Do police officers have an expected right to privacy?
 

If the police are allowed to have their own cameras rolling could you? As a public servant do they have any reasonable right to privacy as they are doing their jobs?

I don't trust all police officers, so yes I do think I could and should have my own cameras recording. Different angles and different points of view are part of movie production providing different information and structure to the construct of the scene. I find it no different than multiple witnesses with an exact memory of what transpired.

I also do not think that police officers have any reasonable right to privacy WHILE they are doing their jobs. As public servants they are public when they are doing their jobs.

I have to think about this for a while, but the first thing that comes to mind is that I'm guessing the police force isn't putting all their shit on YouTube.

You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places.

This was on a public road.

The cop was operating in his capacity as a police officer, whether he was on duty or not. So, yes, I agree with Cyn here.

I'm not sure how it differs between photography and video/sound recordings, but there's this bit here:
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

the crux of the prosecution is that this violates wiretapping laws. They aren't concerned about the video portion but the audio portion. Maryland is a two party state where both parties have to consent to audio recordings.

The purpose of this is to cover private conversations, but again, the individual officer is not a private citizen at that point.

Are you saying that the interaction between the officer and the driver shouldn't be considered a private conversation? Does this mean it would be okay to have the police force stream all these interactions online, kind of like a reality show?

Does Maryland have dashboard cams installed in their cruisers? If so, then I suppose that the citizens of Maryland have already given their consent to being taped by law enforcement, yes? And if that's the case, then I don't see how law enforcement can claim a violation of wiretapping laws if the public reciprocates by taping law enforcement.

It isn't a private conversation in the construction it is now. It is in open public. If anyone else stopped on the side of the road they could hear and listen to the conversation. There is no reasonable expectation of any privacy.

With respect to the driver, there are other laws that come into place that don't allow for streaming online like "presumed innocent" since the audience has no way to determine if the suspect is actually guilty.

---------- Post added at 01:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:50 PM ----------

That is a great question. I don't know if MD officers have access to dashboard cams and audio is also clearly heard, so there would have to be some sort of implied consent.

Yes, but there is a difference between a highway offramp in rural Maryland during what looks like non-peak hours and YouTube.

I'd give you that if the officer was citing that he doesn't consent to his image being used for commercial usage. Again, not the case.

Even then if the video poster just blurred out his face, it would still be fair game.

That cop is lucky he wasn't pulling a gun on a member of the American gun culture. I can think of at least three people who would have pulled their concealed guns in such a situation and wouldn't have hesitated in firing at the armed aggressor.

But how can anyone expect any right to privacy in a public place? What ever you say or do on the side of the road is potentially not only going to be seen/heard by multiple people but the chance also remains that it might be recorded and shown elsewhere. I don't have the right to tell a person recording on the street corner to stop because my likeness or a conversation I'm having winds up in his film...the best I could hope for is maybe a blurred face...if it was going to youtube I really couldn't even hope for that.

I don't know, he's a public servant doing a job paid for by taxpayers while working in a public place how much privacy can or should he really expect?

Yep, it's a public place and to hide behind wiretapping laws is bull shit, IMO.

When I worked in a convenience store years ago I had video cameras on me at all times that were always watched by management. I had no right to privacy while on the job and why should I? My employers had every right to see what I was doing on their property with their time, money and customers. I don't really see this as being any different, sure the posting on youtube might be a gray area but I don't see anything wrong with the other citizens of Maryland being able to see how their public servants are behaving on the job.

Any citizen should have a right to film a traffic stop or any other altercation with the police to both ensure their own safety and make sure proper procedure is followed. If its not it gives them recourse to have the officer punished...why it almost seems like this wiretapping thing is a way to discourage the public from doing that.

