Fourth Circuit: Individuals Have a First Amendment Right to Livestream Their Own Traffic Stops
eff.orgSubmitted by mepper t3_11aeick in technology
Atticus_Fatticus t1_j9s1gky wrote
I'm confused... so is there an official city policy banning livestreaming or no? The article makes it seem like that's some wild mystery when it should be extremely easy to tell whether or not that's true. It should either be a city statute or there's an internal policy which is subject to Freedom of Information Act requests or legal subpoena.
If it's not true, then where the fuck is the recourse? He can't sue the city unless there's an actual city policy banning livestreaming, and he can't sue the cop because of qualified immunity? So did the 4th circuit just rule that cops can pretty much just do whatever the fuck they want and citizens have no recourse unless there's a specific city policy banning their poor behavior? That's insane.
Jaedos t1_j9sk3kp wrote
About 10 years ago or so, a motorcyclist got pulled over and immediately had a gun drawn on him without cause.
He posted the video online.
The fucking cops charges him with FUCKING WIRE TAPPING because he included the audio.
Cops will find a way to fuck you.
DBDude t1_j9tmwya wrote
Two party consent state.
Jaedos t1_j9tn7rn wrote
As far as I know, it had nothing to do with consent. Regardless, it was on the side of a street in public so there's no expectation of privacy in the first place.
DBDude t1_j9tp7uj wrote
The laws are written so that if you make any audio recording without consent of one of the parties, it's illegal. The cop was one of the parties. It's against wiretapping, but it's written so broadly as to cover this.
Jaedos t1_j9tpx1r wrote
I found the judge's statement. I knew you can't have an expectation of privacy in a public setting.
"As to the wiretapping charges (contained in Counts one and two, which alleged the interception and dissemination of a “private conversation”), Judge Plitt found that police have no expectation of privacy in their public, on-the-job communications, and thus held Graber’s conduct could not be a crime: “The encounter in this case took place on a public highway in full view of the public. Under such circumstances, I cannot, by any stretch, conclude that the Troopers has any reasonable expectation of privacy in the conversation with the Defendant which society would be prepared to recognize as reasonable.”"
DBDude t1_j9tw6zi wrote
Right, but any target of such recording likes to leverage such laws to strike back. I’m glad this was overturned.
Jaedos t1_j9txi1m wrote
No, you know good and well that if you or I tried to get WT charges pressed against someone, the cops would laugh right in your face. This was done solely in retaliation for evidencing the cops bad behavior.
rshorning t1_j9wiylb wrote
You are correct that if you called a cop to have an ordinary person prosecuted for filming you in a park or at the side of a road that they would laugh at you and tell you to ignore it and move on.
The issue is if a pissed off cop doing something stupid would get his corrupt buddies to prosecute in this manner? Sure, rules for me but not for thee. It is seriously unbalanced and a form of corruption. Why a judge would accept that argument and convict for this reason is also something to condemn? Because they are a cop you recorded and nothing else.
It absolutely is in retaliation and because the judicial system gives different rules for police behavior than for us peons.
DBDude t1_j9u1eeo wrote
It can be done, especially by the targets of undercover journalists. It really depends on whether the prosecutor doesn't like the message.
And yes, it was retaliation. But the laws are written so broadly that it was easy to do. Had to go way up to get this crap stopped.
choicesintime t1_j9uqp03 wrote
Are you a cop? You are literally defending retaliation
CosmicBoat t1_j9us9au wrote
Leather is in his diet
DBDude t1_j9uujp8 wrote
No, I'm complaining the law is written so broadly that it invites such retaliation.
[deleted] t1_j9w5fpf wrote
[removed]
rshorning t1_j9wh3sv wrote
You missed his argument. The law as written is unjust and violates the first amendment, but still can be interpreted to apply in this situation if a prosecutor wants to press charges.
If a judge buys that the law should be enforced and you agree that you indeed record the cop without their permission, that law applies.
Yes, stupid logic but that is how absurd the law can get if written too broadly.
International_Day686 t1_j9v6lkz wrote
Found the cop.
DBDude t1_j9vcwt3 wrote
Why would a cop be glad the court went against cops?
jlm994 t1_j9tq3cm wrote
Do you have a legal source on this? Because I am pretty sure you are just incorrect.
To my knowledge, police on duty have no reasonable right to privacy performing their and can be recorded at any time and without consent.
The police deciding to charge a motorcyclist with “wiretapping” sounds like a clear abuse of power and corruption. Not sure why you feel the need to defend them seemingly?
It’s not “semantics” when cops purposefully misinterpret laws to benefit their power. For whatever reason as a society we have his huge leeway for cops to be wrong about how laws work- it straight up isn’t “wiretapping” by any definition to record a cop.
[deleted] t1_j9u2hj6 wrote
[deleted]
HaElfParagon t1_j9u4wds wrote
Only as long as you are recording form public property. You can't go onto their lawn to record, with some weird exceptions
okcdnb t1_j9u234s wrote
If it was me recording, I am one party.
Plus you have no reasonable expectation to privacy in public.
DBDude t1_j9u2ui9 wrote
Again, the laws are so broad that they enable such charges, and let the prosecutors prosecute. You have to hope it ends on appeal. There is no downside for them. You can't successfully sue a prosecutor for abusing these laws.
berntout t1_j9uanro wrote
You have zero idea what you're talking about and are completely wrong. Please stop spreading false information.
