Some readers have complained that my views are consistently pro-government. I suspect that is because I argue that taxpayers should be treated as having a duty to try to get their tax liabilities right, and that our tax rules let the better-to-do amongst us off too easily on paying taxes. But I don't think government is perfect (nowhere near); I don't think all current spending patterns are sacrosanct (we overspend enormously on the military and underspend enormously on public infrastructure and human capital development); I certainly don't think government agents are flawless (to err is human, and to err more often than one would think possible is political) and I do think government sometimes (even in some cases frequently) abuses the powers it has, including failure to regulate when it should and excessive regulation when it shouldn't.
So here's one example of a situation in which I think government misuses its policing powers against its own citizens. In this case, a Maryland man faces a possibility of 16 years in prison for an alleged violation of Maryland's wiretapping law, which does not allow recording of "private" conversations without consent of both parties. Traffic stop video on YouTube sparks debate on police use of Md. wiretap laws, Washington Post. The man was riding his motorcycle with a helmet camera on, recording his trip as he frequently did. He was pulled over and stopped by a gun-wielding nonuniformed officer in an unmarked car. When he released the tape, he was charged with violating the law. Police in Maryland apparently think they have every right to videotape their arrests from their car cameras, but that citizens have no right to videotape them making arrests.
Surely an officer on duty is performing in public and has no expectations of privacy in his on-duty conversations, except in rare exceptions (such as when he is conducting an undercover operation with an informant, as suggested in the piece). Otherwise, the state is taking a gigantic step towards a police state, one in which police have all the rights and cannot be held accountable when they break the rules because the best evidence isn't allowed to exist (or if it exists, isn't allowed to be used against them).
The judge should make clear that an interpretation of a law meant to protect individuals was not meant to protect police from having the sun shine on them when they are on duty. This case should be dismissed.
Recent Comments