Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
Pentax K-30: a pretty package of a camera
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
How To Buy Digital Photo Frames For An Exhibit - Part 2
Hey MAC users! A great source and an April Fool that is no joke
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
Exhibiting With Digital Photo Frames (DPF) Part 1
Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk Inkjet Paper — Audiocast
Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Find Inner Peace and Beauty at San Jose, California, Airport
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?Woman Who Videotaped Cop Beating May Face Wiretapping Charge
A Massachusetts cop who was caught on video helping beat a man on the side of the road is now claiming his rights were violated when the videographer recorded him without permission.
Springfield police officer Michael Sedergren – who was suspended for 45 days for the beating incident – filed a complaint of felony wiretapping against the woman last month.
The issue will be heard in court next week, according to The Republican.
Tyrisha Greene could serve up to two years in prison if found guilty of recording the video from her home almost two years ago.
The Massachusetts wiretapping law makes it illegal to secretly record somebody’s audio without their consent.
It was designed to crack down on organized crime, but police have used it in recent years against people who record them in public.
Even in cases where the charges have no merit, felony wiretapping charges have been used to send a message of intimidation against citizens who record them.
Last month, Cop Block founders Adam Mueller and Pete Eyre were acquitted of wiretapping charges after they were arrested for videotaping cops in front of a police station.
And in 2007, felony wiretapping charges were dropped against Simon Glik after he videotaped cops making an arrest in a public park.
But in those cases, the videographers were openly videotaping the cops.
In the Sedergren case, Greene was recording from inside her home, so his attorneys will surely argue that she was secretly recording him the night he participated in the beating of a man during a traffic stop.
The incident took place in November 2009 after police pulled over a car in which Melvin Jones III was a passenger. Jones is black. The four officers are white.
Although the video is dark, Greene indicates that Jones attempted to run. Police reports indicate he tried to grab a cop’s gun.
Either way, a cop named Jeffrey Asher – who already had a long history of beating black citizens – began bashing him repeatedly with a flashlight as the other cops either looked on or held him down.
Jones was beaten so bad that he ended up lying motionless on the street with Greene exclaiming that “he’s dead.”
He was left partially blinded in one eye and with multiple facial fractures.
Asher was fired for the beating, one day after he was granted a disability pension from the state.
He was also charged with assault with a deadly weapon. He is scheduled to go on trial in December.
Sedergren and the other two officers received suspensions for their roles in the beating.
And now he is clearly trying to send a message of intimidation to anyone who dares record his actions.
Comments
Reminds me of Rodney King, hopefully it doesn't end the same way.
Seems like every time one of these cases comes up the wiretapping charges seem to get dropped in a plea deal or disappears. At some point one of these cases involving wiretapping will have to go forward in Mass like the Maryland case and finally get overturned. Seems like prosecutors know this and are trying to keep this from happening.
This is a good example as to why jury nullification is so important.
Mass has a referendum option where citizens can get laws passed, but it is a bear. First you need to get enough signatures just to get it on the ballot, then of course a majority needs to vote yes for it. It would be nice to see a right to film public officials referendum passed.
"It was designed to crack down on organized crime, but police have used it in recent years against people who record them in public."
WHat irony, the way photography is getting a different
type of "organized crime" in so much trouble these days.
In PA I've heard our state wiretapping statute (which requires all-party notification of audio recording) referred to as the "Mob Protection Act" because it makes it more difficult for ordinary citizens to gather evidence against criminals who threaten them.
Can't see much in the video other than he runs, they catch him and he resists. Can't see if they are hitting him and if they are hitting him if he is still resisting or not.
Hey, Johnny Troll Sock Puppet.
That's not even close to the issue.
The issue is wiretapping. It's not hard to grasp so try to stay on point. Although I'm sure it's hard to think when there is a hand rammed all the way up you.
Hey Bart - this post is about a woman charged with wiretapping for videotaping the incident. Try to keep up buddy.
That is not the issue. If the law says you can't secretly record people than she was wiretapping, period end of story.
I'm concerned about whether or the force used to arrest this man was justified.
Bart,
You're off subject. She's allowed to record the video. The only point here is if also including the sound as she did is a problem.
Of course the cops don't say all the much. The telling part is the sound of the flashlight hitting the guys face and that she can record.
Well she recorded their sound so she was wiretapping, you answered your own question. I don't know why it is so difficult for everybody else to understand. Maybe the law isn't fair but she still broke it.
Well then smart ass, what wire did she tap? Wiretapping....is tapping into a wired communication.
Just using your f'd up logic. Dumb ass. Its legal and when this suit is thrown out of court where does your Law stand then? How many people have you arrested for wiretapping?
None, I'm not a cop
Maybe the law isn't constitutional in which case it's her civic duty to break it.
My personal opinion is there's no 'maybe' about it.
