Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID

Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID

Old Dec 7, 10, 10:18 am
  #961  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: BHM
Posts: 118
Originally Posted by PTravel View Post
I have no idea where you're getting this, but you're wrong. Even if the subject matter of the LEO's testimony has been the subject of an unsuccessful motion in limine to exclude it, the LEO's testimony can still be objected to and, if the objection has merit, the judge will sustain it and exclude the particular testimony that prompted the objection.
Yes but not before the jury happens to hear it. Even if the judge instructs the jury to disregard the testimony after the objection has been sustained, don't tell me that, as human beings, the jury is going to suddenly forget all about it?

Originally Posted by PTravel View Post
I don't know where you're getting this stuff but a lot of it is urban myth. District Attorney is a political position and decisions whether or not to prosecute are often made based on political considerations rather than legal ones. I don't know what has motivated Phil's prosecution, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if political pressure was brought to bear on the DA.
Yes it's a political position but they are still the ones (or their ADA subordinates) (and in pmocek's case, would be state's attorneys or their ASA subordinates) on the ground prosecuting the case in the courtroom. Read carefully what I wrote. The best possible outcomes for a DA in order of favorability: guilty/nolo contendre plea (move to sentencing), guilty on all charges verdict, guilty on some charges or not-guilty verdict that still manages to set a favorable pro-state precedent, and finally, the most unfavorable outcome for the state: not-guilty on all charges verdict. While it may be bad for the DA's career if they don't listen to political pressure to prosecute a case with political consequence, it is equally bad for the DA's career if they (or their staff) chase after cases which they can never win, even if it may look politically expedient to do so. Doing so may even backfire on the DA and their "handler", particularly if the non-guilty verdict sets a legal precedent opposite of the intended political effect.

Mostly from defense attorneys that I know. Some of whom have decided to teach at certain law schools. As well as some current ADAs that I went to college with. They have seen a lot of crap that happens in the courtroom.

Originally Posted by RichardKenner View Post
Has a court ever ruled on it at all? It would seem that photographing police has an important social purpose and would be one of the hardest photography to constitutionally ban.
See, here the issue is they charge you with things like: "illegal surveillance" (happened), "illegal wiretapping" (happened), "recording without consent" (unlike in VA, MA requires all parties to consent to be recorded), plus like with pmocek they'll tack on a bunch of "obstruction of law enforcement" for good measure. Sometimes these cases get dropped by the judge, sometimes they don't. It's less of a de jure "photography police is illegal" and more of a de facto standard. Basically, the cops won't hesitate to arrest you for it, and after that it's up to your hopefully competent lawyer to get you off the hook. Sometimes that doesn't work (see Commonwealth v. Hyde 2001)

Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Dec 13, 10 at 2:02 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
ghostrider10 is offline  
Old Dec 7, 10, 10:38 am
  #962  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: DTW
Programs: DL 0.22 MM, AA 0.34 MM, PC Plat Amb, Hertz #1 GC 5*
Posts: 7,511
Originally Posted by ghostrider10 View Post
Massachusetts has a state law that prohibits you from filming or recording a police officer, even when s/he's detaining -you- (not to mention anyone else). In a public place. It's not been ruled unconstitutional.
Has this been challenged?
sbagdon is offline  
Old Dec 7, 10, 10:57 am
  #963  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: US
Programs: (PM)AA UA DL SPG
Posts: 957
Originally Posted by ghostrider10 View Post
Massachusetts has a state law that prohibits you from filming or recording a police officer, even when s/he's detaining -you- (not to mention anyone else). In a public place. It's not been ruled unconstitutional.
Which chapter and section of MGL?
reft is offline  
Old Dec 7, 10, 10:59 am
  #964  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 42
Originally Posted by LessO2 View Post
Finally, December 7th is here. Whatever the outcome is of the trial, personally, I'm happy that the end is near as far as this thread's life goes.
Court case database reports a start date of December 9th at 9 am.
MikeWard is offline  
Old Dec 7, 10, 11:12 am
  #965  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: BHM
Posts: 118
Originally Posted by reft View Post
Which chapter and section of MGL?
You need to read the previous post I made. It is a de facto application of the recording all-party consent statute by the LEOs during the arrest. LEO did not consent to recording, therefore the person doing the recording must c&d or face arrest. You can google "massachusetts police recording" yourself for the press on that. Apparently Illinois is worse, as they do not have an allowance for public places where "an expectation of privacy does not exist" either. And in the Maryland v. Graber case, Graber actually got arrested not at the scene or time of the recording, but only after he posted it to youtube and the cops saw it. They even tacked on as a charge "recording illegal activity" for good measure. Although ultimately in that case, all the charges except for the traffic violations were dropped.

