(2010-07-07) We draw your attention to an unfolding case that has already received local press, but is nevertheless worthy of your continued tracking. In March motorcyclist Anthony Graber was speeding – this he acknowledges – up I95 through Harford County when he was stopped by a driver who cut him off, leaped from the car brandishing a handgun and began barking orders. Only seconds later did the assailant even claim to be a Maryland State Police trooper making a traffic stop. A badge appeared eventually. Graber obeyed commands, accepted his ticket and was sent on his way. The reason the world can know about out-of-control cop behavior was the prominent helmet camera mounted atop Graber’s head. Footage from this he later posted on the internet, which triggered more out-of-control MSP behavior: they raided Graber’s home, confiscated computers and cameras, and charged him with a felony under a Maryland law that proscribes capture of audio from someone who doesn’t know he is being recorded.
Apparently out-of-control troopers don’t like the world knowing what is, for them at least, business as usual.
For the record, Maryland’s wiretapping law does proscribe audio capture of unknowing parties in situations that are not public. Disclosure to all parties removes that issue from the table. (This is why legislative hearings feature a sign announcing if proceedings are recorded, and interviews begin with an obligatory statement that the subject is being recorded, right?) At that point parties have no right to have equipment turned off – they can choose not to talk. As to this encounter, no officer making a traffic stop on a public highway of someone wearing a large camera on his head has any expectation of privacy. The ACLU is involved in this case as everyone lawyers up. Good!
We have so many good reasons to track (if not actively support the defendant in) this case. Police in Maryland, who are often driven by administrators with some social agenda, commonly overreach in gun matters, but by the time the case gets distilled to some clinical legalese and reported (if at all) through mainstream media, the reality of what happened is lost on most people – especially middle ground voters who don’t know about firearm policy, who take at face value the soothing assertions from elected leaders but who would be horrified to see what is really being done in their name. If they’re willing to assault motorists for speeding, then imagine what MSP does on a gun bust. Imagine it – because as it stands today, someone who was able to record it would risk being charged with a felony.
If cops do a good job enforcing important public safety policy, then wouldn’t you think they’d welcome an open window into their world, that would showcase them and make illegal behavior easier to quash?
If the highwayman who assaulted Graber – and it was clearly an assault – had been intent on, say, an armed robbery of the motorist, we trust nobody would be overly concerned about a recording made as the crime went down. (Or is it MSP’s contention that police could not use audio of a thug who said “give me your money and ride?”) The same openness ought to be true once the assailant turned out to be a trooper. Maryland citizens have a right to see what police do in public and in their name, and if this is not recognized now then it should be a first order of business in the next legislature. Cops who insist they can work only in unaccountable secrecy should be shown the door.