EDIT: I hate typos

Concur

I agree with B_G that putting it on YouTube may be what takes it over the line. A local newspaper may, by law, publish a list of Registered Sex Offenders (probably in the lower corner of page 37) without violating their privacy. Is putting those same names (a matter of public record) on a roadside billboard in letters 4-feet high also a non-violation?
Does privacy come in degrees, like murder charges? Or is it an all or nothing matter?
Will we go from trial by judge or jury to trial by YouTube?
How about trial by the mob in the coliseum?

I would not dispute the right of the motorcyclist to record this "transaction." I think that publishing it on YouTube takes it over the line.

Lindy

Lindy almost all names of sex offenders are already available with their name and address online in just about ever jurisdiction. This isn't about public record, this is about private citizens being allowed to publish or broadcast information about public servants. What you are comparing it to is the State making public information about private citizens which is a very different story.

How many satellites have we put into orbit to police ourselves?

We are a curious, paranoid bunch.

The only thing this has to do with is upper level police officials putting pressure on political candidates to protect their own ass. The Police in Maryland have a LONG history of pulling the gloves off and going overboard, doing this helps them prevent actual evidence to be shown.

It's against the Supreme Court Ruling that there is 0 promise of privacy for anything done in public space.

The dashboard cameras routinely have "corrupted disks/tapes" whenever the evidence would point to police corruption/abuses, yet work 100% of the time in court cases for any non-police offender.

It's BS, and if I was this guy I'd turn to the ACLU and take it all the way to the Supreme Court.

*Edit*
If you take pictures of an individual in a private setting, you need written permission to publish said picture.
If you take pictures of an individual on the street, you do not need any permission whatsoever.

If you record a conversation over the phone or in a private space, you must get written consent prior to.
If you record a conversation in a park or public space, you do not need any permission whatsoever.

The Supreme Court ruled that there is 0 promise of privacy in public settings. That's why the malls/casinos/schools/hotels/hospitals/etc do not need your permission... ever. There is 0 promise so anything you do can be videotaped, this cop should have even less promise as he's a public servant.

Releasing it over YouTube is the only sometimes to fight back. While I hate Rodney King, a bad person with a LONG list of arrests/prison/etc, without videotape no one would have ever heard of it... and beating unarmed people would still be a relatively common occurrence. If they are actually good cops, they shouldn't oppose these things as it'd help weed out the dipshit ones.

I concur with Seaver. A good (hell, even lousy) video tape is the only way to fight back in many cases. But probably not this case. Moron on CBR1000.

Who exactly? Guys that act like dipshits on motorcycles and then, five minutes later, get stopped by a cookie-cutter Johnny D. Law type yelling at them from the front while a uniformed officer in a marked cruiser pulls up behind them (see end of video)? C'mon, there is no mystery as to this dude's job.

And, hell, just look at the guy. White dude with GI Joe haircut, furrowed cranky cop brow, rewind jargon talk, subdued color clothes.

Nobody with half a brain would have gone for a concealed handgun in those circumstances. I'm curious as to who you "know" who'd do that.

Still, it's my feeling that the plainclothes cop didn't need to do anything but index his piece given the circumstances.

i agree with seaver as well. i was thinking about philadelphia's finest and their long and glorious history of beating the shit out of people and also beating the shit out of people who document them beating the shit out of people. so yeah, this is a tactical move by the maryland state police aimed at preventing real evidence of real problems from ending up on youtube.

and no, i don't think there's a presumption of privacy in a situation where a cop is acting in his official capacity as a cop, even one who's off duty seemingly and doing a bit of rambo action. i think rather the contrary--that the police in their official capacities should be subject to maximum public scrutiny to keep them in line.

but off duty and not acting in their official capacities, police officers become regular folk with day jobs and i'd expect the presumptions would be different. in other words, i wouldn't be cool with broadcasting footage of cops hanging out at a barbeque.

The biker's entire set up looks badass. Had to be said.

The second the cop pulled out his gun was the second he lost rights to privacy, essentially becoming on duty.

I say keep on videotaping and recording what the po-leece do in public, there's nothing else to keep them accountable when they fuck up (this video).

