Cop Block Founders Not Guilty On Wiretapping Charges
Just over a year after they were arrested on wiretapping charges in Massachusetts, Cop Block founders Adam Mueller and Pete Eyre were found not guilty.
The verdict came in earlier this afternoon.
According to The Republican newspaper of Western Massachusetts:
When Eyre and Mueller showed up at the county jail last July, they asked a jail official if they could record the process of bailing out their friends. They initially were told they could film the procedure, but when they returned with bail money a short while later were told that was against jail policy.
Jail officials, however, were unable to show the pair any written policies precluding filming at the jail -- a public, taxpayer-funded facility -- nor did the jail have any posted signs barring recording devices on the premises.
Eyre and Mueller continued recording their encounter with jail officials and a Greenfield police officer, Sgt. Todd Dodge, who said the pair would have to leave the premises if they continued to film. Eyre and Mueller refused to stop digitally recording the episode and were arrested.
"Both Adam and myself, we felt that at the end of the day, we didn't do anything wrong. We didn't hurt anybody."
This is not only a huge victory for Mueller and Eyre, it is a huge victory in the ongoing battle for the right to videotape police in public.
Just last year, Massachusetts was one of three states where it was considered illegal to videotape cops in public, the others being Maryland and Illinois.
But a Maryland judge ruled last year that police do not have an expectation of privacy, so that confirmed it was legal to videotape cops in public in that state.
And Massachusetts officials like to pretend that it is also illegal to videotape cops, but the law states that it is only illegal to "secretly" videotape cops.
Eyre and Mueller were very open about videotaping cops.
Also in Massachusetts, a judge is currently reviewing an appeal that will decide whether a group of cops who arrested another man on wiretapping charges for videotaping them in public will be granted qualified immunity.
That case, which I wrote about here, will determine whether cops can make these unlawful arrests without fear of repercussions.
That leaves Illinois, which has the most absurd laws against recording cops in public, which Radley Balko has covered extensively.
For more background on Mueller's and Eyre's case, read the article I wrote last year.

Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
The Fujifilm Finepix X10, A Review
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Tips for Textures
Butterflies in Motion
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk Inkjet Paper — Audiocast











Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Taking your Portraiture Higher
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?



























Comments
So when will the cops be charged with the appropriate criminal offenses?
(Rhetorical question. We all know these cops will never see a day of punishment or a dollar of fines)
Punishment should include the judge who did not dismiss this case with prejudice at the start
I'm no lawyer but I wonder would having the case dismissed with prejudice at the beginning set the same kind of judicial precedent as an acquittal?
To set a precedent I believe they would have to been found guilty and then taken it to a higher court. The law still stands for them to do it again.
rich: case law is whatever the dippy lawyers want to attempt to use, and the judges allow. but RICH: the true and only case law comes from the SUPREMES! i was told that by a friend many years ago, and if you know anything about law, it makes perfect sense.
but of course not to a LAWYER.
ITS a bad joke and sad with how case law is being used in todays judicial system. If it was up to me, case law would be against the LAW would be illegal to even use, anywhere for anything.
Hal wrote:
>ITS a bad joke and sad with how case law is being used in >todays judicial system. If it was up to me, case law would >be against the LAW would be illegal to even use, anywhere >for anything.
That's a brilliant idea Hal. If you had your way, the following would probably be illegal:
abortion in all forms, even after rape or incest
contraceptives
blacks and whites swimming in the same pool
blacks and whites going to the same public school
gay sex
hate speech, and pretty much any other kind of speech
photographing cops
Plus, there would of course be NO remedy for violations of the Fourth Amendment, so cops could use any illegally obtained evidence against you in court (sorry Hal, the exclusionary rule is also derived from case law)
Thank god we have lawyers and judges to protect us from legislators who are as ignorant as you...
Such wonderful news! I was confident of the outcome because they were legal (of course) but nice to have it documented for all cops to see. The sooner they get used to public filming the better!
Congrats and good work! Nice to see it come out right.
Newark settles First Amendment lawsuit against police force for more than $50,000.
NEWARK, NJ — A lawsuit stemming from an incident considered to be a major black mark against Newark’s acting police director will cost the city more than $50,000, officials said today.
Roberto Lima, editor of Newark’s Brazilian Voice newspaper, was awarded $55,000 plus legal fees in response to a civil suit he filed for wrongful arrest in 2008. Lima claimed Samuel DeMaio asked Gerald Carlos, a photographer for the newspaper, if he had a "green card" after Carlos discovered a body in the East Ward in 2007.
Lima also claimed DeMaio ordered officers at the scene to seize Carlos’ camera and later handcuff him at a police precinct to stop him from publishing photos of the body in the newspaper.
The "offer of judgment" was announced by the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which aided Lima with the lawsuit.
"The actions taken by Newark police that day were a clear violation of Mr. Lima’s First Amendment rights as a journalist," said Baher Azmy, a Seton Hall law professor who also works with the ACLU-NJ. "Police cannot arrest innocent journalists to suppress stories that they may not like or may embarrass them."
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/07/newark_police_settlement_to_co....
so lucky to read your post, i will read your post time to time,thank you!
Only the corrupt cop who is unjust and wrong would NOT want to be recorded. Otherwise anything that does get recorded would only support and defend the officer (if they truly are just and right in their actions). The very idea that cops would not want to be recorded is an absurd retardation of democracy and perverts true accountability.
Post new comment