Do police on duty have an expectation of privacy?

[BT]

Film yes , stand no.

Why the restrictions?

[Plane]

Film yes , stand no.

Why the restrictions?

I have been a licensed Bus driver.

For safety the driver may demand passengers be seated.

I don't see a safety problem with being on film.

Some schools are placeing the cameras on busses now to help record the events as truely as possible.

[BT]

You wouldn't think being filmed by some passenger would be a distraction to the driver and compromise the safety of all the passengers on the bus?

[kimba1]

You wouldn't think being filmed by some passenger would be a distraction to the driver and compromise the safety of all the passengers on the bus?

what??

it`s not uncommon for people to be uncomfortable being filmed. it`s kinda related to public speaking.
not everybody can handle it well.

bus drivers are not required to handle being filmed.

[Plane]

You wouldn't think being filmed by some passenger would be a distraction to the driver and compromise the safety of all the passengers on the bus?

It is being done. I don't think a good driver would think much of it.

[BT]

It's being done with automated systems and not by passengers with toys.

[Plane]

It's being done with automated systems and not by passengers with toys.

So the employer can tape the video , the paying customer can't?

Why not? What is a driver going to do that being on camera will harm?

Have you parked in the Wall Mart parking lot lately?

[BT]

So a paying customer filming the bus driver is doing it for security reasons , like the cameras at walmart and the bus company mounted cameras above the drivers seat?

Is the film public property or private, do i have the right to view it?

[Plane]

So a paying customer filming the bus driver is doing it for security reasons , like the cameras at walmart and the bus company mounted cameras above the drivers seat?

Is the film public property or private, do i have the right to view it?

I do not know why the customer wants to make the tape. Unless something unusual happens this will be a very boreing tape. I don't see why the intent matters.

The guy that took the tape of the cops ythat stopped him had a helment mounted camera , should these be forbidden on public roads?

I certainly have an expectation of privacy in my house , but do I have an expectation of privacy on the road? In the woods? In someone eleses house? , place of business?

How was this guy supposed to have known that the fellow approaching him was an undercover cop? How can we give undercover cops a greater right to privacy that the ordinary guy they are pretending to be can have?

 
A man was driving down the road. He passed a traffic camera and saw it Flash.

Astounded that he had been caught speeding when he was doing the speed limit, he turned around and, going even slower, he passed the camera.

Again, he saw it flash. He couldn't believe it! So he turned and, going a snail's pace, he passed the camera. AGAIN, he saw the camera flash. He guessed it must have a fault, and home he went. Four weeks later he received 3 traffic fines in the mail, all for not wearing a seatbelt.

Submitted by Larry, Walkersville, MD.
 
 
Return to: Top of Page, List of Funny Stories, My little Sister's Jokes
 
http://www.emmitsburg.net/humor/archives/funny_stories/funny_stories_5.htm#A man was driving down the road. He passed a traffic camera and saw it Flash.

[kimba1]

uhm
I might be seeing this wrong,but when it`s an iisue about undercover officer it`s not about privacy, but the well being of the officer. it`s a situational thing.meaning if somebody flashes a camera and gets beaten up the officer maybe risking his life if he gets involved.this is not a privacy issue at all.

[Plane]

uhm
I might be seeing this wrong,but when it`s an iisue about undercover officer it`s not about privacy, but the well being of the officer. it`s a situational thing.meaning if somebody flashes a camera and gets beaten up the officer maybe risking his life if he gets involved.this is not a privacy issue at all.

No this would become an issue of performing as an undercover agent well or poorly.

When it is necessacery to break cover to save a life or to stop a very serious crime there should be no reason to hesitate. But without extrodinary circumstances the undercover cop should act just as if he were what he was pretending to be, who stops to assist a traffic stop other than an officer?

I would not willingly endanger an undercover cop , but how can I be required to preserve the secret that should be secret also from me?  If I am useing a camera in a crouded area , should all of the undercover cops in the croud make themselves known to me so that I can blurr their image?

[Plane]

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/04/19/motorcyclist-arrested-for-recording-cop-brandishing-gun-with-hel/

[BT]

Yeah i watched the whole video.

The biker passed a cop in the median at about a 3rd of the way into the video. my guess is at that point there was an active pursuit. According to the comments, reports said the biker was driving in excess of 100 mph.

again, if MD has a law on the books against recording audio communication without both parties being aware of it, so be it.

[Universe Prince]

According to David Rittgers at Cato:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/06/03/revise-the-maryland-wiretap-law/

If you ask some officers in Maryland, any recording of a conversation violates the wiretap statute. If you ask a judge, you will get an entirely different reading of the law. Even though Maryland’s wiretapping statute is considered a “unanimous consent” or “two-party consent” law, its language is different from other states put in the same category such as Massachusetts and Illinois. Where Massachusetts and Illinois have no protection for recordings of conversations outside of electronic means of communication, the first section of the Maryland wiretapping law restricts unlawful interceptions of “oral communications” to words spoken in a “private conversation.” While the analysis for wire communications is made without regard to privacy, Maryland courts held in Fearnow v. C & P Telephone Co. that a “private conversation” is one where there is a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Fourth Amendment jurisprudence provides plenty of guidance on where a “reasonable expectation of privacy” exists. Simply put, a traffic stop on an interstate is not a place where Anthony Graber or the officers who cited him have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This conclusion is bolstered by the guidance given to the Montgomery County Police by the Maryland Attorney General in this 2000 advisory opinion on recording traffic stops. Since 1991, the wiretapping statute had an exemption for police dash cameras where officers could record interactions with motorists when they warned the citizen that the traffic stop would be recorded. The 2000 letter addresses the possibility that other people could show up after the receipt of consent from a motorist and potential “inadvertent interceptions.” The opinion concludes that there is little for officers to worry about, but the state legislature expanded the law enforcement exception in 2002 to address this concern anyway. In a footnote, the advisory opinion makes the point that, in any case, the motorists being pulled over have no reasonable expectation of privacy:        It is also notable that many encounters between uniformed police officers and citizens could hardly be characterized as “private conversations.” For example, any driver pulled over by a uniformed officer in a traffic stop is acutely aware that his or her statements are being made to a police officer and, indeed, that they may be repeated as evidence in a courtroom. It is difficult to characterize such a conversation as “private.”        The Attorney General’s office provided further guidance on the issue in this letter to a state legislator in 2009, advising that surreptitious recording of a meeting of the Democratic Club would probably not be a violation of the Maryland wiretapping law because statements made in this setting lack a “reasonable expectation of privacy.”

That the biker was speeding doesn't matter. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy between a police officer and a citizen in a traffic stop when the officer is making the recording. Making an audio/visual recording of an encounter with a police officer in a traffic stop is not and should never be a violation of the law.

[BT]

Then the judge who issued the warrant for the computer equipment and the arrest of the subject was wrong, which ruling  i guess will come out in trial or appeal, if the case makes it to trial.