Would the Maryland police/courts go after someone posting a vid on YouTube, without permission, of a Maryland State Trooper doing something heroic in a public place?

IMO the recording of any inneraction with law enforcement officers should be allowed. As others have said posting it on YouTube blurs the line.

I think police in public should have the same right to privacy as everyone else. The question is in public should they have some extra right that other people don't and the obvious answer is no. When they are in public like in this case they should have no expectation of privacy. And if they did their job right they should not have any concern.

The only added reason I can kind of think of for police is undercover cops not wanitng their faces recorded, but such a situation should not be the norm in public.

I imagine I have at *least* 3/4 of a brain, and I think I might've. If I'd seen the uniformed officer in the badged car in my motorcycle's mirror, perhaps.. but if someone cut over in front of me like that on my motorcycle they've already endangered me (if not threatened me with a deadly weapon) and then they get out with a gun? It's a very narrow window of time before he identifies himself and the marked car pulls up, but I think I'd at least be instinctively reaching for it by then. If I do CCW on the motorcycle, though.. it's under my jacket or in my backpack. I know I wouldn't have it in my hands in this amount of time anyway..

I understand the knee-jerk to Will's vaguely guised "crazy man with a gun" characterization, but I think it'd be fair to say that some CCW-carriers would be reaching or un-snapping or gripping if someone they didn't recognize immediately as a police officer did this.. when I first watched the video I thought he was just a vigilante trying to stop someone they saw speeding.. I've had my fair encounters with civilians who thought it was their civic duty to endanger my life just to enforce a traffic law.

Based on the video, that cruiser was right behind the unmarked car. And when I say "unmarked," I mean blatantly-obvious-this-is-a-cop car. Anybody who spends a few minutes on a motorcycle realizes how important it is to check their mirrors and I have no doubt that this particular numbnuts knew that he was being tailed by at least one police officer due to his wheelie-gettin' antics. None of this was a surprise; it was the likely outcome.

And just to cover all the bases: acting like a dipshit, breaking the law, etc... isn't something most concealed weapon permit holders do on a regular basis. This is for three reasons: 1: they want to remain anonymous, 2: they don't want to get shot by a cop, 3: many holsters preclude doing cartwheels. It's also illegal for a concealed weapon permit holder to attempt to enforce the law. Their weapon is for self defense (or the defense of others, ha-ha) only.

Comments like this make me think people either don't carry or shouldn't be carrying. A few rounds of Hogan's Alley on Nintendo shows who is the good guy and who is the bad guy in a confrontation. You don't react to the presence of a gun, you react to the person holding it. "Don't shoot the cop!"

Also: You've had armed Joe Citizens confront you over traffic violations? Do tell. My initial thought is, "Them motherfuckers need to get a hobby."

/gun crap in every thread

True.

I still don't immediately recognize that guy as a police officer. Sure, the signs might seem obvious to you - haircut, etc., but to me it just looks like a angry man who just cut across my lane and almost made me go over the handlebars.

No, but I've had people zoom past me, pull in front and lock up all four tires in their interpretation of a citizens 'pit stop' in order to get me to slow down. I've also had people try to run me off the road or weave lane to lane to prevent me from passing. I've (more than once) had a car swerve violently and intentionally into my lane as I was passing on my motorcycle in order to get me to slow down to their perception of a 'reasonable' speed. Maybe we just have a high percentage of road-rage drivers here, but I truly wouldn't be shocked to see someone do the maneuver in this video and then get out with a gun because I've somehow offended their sensibilities on the road. My father had his arm broken by a crowbar because he stopped for a yellow light and the driver behind him did not want to. If it weren't for experiences like this I probably wouldn't CCW on the motorcycle at all.

if you watch the vid in 720p you can see that the unmarked car has lights flashing. it's brief glimpse, but I believe that I saw the flashers in the grill. It is also when the motorcycle is appearing to slow down.

lol, you just went up like 10 cool points in my book.

not that I have a book where I give out cool points.


damnit, I should get on that.