Ultimately this speaks to the "what price would you pay" thread in the light of civil disobedience.

Last edited by ghostrider10; Dec 7, 10 at 11:26 am
ghostrider10 is offline  
Old Dec 7, 10, 11:16 am
  #966  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Somewhere near BWI
Programs: DL DM, HH Dia, SPG Gold, MR Plat, Hertz PC
Posts: 3,654
Originally Posted by ghostrider10 View Post
You need to read the previous post I made. It is a de facto application of the recording consent statute by the LEOs during the arrest. LEO did not consent to recording, therefore the person doing the recording must c&d or face arrest.
Do you have a citation to the statute in question? Some of us would like to review it out of curiosity (IANAL).
DevilDog438 is offline  
Old Dec 7, 10, 11:21 am
  #967  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,945
Originally Posted by ghostrider10 View Post
Massachusetts has a state law that prohibits you from filming or recording a police officer, even when s/he's detaining -you- (not to mention anyone else). In a public place. It's not been ruled unconstitutional.
Video is fine; it is the audio that is at issue.
ND Sol is offline  
Old Dec 7, 10, 11:22 am
  #968  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,712
Originally Posted by ghostrider10 View Post
Massachusetts has a state law that prohibits you from filming or recording a police officer, even when s/he's detaining -you- (not to mention anyone else). In a public place. It's not been ruled unconstitutional.
Originally Posted by ghostrider10 View Post
You need to read the previous post I made. It is a de facto application of the recording all-party consent statute by the LEOs during the arrest. LEO did not consent to recording, therefore the person doing the recording must c&d or face arrest.
IIRC Commonwealth vs Hyde was the driver who made a secret audio recording of abusive police behavior, and the ruling was based on the all-party-consent audio recording law.

Are you also claiming that MA has a law prohibiting the photographing and filming (image only) of law enforcement?

I don't like the Hyde ruling one bit, and wonder if it would stand up today in light of the recent ruling in MD in favor of the recording motorist. I don't think public officials should have any expectation of privacy whatsoever when performing their duties on publicly accessible property or someone else's private property. But I (hope) the state has not gone so far as to ban photography.
studentff is offline  
Old Dec 7, 10, 11:29 am
  #969  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: BHM
Posts: 118
Originally Posted by studentff View Post
IIRC Commonwealth vs Hyde was the driver who made a secret audio recording of abusive police behavior, and the ruling was based on the all-party-consent audio recording law.

Are you also claiming that MA has a law prohibiting the photographing and filming (image only) of law enforcement?
I am not claiming that the law actually exists as written that way. I am merely claiming that Commonwealth of Massachusetts LEOs may/will regard that activity as illegal and then try to arrest you for it, citing the the all-party consent recording law. That was "the law" I was referring to in the IP. Sorry for being vague the first time around.
ghostrider10 is offline  
Old Dec 7, 10, 11:40 am
  #970  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Somewhere near BWI
Programs: DL DM, HH Dia, SPG Gold, MR Plat, Hertz PC
Posts: 3,654
Since the question has been asked for the MA recording law citation, and not answered, figured I would look it up:

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/Ge...r272/Section99
DevilDog438 is offline  
Old Dec 7, 10, 11:47 am
  #971  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: US
Programs: (PM)AA UA DL SPG
Posts: 957
Originally Posted by ghostrider10 View Post
...It is a de facto application of the recording consent statute by the LEOs....
That's what I thought.

The MGL is http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/Ge...r272/Section99 so we can at least argue the fine points from the same document, but it's not that cut and dry in MA because of case law.

In Hyde, the recording was covert, and the conviction upheld. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-suprem...t/1330122.html While reading Hyde, also read the dissent.

In Peyton and in Glik, the recording was not covert, and no conviction resulted. I'll leave it to someone else to find these cases, I don't have the time right now.

The above cases (and others) turned on whether it's covert or not.

In the 2nd circuit, Caro v Weintraub http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...41010676.shtml (full case: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/th...08/wiretap.pdf) the court found that a covert recording could be very legal, depending on intent. (Required criminal or tortuous intent -- recording to clarify one's memory of the event was acceptable, even if ok. Criminal and Tortuous intent was if you intended to blackmail, etc., prior to recording.)

(Disclaimer, IANAL, in your state, your mileage may vary; federal law may be different)

Now, what will happen if you record the wrong cop?
1) you will be arrested.
2) you will be charged with the wiretap, disorderly and interfering and anything else they can throw at you. If you're in a car, that will be towed so you have the added fun of getting your car back. Likewise, you'll probably have to wait to get your phone / camera returned to you.
3) you'll need to hire a lawyer to get the above charges thrown out. If you can't afford one, you'll probably plea out on one or more charges.
If it's really, really the wrong cop, you and/or your camera might bounce off a hard object a few times too circa #1.

Last edited by reft; Dec 7, 10 at 11:49 am Reason: typo.
reft is offline  
Old Dec 7, 10, 11:57 am
  #972  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Silver, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,122
Originally Posted by ghostrider10 View Post
Massachusetts has a state law that prohibits you from filming or recording a police officer, even when s/he's detaining -you- (not to mention anyone else). In a public place. It's not been ruled unconstitutional.
Fortunately, that was challenged here in MD and that was canned.

Originally Posted by RichardKenner View Post
Has a court ever ruled on it at all? It would seem that photographing police has an important social purpose and would be one of the hardest photography to constitutionally ban.
Maryland did earlier this year when a person filmed a stop by MDTA.

Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Dec 13, 10 at 1:59 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
Superguy is offline  
Old Dec 7, 10, 12:21 pm
  #973  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: DL DM, MM, NR; HH Diamond, Bonvoy Titanium, Hyatt Explorist, others
Posts: 11,517
Originally Posted by N830MH View Post
You probably know better that he cannot allowed to do video recording at TSA checkpoint without explanations from LEO. He does it again and he will getting arrested again. LEO will haul him to the county jails. Because video camera is prohibited at security.
Video recording is prohibited only if there is a (valid) law prohibiting it. The Security Theater Authority not liking it does not constitute a valid law. Your statements do not constitute a valid law.

If you wish your claim that there is such a law to be sustained, you must provide a reference that can be checked, such as a pointer into the US Code.
sethb is offline  
Old Dec 7, 10, 12:43 pm
  #974  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Francisco, USA
Posts: 79
Originally Posted by MikeWard View Post
Court case database reports a start date of December 9th at 9 am.
I was in the courtroom today when the trial was scheduled to begin. Prosecutor Dan Rislove claimed that he had only just learned of the existence of additional video evidence, and needed more time to review this video. Defense attorney Molly Schmidt-Nowara told the court that the prosecution had already been aware of the existence of this video, but agreed to a 2-day delay of the trial until 9 a.m. Thursday morning, December 9th, to allow the prosecutor more time to review the video.

I've updated the Identity Project FAQ, and will be posting further updates and reports in the Identity Project blog. But since no cell phones, laptops, pagers, or other electronic communications devices are allowed anywhere in the courthouse, don’t expect live-blogging or for me to be able to return phone calls or e-mail messages from the courthouse or until after the end of each day of the trial.
ehasbrouck is offline  
Old Dec 7, 10, 1:16 pm
  #975  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 1,438
New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek day one: continued until Thursday

State of New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek, day one:

I relay the following without comment for those who were not in attendance today. I will not discuss anything that was not observable in open court.

Multiple cases were on the docket for 9am in the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court. A young man repeatedly told Judge Fitzwater that the judge was not listening to the man's story but was nonetheless fined $25 for rear-ending another vehicle while following too closely. Much confusion surrounded a case in which the defendant's translator was late and the one man who in attendance was able to translate did not understand the judge's question, "Are you the alleged victim of battery?" A few other cases were handled briefly.

Around 10am, "State of New Mexico v. Phillip Mossack" was addressed. The prosecutor immediately requested a continuance, claiming that he needed time to review a video that was provided to him by the defense attorney yesterday. The defense attorney said the video is only three minutes long, and just shows what happened during the incident. The judge said it's been over a year and asked why this only came up yesterday. Defense attorney said she only received the video this weekend, and it wasn't known to be needed until after conducting interviews of the prosecution witnesses.

A minor ruckus ensued when a member of the press begin to use a hand-held audio recorder and a camera from the gallery. The TSA attorney, also in the gallery, held up a file folder to hide his face from the camera. An Albuquerque police officer who was seemingly in the courtroom for unrelated reasons became very agitated, then approached the bench and told the judge that the man was taking photographs. The judge reminded the officer that he had stated earlier that photography of jurors was not allowed. There were no jurors in the room at the time.

The prosecutor stated that the state will call no more than eight witnesses. The defense attorney said that defense will call two.

The defense attorney requested that if the trial be continued, it resume this week, as the defendant has traveled from Seattle for the trial. Motion to continue was granted. Case will resume Thursday at 9:00 a.m. Judge Fitwater's two-week military reserve duty is to begin Monday.

Originally Posted by Ari View Post
I don't know if it will be a 6-person jury or a 12-person jury
Six for misdemeanors here.
pmocek is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: