Videotaping Police = Felony?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Flyboy

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
1,888
Location
Oklahoma City, OK
Summary: 18-year-old charged with felony wiretapping for videotaping police in the performance of their duties.
Video recording leads to felony charge
Posted by Matt Miller/The Patriot-News June 11, 2007 08:51AM
Categories: Courts, Crime, Cumberland County, Midstate

Brian D. Kelly didn't think he was doing anything illegal when he used his videocamera to record a Carlisle police officer during a traffic stop. Making movies is one of his hobbies, he said, and the stop was just another interesting event to film.

Now he's worried about going to prison or being burdened with a criminal record.

Kelly, 18, of Carlisle, was arrested on a felony wiretapping charge, with a penalty of up to 7 years in state prison.

His camera and film were seized by police during the May 24 stop, he said, and he spent 26 hours in Cumberland County Prison until his mother posted her house as security for his $2,500 bail.

Kelly is charged under a state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent.

The criminal case relates to the sound, not the pictures, that his camera picked up.

"I didn't think I could get in trouble for that," Kelly said. "I screwed up, yeah. I know now that I can't do that. I just don't see how something like this should affect my entire life."

Whether that will happen could be determined during Kelly's preliminary hearing before District Judge Jessica Brewbaker in July.

No one seems intent on punishing him harshly.

"Obviously, ignorance of the law is no defense," District Attorney David Freed said. "But often these cases come down to questions of intent."

According to police, Kelly was riding in a pickup truck that had been stopped for alleged traffic violations.

Police said the officer saw Kelly had a camera in his lap, aimed at him and was concealing it with his hands. They said Kelly was arrested after he obeyed an order to turn the camera off and hand it over.

The wiretap charge was filed after consultation with a deputy district attorney, police said.

Kelly said his friend was cited for speeding and because his truck's bumper was too low. He said he held the camera in plain view and turned it on when the officer yelled at his pal.

After about 20 minutes, the officer cited the driver on the traffic charges and told the men they were being recorded by a camera in his cruiser, Kelly said.

"He said, 'Young man, turn off your ... camera,'¤" Kelly said. "I turned it off and handed it to him. ... Six or seven more cops pulled up, and they arrested me."

Police also took film from his pockets that wasn't related to the traffic stop, he said.

Freed said his office has handled other wiretapping cases, some involving ex-lovers or divorcing couples who are trying to record former partners doing something improper for leverage in court battles, he said.

Such charges have been dismissed or defendants have been allowed to plead to lesser counts or enter a program to avoid criminal records, he said.

The outcome hinges on whether the person had a malicious intent, Freed said.

Carlisle Police Chief Stephen Margeson said allowing Kelly to plead to a lesser charge might be proper.

"I don't think that would cause anyone any heartburn," he said. "I don't believe there was any underlying criminal intent here."

But Margeson said he doesn't regard the filing of the felony charge as unwarranted and said the officer followed procedures.

John Mancke, a Harrisburg defense attorney familiar with the wiretapping law, said the facts, as related by police, indicate Kelly might have violated the law.

"If he had the sound on, he has a problem," Mancke said.

Last year, Mancke defended a North Middleton Twp. man in a street racing case that involved a wiretapping charge. Police claimed the man ordered associates to tape police breaking up an illegal race after officers told him to turn off their cameras.

That wiretapping count was dismissed when the man pleaded guilty to charges of illegal racing, defiant trespass and obstruction of justice. He was sentenced to probation.

An exception to the wiretapping law allows police to film people during traffic stops, Mancke said.

Margeson said his department's cruisers are equipped with cameras, and officers are told to inform people during incidents that they are being recorded.

First Assistant District Attorney Jaime Keating said case law is in flux as to whether police can expect not to be recorded while performing their duties.

"The law isn't solid," Keating said. "But people who do things like this do so at their own peril."

Kelly said he has called the American Civil Liberties Union for help in the case.

His father, Chris, said he's backing his son.

"We're hoping for a just resolution," he said.

So, in no particular order:
1) The state allows officers to record, but not private citizens; in other words, the state wants to be the sole source of evidence.
2) The kid was in the truck--doesn't that make him a party to the traffic stop? Is Pennsylvania a single-party consent state, or do they require the consent of all parties?
3) This wasn't a private conversation--don't most prosecutors argue the "expectation of privacy?" Where's the expectation, if the cop didn't remove the kid from earshot?
4) It's a felony to record an officer of the government in the performance of his duties! Not just a crime--which would be bad enough--but a felony! Think on that one for a minute.