Hey, what can I say? My training is top notch.

And that Walt guy already made the Duck Hunt joke.

Good call. I should stop viewing videos in 3x5".

Yes and no. I really can't fathom why the undercover officer displayed his weapon. At all. Especially with another marked car right behind the person being pulled over. That being said, the officer did say "get off the motorcycle, state police." Still after the fact, and still really, really stupid on his part. If it were a different situation, as in some random car forced me off the road, the driver got out and pulled a gun on me without identifying his or herself, then I would fall into the category of one of those who would fire upon on or at the very least, draw my weapon on an armed aggressor. However, the person being pulled over knew what was going on. While what the undercover officer did was incomprehensibly stupid, I don't think that the vast majority of those who identify with "American gun culture" would even think about shooting that individual, given the situation.

Failing eyesight, the line's not that blurry: "Wiretapping" has become spurious. Watch me watching you, approach me & you might be seen. Take a job with responsibilities & man up.

Way to go to the judge in this case he tossed it out saying there was no expectation of privacy. "Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public," the judge wrote. "When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation."

Article

Well I don't think someone should be allowed to record you and post it to the internet without your consent....Now if this guy is a youtube partner and makes any sort of money for what content he puts up, then this police officer definately should have the right to privacy....

Now on the flip side, police record you, dont you have the right to privacy...well they don't have a choice if its a department or state guide line that they are required to tape traffic stops or interviews they dont have a choice...

---------- Post added at 03:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:12 PM ----------


And they would have gotten shot, I think the cop had a big time advantage being that his weapon was already drawn, had another police officer 5 seconds away and was on foot....

---------- Post added at 03:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:21 PM ----------

I agree...

Okay, I hope that cop gets fired and if he doesn't, I'm going to write that department a letter. I'm not the type to do soo, however that just totally isn't cool....


If you are a cop, shouldn't you flash your badge? he wasn't in a cop car and he wasn't in uniform. A plain clothed person with a gun = bad guy. He could have easily got killed for doing that to the wrong person.


... not to mention cutting off a bike like that is kinda dangerous.

I guess we are missing the point here - which is that the people of Maryland really need to be grateful that there isno violent crime, no property crime, no drug crime and no sexual crime apparently going on in the state of Maryland... and therefore the police have the time and resource to raid the home and confiscate the property of someone who filmed an over zealous traffic cop. It must be the envy of many other police forces that Maryland Police have the resource to spare on issues like this.

And on the side point - this isnt about privacy, this isnt about wire tapping - its about the police saying "we can do what we want and we will resist to the upmost being held to account for it".

That's a bit more aggressive than I ride in traffic; but I'm having a hard time understanding why pulling a gun is appropriate. Neither party has a reasonable expectation of privacy on the side of the road.

I need to get a helmet cam.

A crime is a crime. If the police see it as a crime, they have to do something about it. They'll let the courts sort it out later.

just don't do this.


I'm glad that the judge saw something that made sense and tossed it out.

you have got to be joking...

First of all the off duty / plain clothes police officer did not cut the bike off, he pulled up next to him....and if you still consider that cutting him off it happened at about 5mph if that...secondly not that he pulled in front of the bike, but its pretty standard for police officers on traffic stops with motorcycles to pull infront of them to help deter them from fleeing the traffic stop...

I don't have speakers on my computer so I am unsure if the off duty officer verbalized that he was a police officer or not but even so a marked police vehicle and uniformed police officer was on scene at the same time as the off duty officer...it was pretty obvious that the motorcyclist knew the gig was up after he passed the police officer in the median of the highway, as he was attempting to exit the highway at the next off ramp...

I am not sure what the outcome of this was if the kid on the bike was just issued a traffic citiation or arrested at the scene...but in my mind what he did was criminal...at the minimum its disorderly conduct / creating a public disturbance

---------- Post added at 10:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 PM ----------


Over zealous how so, I don't know exactly why he decided to draw his weapon. We have the luxury of sitting in our living rooms watching this video and then forming our opinions at our own pace...

