I have written about the disregard for civil liberties in Maryland before. See, Something’s Rotten about Policing in the State of Maryland, and Elsewhere. In that earlier post, I wrote about a SWAT raid gone bad — in almost every which way — at the home of the completely law-abiding mayor of Berwyn Heights.
Maryland’s practices are a fine example of the very things a free community should avoid. Wisconsin would be both wrong and foolish to follow examples that Maryland offers all too frequently.
Officials in the state also have a disregard for lawful photography and video recording, as Radley Balko of Reason observed recently, in a post entitled, “In Spite of State Law, Maryland Law Enforcement Officials Still Arresting, Charging People for Recording Cops.”
(Note: Balko’s story includes links to other examples of Maryland officials disregarding civil liberties while ordinary citizens tried to record acts of violent misconduct — literally, beatings.)
In a column last month I [Balko] wrote about Anthony Graber, a Maryland man who was arrested for posting a video of a traffic stop to YouTube. Graber was pulled over on his motorcycle by Maryland State Trooper Joseph David Ulher. Uhler drew his gun during the stop. Graber was wearing a camera on his helmet. Graber thought Uhler’s actions were excessive, so he posted the video to the Internet. Days later, police raided the home of Graber’s parents. Graber was arrested, booked, and jailed. He was charged with violating Maryland’s wiretapping statute. In an interview he gave to blogger Carlos Miller shortly after, Graber said, “The judge who released me looked at the paperwork and said she didn’t see where I violated the wiretapping law.”
In my previous column, I interpreted that to mean the judge had dropped the charge. Apparently that isn’t the case. Graber is due in court next week. He faces up to five years in prison. State’s Attorney Joseph Cassilly has also charged Graber with “Possession of an Interception Device.” That “device” would be Graber’s otherwise-perfectly-legal video camera.
Balko recounts another case, more recent, in which a citizen was falsely told that he was not allowed to record a police officer:
Now we have another video of an arrest during the Preakness Stakes in which a Baltimore police officer can be heard telling the camera-holder, “Do me a favor and turn that off. It’s illegal to record anybody’s voice or anything else in the state of Maryland.”
That simply isn’t true, and it’s outrageous that Maryland law enforcement keeps perpetuating this myth. Perhaps that officer was merely misinformed. But Maryland police spokesmen and prosecutors are giving the impression that the state’s wiretapping law is ambiguous about recording on-duty police officers. It really isn’t. They’ve just chosen to interpret it that way, logic and common sense be damned.
Maryland is an all-parties-consent state, which means you have to get permission from all parties to a conversation before you can record it. But unlike Illinois and Massachusetts, Maryland’s law does include a privacy provision. That is, if the non-consenting party does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the conversation that has been recorded, there is no violation of the law. State and federal courts across the country have determined that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces. This is why someone can snap your photo in public without your consent.
Emphasis added.
Not only is the officer in the latest situation wrong, but he’s foolish to object to recordings that would help determine wrongful official conduct or exonerate falsely accused officers. No one should object to a means to come closer to the truth of a situation. That’s especially true when good and professional officers are fighting false, self-serving accusations from lying suspects. Good officials should support recording because the law allows it and it’s prudent.