Furrfu.

(Story from http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews/2007/06/brian_d_kelly_didnt_think.html)
 
Last edited:
Its a "cover your arse" strategy by the state. They figure that if they make taping an officer's duties against the law, it would make such videotapes inadmissible in court should a Rodney King type situation arise in the future.
 
Pa is an all parties consent. I found that out when I asked my Township why they didn't tape the council meetings since the minutes were not accurate and damn near fraudulent. Shortly thereafter, two police came to my house inquiring into bogus zoning violations. I turned the videotape on them and asked for a warrant. I didn't get arrested but I didn't make any pals that day!:evil:

Grant, maybe you need to update your reference material, the government hasn't been working for the people since oh I dunno, 1800 and something or another.:banghead:
 
How the hell is videotaping someone in a public place considered "wiretapping"?

I thought the whole concept of wiretapping was gaining access to a private communication line/system through obscure means with the intent to gather information, without permision, of one or both parties involved in the communication.

I am definitely missing something here...
 
What a strange story. How about all those tourists that wander around with the cameras? Media? Do you have to have a special permit to record people? I thought there was a ruling a few years ago, where it was ruled that outside your home you are fair game for recording.
 
El Tejon

Yo, El T, can we get some input on this?

Y'know, like something legal sounding?

Wiretapping? With a camera?

Sounds like a real stretch.
 
An exception to the wiretapping law allows police to film people during traffic stops, Mancke said.

Why? Wouldn't the people in the vehicle during the traffic stop have just as much use of an accurate record of the event? Unless the intrests of the public are not what is being protected by this law.

Also, they talked about intent as being a condition of the crime. What is the malicious intent that this guy had in taping the stop?

And as mentioned already, how do TV news people record crowd scenes and other events where it isn't practical to get everybodies consent?
 
in pa you must the consent of all parties to the conversation. if you want to legally record, then you disable the audio input. working as a PI in PA i always disable the video on my camcorders, then i don't have to worry about what i may pickup if the subject gets too close to my camera.

his problem was having an active audio pickup and covering the camera. i have recorded officers in the past and made it plain that the audio was disabled, they didn't like but couldn't do anything when i declined to turn the camera off.

pat
 
That is a good point about why the officers have the right to record while the lowly serfs are not allowed to.

As public servants we should be able to record their actions and make sure they behave in a legal manner. I dont understand why the law allows some people to make exceptions while denying others the same rights.
 
This totally stinks. It should be legal for citizens to record, with audio or video, LEO's, or any other public officials, engaged in their official activity--as long it does not interfere with that activity and the person recording has a right to be there. I see no compelling reason to have to ask for permission or give notice, either. This is a totally different situation from, for example, recording a phone conversation between two private individuals who have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I've no problem with a law covering that.

If I'm pulled over, and I've got one of those little digital recorders stuck in my shirt pocket, I should be able to turn it on and record my conversation with the LEO, whether or not he is aware of it. Why? To protect my rights in a "He said/She said" kind of situation.

This is the kind of issue I'd like to see the ACLU get involved in.

K
 
Wasn't there a couple of similar stories here lately. One was the guy who was audio taping the police in Cali I think because he was being harassed and stopped on a daily basis...charged with wiretapping....and the other one was the guy asking for the LEO's name after video taping a stop and then got tossed in the clink for a night or two and came away with 8500 bucks for his trouble thanks to the ACLU?

This is totally outrageous...I myself am thinking of carrying a cam-corder full time in my car and if I get stopped the first words out of my mouth will be "you don't mind if I record this do you?"
 
FWIW, it's against Federal law to record a conversation between two or more people without either (1) a warrant, or (2) the consent of at least one party to the conversation. Many truck drivers carry "dispatch buster" tape recorders that they use to tape record conversations between themselves and their dispatchers, so if they wind up at the wrong place and their company tries to dock their pay, they can prove they were sent to the wrong place. This is legal under Federal law. However, some states, apparently including PA, have statutes, that prohibit recording conversations unless all parties to the conversation consent. That's what got the kid in trouble. The video tape would have been legal, had the camera not recorded the officer's voice as well as image.
 
This article from the website of Pennsylvania's Attorney General is interesting.

