Tweet
Not sure how many of you have been following this case, but the facts are something like this: Back in March, Anthony Graber was on his motorcycle on I-95 and doing what young kids on motorcycles sometimes do, speeding, pulling wheelies, etc. He was pulled over by an off-duty state trooper.
It turns out that Graber had a camera on his helmet, and it captured the entire thing--video and audio. It's not immediately clear if the trooper identifies himself (his badge is on his belt and not easily seen), but he draws his weapon on Graber. This is interesting in itself, although not necessarily relevant to the issue at hand.
A few days later, Graber posts the video on YouTube (link) and very soon thereafter, the State's Attorney for Maryland files a slew of charges against Graber: not just the traffic violations, but wiretapping charges for capturing the audio on his helmet cam (yes, Maryland is a two-party state). The key issue in Maryland (and elsewhere) regarding the wiretap statute revolves around the expectation of privacy, that is, it must exist in a particular situation for the statute to apply.
Up until this point, the Maryland courts had not previously come down on the issue of recording police, so as you can imagine this case has attracted a lot of attention in the regional (and even national press).
Back in July, the Maryland Attorney General issued an opinion that (generally speaking), the recording of the public activities of police officers would probably not be considered a violation of the wiretap statute. That being said, the Attorney General's opinion is advisory and does not hold the force of law.
On Monday, a circuit court judge in Harford County announced (link here) that all the wiretap-related charges against Graber were being dropped--the judge's decision was based on the fact that a police officer making a traffic stop along a public highway has no expectation of privacy, and therefore the conversation is not subject to the wiretap statute.
A circuit court opinion in Maryland does not apply state-wide, so that doesn't make this case "precendent," but the general consensus among legal experts is that this case will have that effect nonetheless. Other State's Attorneys here in Maryland in somewhat similar cases have avoided bringing wiretapping charges so it seems the issue is settled (for now). No word yet on whether or not there will be an appeal (which is interesting in itself; if the State were to appeal, and the Appeals Court again sides with Graber, it would create a statewide precedent).
It turns out that Graber had a camera on his helmet, and it captured the entire thing--video and audio. It's not immediately clear if the trooper identifies himself (his badge is on his belt and not easily seen), but he draws his weapon on Graber. This is interesting in itself, although not necessarily relevant to the issue at hand.
A few days later, Graber posts the video on YouTube (link) and very soon thereafter, the State's Attorney for Maryland files a slew of charges against Graber: not just the traffic violations, but wiretapping charges for capturing the audio on his helmet cam (yes, Maryland is a two-party state). The key issue in Maryland (and elsewhere) regarding the wiretap statute revolves around the expectation of privacy, that is, it must exist in a particular situation for the statute to apply.
Up until this point, the Maryland courts had not previously come down on the issue of recording police, so as you can imagine this case has attracted a lot of attention in the regional (and even national press).
Back in July, the Maryland Attorney General issued an opinion that (generally speaking), the recording of the public activities of police officers would probably not be considered a violation of the wiretap statute. That being said, the Attorney General's opinion is advisory and does not hold the force of law.
On Monday, a circuit court judge in Harford County announced (link here) that all the wiretap-related charges against Graber were being dropped--the judge's decision was based on the fact that a police officer making a traffic stop along a public highway has no expectation of privacy, and therefore the conversation is not subject to the wiretap statute.
A circuit court opinion in Maryland does not apply state-wide, so that doesn't make this case "precendent," but the general consensus among legal experts is that this case will have that effect nonetheless. Other State's Attorneys here in Maryland in somewhat similar cases have avoided bringing wiretapping charges so it seems the issue is settled (for now). No word yet on whether or not there will be an appeal (which is interesting in itself; if the State were to appeal, and the Appeals Court again sides with Graber, it would create a statewide precedent).
Comment