Mike
Until the courts say it is unconstitutional it is the law. Her civic duty to break it, give me a break. I'm sure there are other laws that you feel are unconstitutional, why are you not doing your civic duty?
I'd love to see the police in Massachusetts pull this nonsense with any of major news networks such as ABC, CBS, or NBC.
discarted - this is exactly why someone who is recorded by a major news agency needs to pursue the arrest of their videographer. Once one of their people get arrested there will be widespread coverage and they have the means and the need to fight this law in court to bring an end to the stupidity.
The news agencies don't care because the law doesn't effect them in any way. Meaning their reporters or camera crews will never be arrested for "secretly" recording cops in public. The cops simply aren't dumb enough to open that can of worms.
However, it ever did happen, the charges would be quickly dropped, the news agency would not pursue the matter, and everything would be business as usual and the rest of us will still be charged with felonies for recording cops while they're in public where an expectation of privacy doesn't exist.
Don't you just love a government that criminalizes an activity if it's performed by the people, but makes it completely legal if they do it themselves? I think there's a term for that.
I can't wait for a lawmaker's kid to experience police brutality and watch another one of their family members go to prison for recording the beating from his front porch. That will be awesome.
discarted - I wasn't talking about a news agency recording the police. I meant a regular citizen. One that is talking within earshot of a news crew but doesn't know know the news crew is there recording ie a crowd situation. According to the law in Massachusetts that would be an illegal act under the wiretap law.
I understood you what you were saying, but in even in that case I still believe that ABC could care less because nothing will come of it. I think the police would tell you to take a hike, screaming "Whazda madda witchoo, you blind o' sumtin, you didn't see da camra ten feet frunya?! Keep movin idiot, before 'rest you asshole!". The DA would also suddenly proclaimed that you do not have an expectation of privacy while in public in Massachusetts.
In regards to the following...
"I wasn't talking about a news agency recording the police. I meant a regular citizen."
A credentialed journalist does not have more rights than a non-credentialed person, and we must be clear that is no distinction between the two, so let's not propagate this misbelief. I'm not attacking you either, so please don't get upset.
That statement is often made online as though the media does have more rights than everybody else, and it's one of my pet peeves.
Apparently not only a pet peeve but it put a bit of a chip on your shoulder. Don't read things into something that aren't there. I never mentioned a 'credentialed journalist' nor the rights of a credentialed journalist versus a non-credentialed citizen when it comes to photographing/videotaping.
I was comparing the assets and abilities of a major news agency to that of a regular citizen. More money, more ability to fight, lawyers already in place.
Yes, a huge chip...the left shoulder needed to match the right one.
I agree with you, but it will never get to that point because like I already wrote, I believe no one in law enforcement or in the DA's office will take your complaint seriously. One, they're using the law and interpreting it in a way to only protect themselves and nobody else. Two, they're gonna say it's the news...you didn't see the giant camera? Final decision—case dropped due to lack of evidence.
The law stays on the books.
Soooo therefore the entire civil rights movement was wrong? They were, after all, breaking the law.
Enough said.
But I wonder if Bart believes Rosa Parks should be in jail.
Bart believes Rosa Parks was an uppity n****r who didn't get half the beating she deserved.
I've broken unconstitutional laws on numerous occasions.
Mike
Secretly breaking unconstitutional laws is nothing. You need to break them on purpose in front of cops so you get arrested, that would be doing your civic duty. Breaking laws when you know the cops aren't around only makes you a criminal.
Bart, if I had repeated my offenses (breaking the sodomy laws) in front of cops, my wife & I would expect to be arrested anyway under other charges which ARE perfectly constitutional, so that idea isn't going to fly I'm afraid! :D
Mike
I've never understood these laws except that people seem to want the right to lie. To say one thing in private and either totally deny it or say something else in public. Therefore, even if it IS the law, it's morally and ethiclly invalid. Mike Ross is right, it becomes every citizens duty to violate it.
Maybe there's some other valid reason for these laws, but none that I've heard and/or figured out myself.
So, what if the incident were recorded on one of your home security system cameras? Would they claim you were "secretly" recording because they did not take the time to stop beating someone long enough to search the exterior of nearby homes for cameras? If she were at her window and the camera had plain view of them, it's likely had they looked in her direction they would have seen her recording and it would not have been "secret". Of course, if people are, more and more, being treated this way by "law enforcement" should we not gain the right to "secretly" record criminal acts? (if we don't have it already)
That cop said his rights were violated when that person was recording him beating the victim. What about the person who was beaten badly. What about his rights when a thug with a badge on him violated the victims rights for bashing his face in. Now he is particaly blind in one eye for the rest of his life because of a thug. He should be compensate for the rest of his life of how he destroyed his qaulity of life
If this was in fact brutality it doesn't justify her breaking the law. Did you ever her the saying two wrongs don't make a right?
Hey dumb ass, she didn't break any laws.
What do you call wiretapping?
