Who Will Watch the Watchmen?: Citizens Recording Police Conduct
2015; Northwestern University School of Law; Volume: 106; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
0029-3571
Autores Tópico(s)European Criminal Justice and Data Protection
ResumoABSTRACT-Ordinary citizens are being arrested and prosecuted for recording police conduct in several states. These arrests are being made pursuant to state wiretapping statutes that prohibit the recording of any communication without the consent of all parties. Some of those arrested have filed lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the arrests violate the First Amendment. However, courts have tended to dismiss these suits, arguing that the right to record the police is not established. This Comment argues that the right to monitor the police and report misconduct is a clearly established, if not fundamental, element of American policing. It also maintains that arresting and prosecuting individuals who record police conduct constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. It concludes by arguing that judicial decisions rendering the recording of police unquestionably legal would not undermine police efforts. Advice to a Young Policeman[:] . . . Your acts will at all times be subject to the observation and the animadversion of the public, and on the stand-point where you commence, and on the course which you pursue, depends not only much of the welfare of the community in which you move, but the credit of the department to which you belong, and your own success as an officer and a man.[dagger] INTRODUCTION offthe motorcycle! Get offthe motorcycle! Get offthe motorcycle! State Police . . . put your hands up!1 off-duty Maryland State Trooper J.D. Uhler yelled as he jumped out of his car, pulled out his gun, and ran towards motorcyclist Anthony Graber.2 Trooper Uhler exited his personal vehicle wearing street clothes and, without displaying his badge, lunged towards Graber with his .40 caliber semiautomatic pistol readied.3 Graber, a twenty-four-year-old sergeant in the Maryland Air National Guard,4 was not without a weapon of his own5: he was recording the entire interaction using a helmet-mounted video camera.6 Graber admits-and his camera proves-that he was speeding and driving his motorcycle in a reckless manner,7 posing a serious risk both to himself and to other motorists. Trooper Uhler's reaction to the situation was therefore not necessarily unreasonable, although his interaction with Graber may have initially been more aggressive than was necessary.8 Either way, Graber's story does not end with a mere moving violation. On March 10, 2010, five days after being pulled over by Trooper Uhler, Graber uploaded the footage he recorded of the incident to YouTube.9 The Maryland State Police discovered the video on March 15, 201010 and charged Graber with violating Maryland's wiretapping laws.11 Had Graber been charged only with motor vehicle violations, he would have faced a maximum fine of $2090;12 but adding the wiretapping violations meant he faced those fines and up to sixteen years in prison.13 A warrant was issued and six police officers raided Graber's home at 6:45 AM14 on April 15, 2010.15 The search lasted ninety minutes, during which the police did not allow Graber's mother to leave for work or his sister to go to school.16 The officers seized four computers, several external hard drives and USB drives, and the camera Graber used to film his interaction with Trooper Uhler.17 The search would have concluded with an arrest of Graber had he not been physically unable to leave his home due to recent gall bladder surgery.18 Graber turned himself in to police a week later and, after spending twenty-six hours in jail, was released by a judge who was skeptical that Graber actually violated Maryland's wiretapping statutes.19 The applicable Maryland wiretapping statute makes it illegal to [w]illfully intercept, [or] endeavor to intercept . . . any wire, oral, or electronic communication20 and to [w]illfully disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication . . . .21 The police applied the statute to Graber's case because Maryland's wiretapping statute prohibits interception unless all parties consent to it. …
Referência(s)