Hey, there! Log in / Register
If you're going to record a cop, keep that recorder out where he can see it
By adamg on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 11:48am
Lowney.
A guy who shows up at Darfur rallies to protest "the Zionist war" against Sudan was convicted of violating the state wiretapping law this week for recording a BU police officer outside a Darfur talk at BU, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office reports.
Meanwhile, a possible accomplice of the guy now faces charges of his own for allegedly leaving threatening messages on the officer's home phone number and for allegedly calling up BU President Robert Brown to express the wish that somebody slit his "fascist" throat. He is, not, however, charged with being a dumbass for leaving his phone number in one of his messages.
Peter Lowney, currently of Newton, was convicted in Brighton District Court on Wednesday. He was sentenced to six months on probation and a $500 fine. He was found innocent on a charge of disorderly conduct. Judge Robert Tochka also ordered him to remove any Internet videos related to the case. His arrest at BU came a little more than a month after he was arrested at Clark University in Worcester for allegedly disrupting a speech by US Rep. James McGovern on Darfur. He was also arrested in Lexington in October, 2005 outside a talk by the Israeli consul at a Lexington temple.
According to prosecutors, BU police arrived at the BU School of Public Health, 871 Comm. Ave. on Dec. 5 last year to deal with two protesters blocking the entrance with a 4x8 banner. Prosecutors say Lowney recorded the events with a Canon ZR600 Mini DV digital camcorder in his hand; when police told him to turn it off, he put it in his coat pocket and kept recording:
Upon noticing that the defendant was secreting something in his coat pocket, the officer asked if he was being recorded. When Lowney failed to respond, the officer reached into the defendant's pocket and retrieved the device, which was in record mode.
Lowney was arrested at this point and charged under Ch. 272, Sect. 99 (C), of the Massachusetts General Laws for concealing a device used to record the officer's voice without his consent.
The Daily Free Press reports that Lowney's lawyer argued the recording did not violate the state law because the officer knew he was being recorded.
Meanwhile, Jeffrey Manzelli of Medford now faces three counts of witness intimidation for allegedly leaving a series of threatening messages in voice mail for the officer in the case, other police officers and BU President Brown. The messages started as Lowney's trial began; prosecutors say they ended when the judge in Lowney's case threatened to revoke Lowney's bail if they continued. Prosecutors say they were able to find Manzelli when he left a contact phone number in one of messages. He was arraigned Nov. 29.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
check this out
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071207/D8TCC55G0...
As much as this a loony that
As much as this a loony that this guy is, I'd really don't get why Cops have the right to tell you to stop filming them. If you're in a public place, not impeding or inciting what they're doing, there's no reason. Is there a law against this, or does the fact that they are a cop give them the right that you need to obey them or face arrest for anything
I know they don't like it, because video will not lie if and when they don't do something by the book. If it was warranted, and judge will most likely dismiss the charge, but what are they hiding?
This reeks of a "good ol boys" club, where officers are above the laws they swear to protect, and try to shy away from transparency. I just read an article on how officers who are involved in off duty firearms incidents, are supposed to be given mandatory breathalyzers tests if near a bar or late at night, but it almost always never happens. Why is this acceptable?
Audio vs. Video
I agree that it seems correct to say that a person in a public place, including an officer, has no expectation of privacy. This is why it is not illegal to take a photograph or video recording of someone in a public place.
However, the way the law stands now is different for audio than for video. It is currently illegal to record a conversation without the knowledge and consent of both parties. Like it or not, this law was broken.
I believe he would have been within his rights to turn off the audio and keep recording the video. That would be a more interesting case.
I believe this is the relevant law:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-99.htm
This is something worth watching out for. For example, if you have a webcam pointed at a public place, or even your own porch, you would not want that to include sound recording.
So as the law stand, if I
So as the law stand, if I have this right:
If you're outside in a public place and videotapping, you're most likely breaking the law if anyone can be heard on the video.
Of cource thats a vey broad view on the law here, as the device the guy was using wasn't "modern methods of electronic surveillance"
I guess what really got him was the fact that he kept recording it under his coat, thus the dumble whammy of “interception”...
Still, this law's seems very old and dated in todays world of electronics and communications. It seems if you pick up any other people on a video recording, other then youself, it's a crime!
I agree
It's pretty obvious to me that the law is outdated and, though enacted from the best of motives (to facilitate cracking down on organized crime while still protecting private liberty) too easily mispurposed. The problem is... it's still the law.
One of the humorous parts here is that one might argue that you'd be okay using a cell phone as a surrepitious recording device.
Manzelli
is a bit of a kook himself: www.freemanz.com
Manzelli's stupidity
This reminds me of a nutjob I went to high school with. Freshman year, the guy threatens to kill me and then asks me for a ride home. Do you not understand what a threat is? You don't ask for rides from the victim and you don't leave callback numbers.
Maybe
Maybe he wanted to kill you but he also needed a ride home?Did he ever wind up killing you?
Yes.
BStu is posting from the grave!