DBDude t1_j9ubc70 wrote
No, I'm correct because the police can use this law to arrest you, and the prosecutors can use it to prosecute you. That doesn't make it right, but you will end up spending a lot of money to defend yourself until some higher court throws it out, as in this case.
berntout t1_j9vgnv9 wrote
There’s a very good reason you’ve been severely downvoted. Take the hint and shut up
rshorning t1_j9whpkn wrote
He is explaining reality and the mindset of police and their buddies in a prosecutor's office. Those downvoting are just thinking he is defending instead of explaining. That is further from the truth.
Sure, a stupid law that can be abused. Why shoot the messenger?
DBDude t1_j9vjroo wrote
I've been downvoted because people can't read. I've already had two responses thinking I'm on the side of the police.
rigeld2 t1_j9wecwq wrote
Police and prosecutors can find something to charge you with - the fact that this law was written broadly doesn’t matter (and it wasn’t, hence the reason the court threw it out).
The underlying issue is that there’s no penalty for abuse of power.
RunninADorito t1_j9u92gf wrote
In a public space?? No.
[deleted] t1_j9v7v6d wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j9vtmdj wrote
[removed]
Badfickle t1_j9y7lco wrote
There is no consent required in a public place with public officials where there is no expectation of privacy.
fardough t1_j9swu8w wrote
Cops need to be held accountable to knowing the law. It is completely sickening a defense for police officers is “I didn’t know”.
blbd t1_j9sz4d1 wrote
Impossible due to the SCROTUS rulings on qualified immunity which doesn't even exist in the underlying legislation. You can't get busted as a cop for screwing over a citizen unless there's case law in that court circuit specifically declaring what the cops did before is not allowed. But you can't get that ruling made until another ruling is made before saying the same thing already. So you can never get a ruling at all.
amibeingadick420 t1_j9tn795 wrote
If anyone wants to know more about how the courts completely invented qualified immunity out of thin air to allow them to violate your constitutional rights without any recourse, the “Drunk Law School” podcast did a great three parter on it.
fardough t1_j9vn4hs wrote
Radiolab did an amazing episode on “What is the purpose of the Police?”
The had two really gut wrenching stories that will make you hate the police. The TLDR is the police could have protected them, but did nothing.
Turns out there was a Supreme Court case where the police fought it was NOT their obligation to protect. For it to be an obligation, it has to meet like 10 standards from went to the police to the police engage then failed to act. It made me incredulous. Protect and Serve my ass.
The other bit that was fascinating is in most states, no one chartered the police into existence. The police wrote their own charter, it was not given to them. Kind of crazy, the police just popped up and got funded. No clear ask in writing, almost as if the original purpose was to be the mayor’s goon squad and/or slave catchers.
So we have a government body that writes their own charter, are not here to protect us, are not required to know what they are enforcing, in fact not held to the same standard of law as everyone else, expect us to recognize their authority which the people actually never gave them, they investigate themselves, are rewarded for seizing peoples assets even without a conviction which allows them to militarize themselves, have max IQ requirements because they want them dumb enough to obey, and at a flinch are allowed to shoot people.
Then you have the bad cops.
ARobertNotABob t1_j9tj7ks wrote
I started watching The Rookie this week. OK, yes, I know it's a TV show, but cops knowledge of Laws and Procedures is shown as a literal bedrock, foundation, "where's your Rook Book?" being a repeated line.
Equally though, I'm also aware that cops are put on your streets with mere weeks of training; when was the last time you started a job where you just knew all the rules?
The whole thing seems like a bumblebee ... it shouldn't fly, and yet, somehow ...
amibeingadick420 t1_j9topf7 wrote
Heien v. North Carolina established that police don’t have to ow the laws, and if they pull you over for something that isn’t illegal because of their ignorance, then that is still a valid stop.
But, just to be clear, for the rest of us citizens, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
If government enforcers can make up laws, it is clear that laws, including the Bill of Rights which supposedly protects our rights, mean nothing. America is fucked. Likewise, fuck America.
WillBottomForBanana t1_j9ucuti wrote
Bonus bizarre point. Any other fed/state/local employee that I know of has to know the laws regarding their job and ignorance is literally not an excuse.
ericmm76 t1_j9udl4o wrote
Whats worse is that when you are being mistreated wrongly you need to be PERFECT. Any expression of frustration anger or god forbid correction is dangerous for you.
Especially if you're not white.
fardough t1_j9vozgx wrote
I see your point to a degree. No one is perfect and everyone makes mistakes.
The problem is these are enforcers of the law who can kill with impunity. The expectation should be as high as the risk. If you have the power of life and death, then you are expected to never get it wrong. If you can put an innocent person into prison, then it better be accurate. I agree here there is likely a line, mistaking similar statutes versus making up a law
On your first day at a new engineering job, they don’t give you root access to the main application and let you go at it. No, you have to show competence to gain that privilege, and every engineer knows if they delete main, then that is more than likely their job.
eftresq t1_j9y7t7i wrote
Sounds like my 9 year old.
[deleted] t1_j9tomzw wrote
[deleted]
HaElfParagon t1_j9u4lnw wrote
Not quite. If a cop is found to violate your civil rights a judge can choose to waive qualified immunity.
reddit-MT t1_j9utzxw wrote
It's usually more of a question of breaking some other law, not livestreaming specific. Like interfering with a police officer, resisting arrest or wiretap statues. So the "mystery" isn't about the existence of a livestreaming specific statue, but if other statues apply.
Qualified immunity may be invoked if it was not "clearly established" that livestreaming was legal at the time of the incident and the police should reasonably have known about it. Going forward, it's now established in the 4th circuit that livestreaming is legal, so long as the suspect doesn't violate another law in the course of livestreaming, like interfering with a police officer.
Other jurisdictions have laws that say, to paraphrase, that it's legal to record the police making an arrest but you have to maintain a certain distance and not interfere.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments