ghostrider10

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?

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.

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)

sbagdon

Has this been challenged?

reft

Which chapter and section of MGL?

MikeWard

Court case database reports a start date of December 9th at 9 am.

ghostrider10

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.

DevilDog438

Do you have a citation to the statute in question? Some of us would like to review it out of curiosity (IANAL).

ND Sol

Video is fine; it is the audio that is at issue.

studentff

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.

ghostrider10

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.

DevilDog438

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

reft

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.

Superguy

Fortunately, that was challenged here in MD and that was canned.

Maryland did earlier this year when a person filmed a stop by MDTA.

sethb

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.

ehasbrouck

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.

pmocek

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.

Six for misdemeanors here.