cameras will also be purchased.
The amount of computer surveillance and monitoring this system will be capable of is impressive. Their goal appears to be a massive surveillance infrastructure, where there will be no place in town that your actions are not monitored and recorded by the police.
But does everyone agree that this is a good thing? Civil liberties and privacy advocates are sure to be suspicious of this government intrusiveness in our lives.
And it is all happening without any public debate as to what we think is reasonable. The technological capabilities are far ahead of the desires of the citizens.
Already there are widespread license plate scanners tracking an monitoring our driving habits.
We are certainly happy when they are used to quickly identify and track stolen cars, or even find fugitives wanted for failure to appear on a court warrant.
We may be a little more suspicious and skeptical if we are stopped for having a suspended drivers license that we weren’t notified of.
So, where are the limits of what the public things is a reasonable level of monitoring and tracking of ordinary citizens?
We should have that debate now, before the government security infrastructure is fully embedded and impossible to stop.
More details here.
Criminal Trial Shows Flaws in GPS, Surveillance Technologies
The case is one of an innocent life nearly cut short at the hands of two teens in a gunfight. Both were convicted of attempted murder but according to this editorial in the Baltimore Sun, their convictions were the result of good police work and not the high-tech cameras or GPS systems in use at the time.
Baltimore is one of several cities around the country that has installed numerous surveillance cameras in an attempt to discourage crime on their street corners. But, as the editorial suggests, the cameras don’t deliver “crisp, clear images” and instead convey highly pixelated and fuzzy images. In a case with less evidence, such images could have worked in the defendant’s benefit.
Since 2004, the city of Baltimore is said to have sunk over $15 million into such cameras—cameras that can’t identify a face from 100 feet away. These cameras are all over the city and one has to wonder what good they are doing. One commonly held belief is that they don’t prevent crime at all and if anything, they simply move crime.
Another interesting flaw in the use of technology in criminal justice that this case uncovered is the function of GPS monitoring. One of the defendants in this case was attached to monitoring as part of a juvenile case. However, the monitor bracelet only had the capacity to say if the man left home—not where he went or how far.
While his exact location via GPS would have been nice for the prosecution in this case, tracking offenders down to their every-minute latitude-longitude seems a little extreme and not likely appropriate for a juvenile offender thought to be at no risk to the community.
The fact it, technology cannot eliminate crime. And sometimes, even the most “advanced” technology can’t solve crime either. However, such technological instruments can be used as evidence in criminal trials, making their effectiveness and reliability a serious issue.
If you are facing criminal charges, it is the responsibility of your defense attorney to look at all of the evidence against you. As your lawyer, I would question any evidence the state submits, ensuring its integrity and making certain your rights were not violated in any way during the collection of such evidence.
Whether you are facing drug charges, a DUI, or something far more serious, I can help. Contact me today to discuss your case and how we can work together for the best possible outcome.
Maryland Among States Using Mobile Fingerprint Devices for Criminal Cases
Technology is constantly moving forward. The military is consistently supplying the civilian world with innovative devices to assist in crime fighting and the fight against terrorism. Mobile fingerprinting devices are being used in several cities across the country, including some Baltimore suburbs.
As this article from the Washington Post discusses, technology for the mobile devices being used in Maryland and Virginia comes directly from the military. These devices, when used in police work, are useful in identifying both suspects and victims.
The Post outlines several cases where the devices were useful in identifying bodies or accident victims. However, police are most interested in using them to identify suspects who may be lying about their identity.
For now, the police can only scan someone’s fingerprints if they are under arrest or if they agree to submit. Interestingly, the officers interviewed said that have not had many refusals simply due to the fascination people have with the technology.
The scanners scan fingerprints or irises (eyes) and immediately compare them with prints already in the states database. If there is a match the scanner details who the person is and if there may be any active warrants for their arrest.
Often, people pulled over who know they have a warrant or are breaking the law by driving while their license is suspended will lie and state they don’t have identification. If they agree to be scanned, the police will likely be able to determine their identity and deal with the law violations immediately.
Opponents to these devices worry about potential abuses. Police pressuring people into submitting or not properly explaining that the scan is optional could cause some problems as criminal cases go to court.
Police have to be wary of civilian’s rights at every stage of an arrest. From a traffic stop to the investigation of more serious assault charges, they have a protocol that must be followed.
If you are facing criminal charges and need the assistance of a defense attorney to ensure your rights are protected at every stage of the game, call me. We can discuss the charges you are facing , potential outcomes, and the best way to approach the case.