This over zealous as you put it police officer did not have that luxury, I can't speak for Maryland but the use of force continuum in the state that I live in includes presentation of deadly force as a part of the lowest level of force which is constructive authority...."When circumstances create a reasonable belief that display of a firearm as an element of constructive authority helps
establish or maintain control in a potentially dangerous situation in an effort to discourage resistance and ensure officer safety." NJ Attorney General Guideline...

Was it just a guy commiting many traffic infractions to have fun? Yes...but the officer did not know that...

I am sorry for getting off the topic of the privacy issue, but after reading through the posts I could not resist...these bikes are a nuisance, I live on a residential road where the speed limit is 35 miles an hour...several times a day motorcycles pass my house at a ridiculous speed...I almost killed one of them pulling out of my drive way because I thought the road was clear and started to back into the roadway when one was approaching at a fantastic speed and almost got T-boned by him....Most of the time its not even the speed that bothers me its the noise they feel they need to make at 2am in the morning...so on this topic I am going to be slanted to be more on the side of the law...

As soon as it became a traffic stop, it became a workplace, and the courts have long held that we have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the workplace. Also, Graber has the right to gather any evidence, including audio evidence, that is exculpatory.

Edit, the wiretap charges were tossed.

what you talking bout, will? :paranoid:

I dont want to derail this... but doesnt the fact that many of you live in a country where at very least a sensible argument can be made that it is justifiable to issue a speeding ticket at gun point, kind of make people wonder if the whole position on guns in America is wrong?

if I "drive it like I stole it" and get a gun pointed at me for that so be it...I wouldn't want to live in any other place

What on Earth are you talking about? I can't find -any- justification for issuing a speeding ticket at gunpoint. The guy was an idiot, sure, but there's no justification at all for what this dumbass Jackboot did. The off-duty cop may even have been in the right for stopping the guy, or calling in the marked car that pulls up towards the end of the video. But there's no justification at all for jumping out of an unmarked car with a presented sidearm and ordering the speed-demon around. I would never dare draw my sidearm unless I was in immediate danger of life, limb, or liberty, or the situation as I read it could quickly have deteriorated towards such. But then again, I'm a Regular Joe, not one of the Only Ones. I don't get to wave my weapon in people's faces for being a dumbass, or to get their attention, or because I'm mad at them, or "just because." I have to act like a responsible adult entrusted by his friends and family with the means of dealing out Life and Death. This cop, on the other hand, gets to act like a buzzcut adolescent with a license to kill.

you are really naive...and you took that out of context

You know he was talking about what Strange said, right? Hence the quote straight from Strange Famous' post.

Dunedan said what I feel. Traffic violations are minor, no need to pull the gun out like that.

The cop felt like he needed to use that amount of force at that moment, but he was wrong, so he should be held accountable.

After all, he serves us and we pay him...

That's way it should work.

In most western states, lane splitting is legal and 75mph speed limits are the norm.

87 in a 75, might or might not get you a ticket in Colorado. It certainly isn't unusual.

I'd have to read up on the specifics of lane splitting; but I believe most of the footage shown would qualify.

Note that I don't like it and I'd never do it; but lane splitting is legal in many juristictions.

The biker is being an aggressive asshole; but being an asshole isn't a crime by itself.

yes I realize that

---------- Post added at 12:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 AM ----------

what about 127...what most people are missing is that the officer does not have a crystal ball he does not know why this guy was going 127 mph weaving inbetween traffic....hence the drawn weapon...how long were they chasing him....before he stopped? i dunno

Ask a cop one of the scariest things for them is pulling someone over and approaching them, which is why they recommend you turn on your inside light put hands on the wheel and wait for the cop to approach and do not exit the vehicle. If you exit the vehicle to talk to the cop you are almost definitely going to get a ticket (not a warning).

seriously? the last time I looked, being a police officer is a VOLUNTARY choice to make. there is absolutely zero reason to give a police officer any extra leeway to threaten or utilize lethal force for a fucking traffic ticket no matter the circumstances.