In Maryland, the interception of oral communication by a device is only illegal w/o the consent of both parties if there is no expectation of privacy. That's the key phrase here: expectation of privacy.
The officers were in public, on a publicly accessible street, therefore they could have no expectation of privacy. They did not cordon off the area, as during the video several other vehicles can be seen driving through. At the distance she was recording, the officers had to shout in order to be picked up on the camera, and if you expect a shouted conversation in public to be "private", then you're an idiot.
Nathan - do you know what the law states in Massachusetts? The wording of that law is what matters here. If it doesn't contain the same or similar language then there may be an additional layer of crap she will have to get through.
Bart - breaking a law is not as clear cut as you state. When applying a law the legislative intent of the law is considered. Was the intent of the law to stop actual wiretapping? If so then it would not be applicable here.
Even if a public area is cordoned off by police, an expectation of privacy still does not exist and we can record/document the event.
Looking at the Massachusetts law there is no mention of an expectation of privacy. I know that we are allowed to photograph and video tape anything within view but I have not seen a case involving the right to record audio under federal law. Has this been in the federal courts?
OK if this is correct she might be guilty under MA law. Kind of a catch 22 though if record from inside you break the law and might go to jail later or record in public get beaten up by cops and then still go to jail on the same bullshit charge.
Either way J.Q. Citizen looses.
From http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/massachusetts-recording-law
Massachusetts's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Massachusetts makes it a crime to secretly record an in-person or telephone conversation without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99. If you are operating in Massachusetts, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording a telephone call or conversation, unless it is absolutely clear to everyone involved that you recording (i.e., it is not "secret").
This law applies to secret video recording when sound is captured. In a recent case, a political activist was convicted of violating the wiretapping statute by secretly recording video of a Boston University police sergeant during a political protest in 2006. The activist was shooting footage of the protest when police ordered him to stop and then arrested him for continuing to operate the camera while hiding it in his coat. As part of the sentencing, the court ordered the defendant to remove the footage from the Internet. From this case, it is clear that you can violate the statute by secretly recording, even when you are in a public place.
In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, violating the Massachusetts wiretapping law can expose you to a civil lawsuit for damages by an injured party.
Hey Jtroll, I mean Bart, in Maryland when the Pigs tried this the judge threw it out.
"Fortunately, a state judge threw out the charges and wrote a strong opinion: "Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation."
He ended by asking, "Who watches the watchmen?"
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/04/who-watches-wat...
So STFU. We all know she didn't do anything wrong. This is the Pigs' way of getting back at her. It's the only play they have. Make citizen's lives miserable when the Pigs are exposed for the brain dead, penisless, 'roided out, Nazi thugs they are.
Bart said..
"Did you ever hear the saying two wrongs don't make a right?"
Yup.. sure have. I've also heard the saying..
"Three rights make a left!" (wink emoticon)
So what's your point?
Rail Car Fan
My point is her wrong doesn't become right just because somebody else did something wrong, that is if the cops did anything wrong.
I say an eye for a eye, a tooth for a tooth. They ought to do the same thing to that cop who beat him so badly and let him suffer for the rest of his life the same way he did to his victim.
If that recording was never recorded that cop would be still on the force as though nothing ever happehned
From the referenced article, it states that the perp "has filed an application for a criminal complaint" and "A so-called “show cause” hearing during which a clerk-magistrate will vet the alleged evidence against Greene is scheduled for Aug. 17 in Chicopee District Court".
I am not familiar with MA legal process, but it sounds like the local DA has not filed charges so the perp is trying to force the matter. Is that what is really happening?
Thx
What I don't understand is how criminal charges are brought by an ex-cop. Is the DA doing the personal bidding of the entire police force, their wives and in laws now?
I believe what is happening is that the "victim" is making a criminal complaint on his own right, bypassing the DA. The DA will prosecute after the clerk-magistrate decides that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has taken place. A grand jury may or may not hear the case at this point.
It seems the law as it has been interpreted by the courts in previous cases hangs on one's understanding of "surreptitious" . . . which I have a hard time grasping within the context of this statute. In other words, the intent of stealth (i.e. recording while deliberately concealing that fact from a third party). This appears to be the underlying intent of the statute as written, so the legal question would be whether or not Ms. Greene deliberately or willfully concealed the recording from Sedergen. There also seems to be much debate about this issue and I hope the exposure of these laws on various blogs, and the continued high profile cases of people filming the police (especially when they commit improper acts against the public), will further propel the First Amendment rights of the citizens to record and capture the world we live in.
However there is little debate that Sedergen is abusing this statute to further promote himself in the ranks of World's Most Despised Police Officer . . . it is a grueling competition, but there are many tough competitors.
Anyone who thinks that a human being should receive 2 years in jail for filming a person assault another is a P.O.S. I don't care if she broke a hundred laws doing it, it's disgusting to say that she should become a victim of violence for doing the right thing.
Post new comment