NickelP: That judge sounds like a real biatch for multiple different things there.
Quality Unassured: Using a hand held recorder to record your own phone conversation =/= wiretap.
"The tenor was a very hostile one," Gordon said in court.
"I told youse get lost""TOLD YOUSE GET LOOOOOOOST"
AverageAmericanGuy: The requirement that both sides consent to recording is a way to prevent the citizenry from proving wrongdoing by police.
skinink: Maryland may be like Massachusetts when it comes to recording. All parties need to consent to a recording or otherwise it's a wiretap violation."His lawyer, Catherine Flynn, argued that because it was an accident, he did not do anything illegal."Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit!
cantsleep: Cop was wrong making the recording, judge sounds like she didn't want to do her job.
Andyxc: Quality Unassured: Using a hand held recorder to record your own phone conversation =/= wiretap.It's illegal to voice-record someone without their consent or a warrant. That's why the security cameras in convenience stores and ATM kiosks don't have voice recorders. He clearly made an illegal recording. While his excuse is somewhat plausible (he hit the speakerphone button by mistake and intended to record only his side of the conversation), he must have realized that mistake and should have fixed it immediately. Instead, he recorded both sides of the conversation without consent of the other party. Then he played back the recording for other people. While I agree that the judge's actions warrant at least an investigation, that doesn't make the officer's actions magically legal. If this judge really was just upset that someone disturbed her on a Saturday night when she was on call (as opposed to not granting the warrant based on a lack of evidence), he and his fellow officers should have brought the judge's conduct up with the prosecutor, who could have looked into it and started an honest investigation. Now this judge will be on her toes. She's never going to say anything incriminating over the phone, nor will she likely cause anyone problems with warrants again. So while this may 'fix' the problem, the judge will get off without so much as a warning when someone this lazy probably shouldn't be on the bench at all. Besides, we don't really have a whole lot of facts, like the judge's side of the argument. It's entirely possible that the officers could have sought this warrant prior to the end of business on Friday, but chose to wait for some reason. Perhaps they have a history of calling judges at all hours for silly warrants that could easily wait till Monday, or perhaps they have a history of seeking warrants that have almost no chance of being granted, and this judge was just sick of their crap. Maybe this was a new lead on a very old shooting hat again, could easily wait till Monday. Again, I'd say the judge's actions deserve some scrutiny, but the cop CLEARLY did something illegal, which will now make investigating the judge significantly more difficult if not impossible. So yeah, he probably deserves to lose his job over this one.
jtown: Wait, she couldn't be bothered to deal with a warrant in a shooting case when she was on call specifically for the role of processing after-hours warrants? Fark that c00nt. One week per year??? Biatch doesn't know how good she's got it. Christ on a crutch. One of my neighbors deals with after-hours warrants more often that that because it's his farking job and it's important.
sheep snorter: Other way to record without both parties permission?You are with the media as a blogger or independent journalist who tries to sell his articles to big media.
realityVSperception: The cop might have a better chance if he argued that since they were both working and the call was work related, it was a 'public' conversation, not a private one.
CruiserTwelve: realityVSperception: The cop might have a better chance if he argued that since they were both working and the call was work related, it was a 'public' conversation, not a private one.My thoughts too. They're both public employees so their conversations should be open to public scrutiny. Also, if the shooting case they're investigating goes to trial, the defense should have access to this information.
sheep snorter: Other way to record without both parties permission?You are with the media as a blogger or independent journalist who tries to sell his articles to big media.Lots of stuff you can record and post online without retribution(providing you are on public property and not in a 100% private dwelling)(police station or government office is a public domain no matter who they lease from)./Its an easy way to avoid power hungry turds trying to destroy your life with malicious prosecution and abuses of the law.
BarkingUnicorn: Sounds like she did want to do her job. She had problems with the warrant application and asked for the cop's supervisor.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jul 26 2017 14:49:44
Runtime: 0.619 sec (618 ms)