COPS show come to mind?

Yeah, but with everyone, not just shoeless, wife-beater-wearing wife beaters. Maybe every cop should have a satellite cam and mic in their badges.

most do already in some form, they have dashcams

No way; too limited.

you want to see why police officers can approach a car with a weapon drawn? for only a speeding infraction!

Deputy Kyle Wayne Dinkheller | Laurens County Sheriff's Office, Georgia


Deputy Kyle Dinkheller, Laurens County, GA, was minutes from being off duty when he encountered a speeding pickup truck going 98 mph. The deputy was an ICE (Interstate Criminal Enforcement) officer that dealt with traffic infractions, speeding and the occasional drug bust. This was a low risk or unknown risk stop for speeding. He radioed in the speeding infraction, made a U-turn in the median and pursued the vehicle. The driver, Andrew Brannan, stopped his vehicle, exited and started a crazy, dancing jig in the middle of the road while swearing at the officer and shouting ‘I’m a god-damned Vietnam vet.” At first, he ignored Dinkheller’s commands to step towards the deputy, which always began with `Sir’. When he finally complied, he attacked the deputy and a scuffle ensued. The deputy implemented the use of his asp and ordered Brannan to `get back’. This procedure was repeated, but after what appeared to be a second scuffle, the suspect returned to his vehicle and retrieved a M-I Carbine from under the seat. The first shots were fired nearly 50 seconds after Brannan returned to his vehicle despite the deputy’s commands. Brannan ignored the repeated commands to put the gun down and Deputy Dinkheller apparently fired the first shot. Brannan, a Vietnam veteran, advanced firing on the deputy. Dinkheller returned fire, but succeeded only in breaking a window in the driver’s side of the pickup and wounding Brannan in the stomach. Using `suppressive fire’, Brannan systematically, methodically shot Dinkheller in the arms, legs, exposed areas that would not be covered had Dinkheller been wearing a bulletproof vest, slowly executing him. Reloading his weapon Brannan continued firing with the final death shot to Dinkheller’s right eye.

I've seen that video before Todd. The cop fucked up because he was too scared to pull the trigger and take that clown down. He should have pulled his gun out as soon as the crazy guy jumped out of his truck. He should have beat some insane ass.

A cop should ALWAYS have his hand on his gun as he approaches the vehicle, but he should NEVER take it out unless he's threatened, which would include a man jumping out of his truck and dancing around while moving towards the officer.

It's sad what happened, but your video provides nothing to reinforce your opinion. Cop messed up, cop died.

is this asshole dead yet?

the jerk, not the cop...

i'm confused. Aren't police officers subject to HUNDREDS OF HOURS of firearms training? [/sarcasm]

maybe he should have been a better shot.

or maybe you'd like all violators, including parking citations, to be felony stopped to make sure they aren't armed and dangerous.

this is an older study but the stats for more recent ones are along the same %'s

Hit Potential In Gun Fights

The police officer's potential for hitting his adversary during armed
confrontation has increased over the years and stands at slightly over 25% of
the rounds fired. An assailant's skill was 11% in 1979.

In 1990 the overall police hit potential was 19%. Where distances could be
determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:

Less than 3 yards ..... 38%
3 yards to 7 yards .. 11.5%
7 yards to 15 yards .. 9.4%

In 1992 the overall police hit potential was 17%. Where distances could be
determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:

Less than 3 yards ..... 28%
3 yards to 7 yards .... 11%
7 yards to 15 yards . 4.2%

The distance in this confrontation is unknown from the video because the officer is out of view but I would assume he was at his door for some of it and at the rear of his vehicle as some point too...making it about 7 yards and he hit him in the stomach...how many times I dunno...


