FC: Massachusetts high court rules against man who taped abusive cops

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

This is a fascinating case. The majority said that unless they ruled as 
they did, "every police encounter would be available for secret recording." 
(As if anything was wrong with that.) Welcome to the latest conflict 
between technology and the law.

Technology will win this footrace, at least in the long run. As recording 
devices fall in price and size, they'll become increasingly commonplace. 
Perhaps a next-generation privacy company will build a device that streams 
its recording to a remote site wirelessly, so even if it's smashed by 
police or lawbreakers, its data will survive. Or perhaps a next-generation 
justicefiles.org will allow victims of police brutality to anonymously post 
their recordings of police misconduct next to other information about that 
particular law enforcement officer.

At Defcon this weekend, I asked a group of four or five law enforcement 
officials what they thought about the idea of having shouldercams that 
they'd be required to wear when they interrogate suspects or conduct 
interviews or perform other official duties. The recordings would be 
released after five years or when the trial was over and appeals exhausted. 
Needless to say, they weren't very receptive to the idea.

-Declan

*********

Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 13:46:22 -0400
To: declan () well com
From: John Albino <jalbino () jwalbino com>
Subject: Massachusetts Man Guilty of Wiretapping for Taping Police
  Harassment

Declan,

Here's an AP article which appeared in the Boston Globe Friday. 
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/13/police_recording.htm

The Mass. Supreme Court essentially says that it is illegal wiretapping to 
secretly videotape police officers harassing someone during a traffic stop. 
Wonder if using a film camera would also be wiretapping?
--
John Albino
mailto:jalbino () jwalbino com

*********

The opinion is here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ma&vol=sjcslip/8429&invol=1
> GREANEY, J. This case raises the issue whether a motorist may be 
> prosecuted for violating the Massachusetts electronic surveillance 
> statute, G. L. c. 272, § 99, for secretly tape recording statements made 
> by police officers during a routine traffic stop. A jury in the District 
> Court convicted the defendant on four counts of a complaint charging him 
> with unlawfully intercepting the oral communications of another, in 
> violation of G. L. c. 272, § 99 F. The defendant appealed, and we granted 
> his application for direct appellate review. We conclude that G. L. c. 
> 272, § 99, strictly prohibits the secret electronic recording by a private 
> individual of any oral communication, and makes no exception for a 
> motorist who, having been stopped by police officers, surreptitiously tape 
> records the encounter. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of conviction. 
> [...]
>
> During the course of the stop, which lasted approximately fifteen to 
> twenty minutes, the defendant and his passenger, Daniel Hartesty, were 
> ordered out of the automobile, and Hartesty was pat frisked. One officer 
> reached into the automobile, picked up a plastic shopping bag that lay on 
> the floor by the passenger seat, and looked inside. (The bag contained 
> compact discs.) At one point, the defendant stated that the stop was "a 
> bunch of bullshit," and that he had been stopped because of his long hair. 
> One officer responded, "Don't lay that shit on me." Later, another officer 
> called the defendant "an asshole." The defendant was asked whether he had 
> any "blow" (cocaine) in the car. [...]

*********

The text of the statute is here:
http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/272%2D99.htm
> Except as otherwise specifically provided in this section any person whoª
> willfully commits an interception, attempts to commit an interception, or 
> procures any other person to commit an interception or to attempt to 
> commit an interception of any wire or oral ommunication shall be fined not 
> more than ten thousand dollars, or imprisoned in the state prison for not 
> more than five years, or imprisoned in a jail or house of correction for 
> not more than two and one half years, or both so fined and given one such 
> imprisonment.

*********




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------