The general rule in Pennsylvania is that electronic surveillance is illegal. For the purposes of this article, "electronic surveillance" shall include ... oral (face-to-face conversations where there is an expectation of privacy/non-interruption) ... communications. This general rule, and certain limited exceptions thereto, appear in Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa. C.S. § 5701, et seq.

There are certain limited exceptions to the general prohibition against electronic surveillance. The exceptions exist for ... law enforcement in the furtherance of criminal investigative activities.

As to the law enforcement exception -- interceptions can only be undertaken in the furtherance of a criminal investigation. Further, the police do not have an unfettered ability to do interceptions. Their authority is tempered in situations where one of the parties (a LEO?) has consented to law enforcement's eavesdropping by the fact that they must get the prior approval of a designated prosecutor.

The majority of the Act is devoted to the law enforcement exception. In that regard, the Act provides law enforcement with five investigative techniques: 1) consensual interception of electronic, oral or wire communications (where one of the parties to the communication is aware of, and has consented to law enforcement's electronic eavesdropping);

As to 1), consensuals -- the technique must receive the prior approval of the District Attorney, Attorney General or an Assistant DA/Deputy AG before being undertaken.

In summary, Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act is all about privacy -- the expectation of privacy we have in our communications.

Despite the 'limiting' language and the claim the law is "all about privacy," I would bet that law enforcement officers have standing 'prior approval' for cameras in their cruisers.
 
There is a confusing maze of laws regarding the recording of conversations. And most of the laws that require consent of both parties to record a conversation came about because elected officials were the ones being burned.

When video was first available in squad cars we had to turn the microphones off in Illinois because the law required knowledge and consent of all parties to a conversation. The laws has since been changed and we can record audio as well as video on traffic stops in Illinois now.

It's always a good idea to check the local laws before you break out your tape recorder.

Jeff
 
In Texas you can record phone calls with single party consent. IOW you can tape a conversation you are a party to so long as the conversation takes place within Texas. Some states require both parties.

I would think that police actions would be a matter of public record and therefore fair game but I am no lawyer. Sounds like a job for the ACLU.
 
4) It's a felony to record an officer of the government in the performance of his duties! Not just a crime--which would be bad enough--but a felony! Think on that one for a minute.

Is that so? How could that be? I mean, cops have cameras in their cars, so they're recording a cop every time he makes a traffic stop. Why aren't they being prosecuted for it, then? Ohhh wait.

WHAT BS.
 
Thank God for Michigan's common sense. I can record anyone via audio or video anytime so long as at least one person in the room, or on the line is aware that a recording is being generated. Let me tell you, I am a very strong advocate of recordings! So many people lie unless they are on recording. Videos are best, but I'll settle for audio. When I was an administrator, I made numerous recordings.

We need consistent nation-wide laws. There are too many variances between Michigan, or any other state. That is wrong. If a cop can record me, by cracky I can record them, and I will. I also say every car, truck, ect made in America should have video/audio. It would cut down on lawsuits from accidents, and keep a lot of people from being needlessly arrested. JMHO.

Doc2005
 
We need consistent nation-wide laws.
No! The powers & responsibilities of the federal government are very limited. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the federal government the authority to make laws with regard to surveillance & recording devices.
 
But cameras have "value" in multiple states, making it interstate commerce...

While I do not believe it, the court has rules that way.
 
The general rule in Pennsylvania is that electronic surveillance is illegal. For the purposes of this article, "electronic surveillance" shall include ... oral (face-to-face conversations where there is an expectation of privacy/non-interruption) ... communications. This general rule, and certain limited exceptions thereto, appear in Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa. C.S. § 5701, et seq.

IANAL, but it seems to me that a traffic stop would be a fine example of a conversation with no expectation of privacy at all. Given that, I still don't see why this guy was charged.
 
In Texas you can record phone calls with single party consent. IOW you can tape a conversation you are a party to so long as the conversation takes place within Texas. Some states require both parties.
Despite the common understanding on the Internet that the law in Texas is the law everywhere... :rolleyes:

Taping a phone conversation without the consent of all parties, even if all parties are in the same state, violates federal law, which covers all telephonic communications.
 
Arfin, it is "wiretapping" because that's what section of the criminal statutes that the Oklahoma legislature stuck the section under. The legislature can call it anything they want.

Henry, you mean to tell me Texas is NOT the United States. Doesn't Texas have a double secret King's X, secret squirrel hidden loophole clause in their state constitution that federal law does not apply to Texas? "You can in Texas.":D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top