---------- Post added at 08:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:27 PM ----------

how does this not reinforce my point, my point was that even a traffic stop for speeding can turn into a police officer losing his life or have a fear of losing his life...this video shows just that...

you know why he hesitated? because a stupid supervisor had told him weeks earlier that if he drew his weapon again (stemming from a prior incident) he would have his job...I explained presentation of deadly force is a part of the lowest level of force which is constructive authority...."When circumstances create a reasonable belief that display of a firearm as an element of constructive authority helps establish or maintain control in a potentially dangerous situation in an effort to discourage resistance and ensure officer safety."

Obviously everyones opinion on what is reasonable is going to differ...I can respect that you don't think it was reasonable and leave it at that.


---------- Post added at 08:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:35 PM ----------

he was sentenced to death in 2000...not sure if its been carried out yet

Andrew Brannan is still on death row in Georgia.

there is a huge difference between having your hand on your gun and actually drawing it.

any hint as to what that prior incident might have been?

key words are 'potentially dangerous'. now, if you want to make the argument that any and all stops are potentially dangerous, then i'd say every traffic stop should be made with at least 4 cops, assault rifles, and helicopters. officer safety is paramount, after all.

From Wikipedia:
A felony traffic stop occurs when police stop a vehicle in that the driver is already known to be a suspect in a crime (such as an armed robbery, bank robbery, rape, etc). In such a traffic stops, police strongly prefer to have as many officers present as possible before effecting the arrest.

During such stops, officers will have their weapons drawn and typically over a loudspeaker announce for the driver to show their hands, step out and face away from the officer, walking backwards towards him. The driver is then taken into custody and the vehicle is typically searched.


To make every minor traffic stop a felony stop is simply not possible. Not enough resources, takes time, etc.

A cop pulling his gun out on an already freaked out driver who was speeding or had a tail light out is not reasonable. Police understand that the people they pull over are already scared and will show signs of being nervous, so do you think adding a gun to the mix will help the situation? If I see Johnny Law looking at me with his gun drawn, I'm gonna be scared shitless.

I bet he was told to keep his weapon tucked away because he took it out way too much, like the officer in the OP video did.

Speeding and reckless driving doesn't warrant presenting a deadly force. The biker in that video did nothing to give the policeman reason to pull his gun out. People speed and drive crazy all the time, it's almost "normal behavior." I'll probably take a little shit for claiming it to be normal behavior, but as far as traffic violations go, I bet they're at the top of the list for occurence.

127 mph is hardly normal behavior...

Leave it to Maryland State Police ("MSP") to raid someone's home because they 'wiretapped' a police officer. If I was the cyclist in this instance, I'd probably speak to a civil rights attorney about pressing Federal Tort Claims Act claims against the MSP.

You would think, videotaping a public servant on a public road while they're executing a public duty would be okay.

Honestly to me, this smacks of the government trumping up some excuse to take down an embarrassing video--in other words, an abuse of power. Seems like MSP wanted to send a message, "Hey, don't mess with us" by bringing charges. However, as a police force, and absent countervailing factors, MSP had no right to claim 'privacy.'

As much as your Brennan video is a clear appeal to emotion, dk is right. There's a huge difference between these two things.

Why are we arguing about the Cop's right/wrong decision to draw the weapon? That's completely irrelevant to this wiretapping issue.

post #12 is where we start to hijack this thread...

many people in this thread don't realize how often police unholster there weapons on traffic stops and the person in the vehicle did not even realize it...situation dictates why the officer decides to do it, but it is not uncommon for them to unholster and hold the weapon in the concealed position such as behind there leg and when there initial reason for unholstering it is cleared it gets holstered without the occupants of the vehicle even knowing...

I find that hard to believe. Something about police tells me "they go big or go home," meaning if they pull the gun out of the holster, they will point it at you and make it known they mean business. In all of the video I've seen of traffic stops, I've never seen a cop unholster his gun and hide it behind his leg.

Amen!

I disagree with your all or nothing thought process here. Not how I was trained. Every situation is different. Traffic stops and domestic disturbances were my second least favorites parts of the job. With a TS you usually never know what you're going to get and almost, almost always you're basically alone. Better to be prepared then be sorry.

For the record the least favorite part of the job was "family notifications." Showing up at a strangers door at 0300 and informing them a family member is dead sucks ass. Sucks even more ass when you know the family. And I worked in a very rural area, everyone knew everyone.


Completely agree with you here. To think having a badge means you can conduct affairs behind a wall secrecy is completely absurd to me. Police and all LEO work best in a community when there are little or no secrets, IMO. Cruisers have dash cams for this very reason. This is what I did, this is what I said etc... I can honestly say I know more LEO's who've been spared endless horseshit investigations due to having a dash cam then civilians having their claims backed up. "Really she says I raped her? Well lets just go to the tape boss."

Did you ever pull your gun out and hide it behind your leg or conceal it in any way during a traffic stop?

ask monkie, I think she's seen it.

Sure. And I know lots of other officers that did the same. Back in the day it was probably more common simply due to equipment. My guess the ratio of times I had my hand on the weapon to weapon out decreased dramatically after getting an Uncle Mike's "Pro-Duty holster." Basically with that holster having your hand on it (which you'll often see an officer do during a stop) is the same as having out, lowered and next to your leg. At a min. prior to up grades in equipment, if anything looked fishy I'd have my holster unsnapped. Being in the middle of bum fuck nowhere with no coms, on a dark rainy night approaching a vehicle that just looks wrong makes the hair on the back of your head stand up.

Monkies never seen my weapon. All my weapons are safety stored in Oregon. Now repeat after me...

"This my weapon, this is my gun. This one's for fighting, this one's for fun."

---------- Post added at 06:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:23 PM ----------

See this is the mind set that creates our differing opinions I believe. You're making the assumption that everyone responds the same way to being stopped. They don't. I know of no stats on the topic but I'd guess you're describing about 30-40% of TS's. The other 60-70% are made up of all kinds of reactions. Many are not scared... they're pissed off. Everything from "Fuck you. Do you know who I am? I'll have your badge by this time tomorrow!" To "You can't pull me over, I mean I don't think you can, can you? My plates are out of state and you don't have jurisdiction in my state." And one of my personal favorites "You're making me late! Did you know you're making me late!?!"

Thanks,Tully, for the enlightening facts of one who has dealt with the actual.
Even in my small town of 7000, the two times I was pulled over for a burnt out brake light,
I knew the drill. I saw the officer in my left side mirror casually pretend to scratch an an itch on his draw side,
as I kept my hands high & visible on the steering wheel.

It is & isn't always a matter of patrolling in a known rough area. Being highly tuned, aware & adapting to quickly changing situations is an art.

My first job at 18 was in airport security work.
Being constantly aware yet staying in a relaxed Zen mode was key.
We were tested frequently.

As Tully said: "A vehicle that just looks wrong makes the hair on the back of your head stand up."

Taking that inborn intuition & honing it finer through training is paramount to survival.

I don't know all the particulars of this traffic stop. But yeah, 127 MPH weaving
would draw more than my attention.

I watched the video, and many like it, several times. It's easy to say "I would have..." Or "he should have..." The reality is who the hell knows? Until you're put in a situation where hot leads flying by your head no one knows. My guess here the vast majority of people here, including myself, would end up just as dead as Dep. Dinkheller. Having a bat shit crazy guy firing a M-1 at you would really throw off your game I'd guess.

Personally I'm glad I never had the opportunity to find out.

Yep, I agree.

Well put Tully, no one knows how they would react to small arms fire until it happens...cops don't have crystal balls...they aren't superman with xray vision....and a popular motto among those that carry a patrol rifle is: I carry my pistol to fight my way to my rifle...

The Deputy fought for his life, unfortunately he was fighting a guy that had him out gunned and prolly did not care if he lived...