If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Baltimore Sun)   Memo to Cops: 1) Don't wiretap without a warrant, 2) especially not a judge and 3) don't create evidence by including your own voice   (baltimoresun.com) divider line 80
    More: Asinine, cops, Carlos M. Vila, wiretaps, search warrants, memoranda  
•       •       •

8626 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Mar 2013 at 10:01 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



80 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-23 08:05:09 AM
Lol. What an idiot.
 
2013-03-23 08:25:41 AM
So the judge will commit suicide with multiple gunshots to the back after the discovery of pot and child porn in the home.
 
2013-03-23 08:44:29 AM
3) don't castrate
 
2013-03-23 08:52:06 AM
That judge sounds like a real biatch for multiple different things there.
 
2013-03-23 09:04:59 AM

NickelP: That judge sounds like a real biatch for multiple different things there.


for castrating
 
2013-03-23 09:44:41 AM
Using a hand held recorder to record your own phone conversation =/= wiretap.
 
2013-03-23 10:05:22 AM

Quality Unassured: Using a hand held recorder to record your own phone conversation =/= wiretap.


It may be illegal under wiretap laws. Depending on where you live, the law may require all parties be aware that the conversation is being recorded.
=Smidge=
 
2013-03-23 10:05:56 AM
His lawyer, Catherine Flynn, argued that because it was an accident, he did not do anything illegal.
"It was my intention to capture myself, and only myself," Vila said in court.


I'm sure the cop would gladly accept such an excuse from one of us.
 
2013-03-23 10:07:31 AM

Quality Unassured: Using a hand held recorder to record your own phone conversation =/= wiretap.


Yeah.  I thought this was a case of a cop wiretapping a Judge because he didn't like how she was running her court but it turned out to be a guy who was concerned about getting burned by the power dynamics when asking for a warrant.  These two-party-consent rules seem to cause a lot of problems and prevent people from protecting themselves, ironically mostly from the cops.
 
2013-03-23 10:14:41 AM
The requirement that both sides consent to recording is a way to prevent the citizenry from proving wrongdoing by police.
 
2013-03-23 10:16:46 AM

Quality Unassured: Using a hand held recorder to record your own phone conversation =/= wiretap.


Your own voice, yes.  The problem is that he recorded the judge's voice also.  This happened in a two-party state.
 
2013-03-23 10:18:06 AM
Hmmm....

Recording for your own protection shouldn't be a crime.  And he should have been smart enough not to play it for anyone other than his Lieutenant.
 
2013-03-23 10:18:19 AM
Guy was trying to get this biatch to do the right thing, not take "weekends off", and he was scared knowing that she had the power to raise a stink and squish him if she wanted over his stink.

On the other hand, I hate the ignorance factor people try to use in their defense:
"I didn't know my speaker phone was on" is about as realistic as "I didn't know my car was running when I ran over all those people".
 
2013-03-23 10:27:36 AM
Asshole cop who has spent 18 years bullying the rank and file, neglecting the Constitution, now illegally wiretapping, and arguing with a Judge should only get 10 days in PMITA prison.....in general pop. Seems fair.
 
2013-03-23 10:28:22 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com

Wants nothing to do with McNulty's latest insane scheme...
 
2013-03-23 10:28:31 AM
I can't believe there aren't any references to The Wire in here.

Clearly they left this to Herc and Carver, not Cool Lester Smooth.
 
2013-03-23 10:31:49 AM
Cop was wrong making the recording, judge sounds like she didn't want to do her job.
 
2013-03-23 10:32:22 AM
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!
 
2013-03-23 10:36:57 AM
WOW,  F fark and it's filtering of comments!
 
2013-03-23 10:40:05 AM
It's okay Mr.Vila. Thousands of your brothers in blue have got away with much worse, so there's that.
 
2013-03-23 10:40:53 AM

"The tenor was a very hostile one," Gordon said in court.

static.stuff.co.nz

"I told youse get lost"

"TOLD YOUSE GET LOOOOOOOST"

 
2013-03-23 10:41:58 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: The requirement that both sides consent to recording is a way to prevent the citizenry from proving wrongdoing by police.


And the fact that the cop was ignorant of this, after Maryland has repeatedly used wiretap laws to go after similar behavior by civilians on police is delicious irony, and I hope this guy loses everything.  According to the statute (10-402) it's a felony, although for first offenses I think the max fine is $500.  This just touches on all the greatest hits of the PD, like "ignorance of the law is no excuse", "this is for your own protection (as the cop tries to convince the judge to rubberstamp whatever bullshiat warrant he was trying to procure)".
 
2013-03-23 10:42:00 AM
Rich people  Douche bag problems.
 
2013-03-23 10:42:40 AM
Today's food for thought:

A lot of states enacted two-party consent laws in the 1970s after the extent of FBI and White House wiretapping became known. Most people have no idea that something as simple as turning on a video camera in public may violate the law. These laws were written when personal recording devices were the size of a Michener novel and not in common public use. Today, of course, things have changed. I was happy to see the court in Illinois throw out that state's law; there are bound to be enough of these that SCOTUS might rule on the subject in the next few years.

As a journalist working with people in a variety of states, I've just found that it's easiest to get all parties to consent at the start of the call, and I explain that it's because I'm a shiatty note-taker. Most people get it; if they don't, I explain it's because I want to get any quotes I use right before they appear in print.

Of course, that's not what was going on here. Schmuck wanted to get a judge (who wasn't thrilled about a detective coming over at 3am for what might be a BS warrant) in trouble and got burned with his own match.

And now, back to your Saturday morning cartoons...
 
2013-03-23 10:43:22 AM
25.media.tumblr.com

...Cops should be reminded that they are subject to the same laws that the rest of us are...
 
2013-03-23 10:45:22 AM

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!


In my state and 37 others, it's just fine to record a phone conversation as long as at least one person in the conversation knows it's being recorded.  And I like it that way.
 
2013-03-23 10:47:02 AM
Worried that the incident could lead to a complaint against him, Vila said he only intended to record his side of the conversation. The sergeant testified that he only made the recording of the judge's voice because he accidentally turned on the speaker of his cellphone.

His lawyer, Catherine Flynn, argued that because it was an accident, he did not do anything illegal.

"It was my intention to capture myself, and only myself," Vila said in court.



Farking liar.


But Assistant State's Attorney Paul Pineau asked Vila whether he had ever used a speakerphone before

That question must have felt awesome to ask.
 
2013-03-23 10:47:15 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: The requirement that both sides consent to recording is a way to prevent the citizenry from proving wrongdoing by police.


Funny thing about that is that it was seen as a protection against Watergate-style wiretap attempts.
 
2013-03-23 10:47:22 AM

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!


Yup, and if a citizen does a crime accidentally, then I am sure it isn't a crime, too!

Anything that brings to light the awful justice system here is a good thing
 
2013-03-23 10:56:38 AM
It's not illegal if he had a warrant. He should try and get the judge to post-date a warrant for the recording of their previous conversation ... and their current conversation as well.

Then he should upload that phone call to youtube.
 
2013-03-23 11:05:21 AM
FTFA:   His lawyer, Catherine Flynn, argued that because it was an accident, he did not do anything illegal.
"It was my intention to capture myself, and only myself," Vila said in court.


Yeah, right. Let a civilian try that defense and see how that turns out.

"I've lost everything because of this," said Sgt. Carlos M. Vila.

Boo. Hoo.
 
2013-03-23 11:08:56 AM

cantsleep: Cop was wrong making the recording, judge sounds like she didn't want to do her job.


Seems to me she was doing her job just fine.
 
2013-03-23 11:26:33 AM
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.
 
2013-03-23 11:45:42 AM
My sympathy is limited because the MD state police made a big stink about how illegal this is in
a case a little while ago-

That Anthony Graber broke the law in early March is indisputable. He raced his Honda motorcycle down Interstate 95 in Maryland at 80 mph, popping a wheelie, roaring past cars and swerving across traffic lanes.

But it wasn't his daredevil stunt that has the 25-year-old staff sergeant for the Maryland Air National Guard facing the possibility of 16 years in prison. For that, he was issued a speeding ticket.

It was the video that Graber posted on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7PC9cZEWCQ&NR=1" target=external>YouTube one week later -- taken with his helmet camera -- of a plainclothes state trooper cutting him off and drawing a gun during the traffic stop near Baltimore.

In early April, state police officers raided Graber's parents' home in Abingdon, Md. They confiscated his camera, computers and external hard drives. Graber was indicted for allegedly violating state wiretap laws by recording the trooper without his consent.



http://abcnews.go.com/US/TheLaw/videotaping-cops-arrest/story?id=111 79 076


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.
 
2013-03-23 12:07:22 PM

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 that 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.
 
2013-03-23 12:23:42 PM
Seems to me like the judge was being lazy.
 
2013-03-23 12:29:54 PM
In Canaduh, only one party needs to know the call is being recorded(and or videoed).

Traffic police have cameras on their vests(if the power pack is on) and dashboards, but in some cases a copy for court will only be made if the emergency lights are on(the dvr in the trunk records continuously and activation of the strobes starts a recording 30 seconds before the strobe activation). You can get the dvr raw data if you know about it and get it before it gets overwritten.

All those calls to customer service calls you make are being recorded sometimes without warning and will be used to deny you access to them, so you can't show that customer service was a lying ass.

funny thing though, if the recorded conversation is important enough, a Judge will allow it. But that is usually when the peon does not know what the law actually says and his lawyer is shiat.

Run the recording through an analyzer and you can easily see all the sound breaks of an edited recording.

!!!!ENHANCE!!!!
 
2013-03-23 12:30:22 PM
It's also a thought crime in Baltimore to remember the conversation that took place during a phone call, especially if you could see the water or another state during the conversation.
 
2013-03-23 12:31:21 PM

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.


This.
 
2013-03-23 12:34:19 PM
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.
 
2013-03-23 12:40:11 PM

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.


This was my take as well. He was just trying tocover his ass, she was being a lazy, entitled beeyotch
 
2013-03-23 01:15:46 PM
That cop's lawyer has some stones: "You're aware that crime occurs 24 hours a day. Is that correct?" - Yikes.  Guess he doesn't want to make judge - ever.
 
2013-03-23 01:24:27 PM

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.


I've been in print journalism since the '80s and you are full of it.
 
2013-03-23 01:39:57 PM

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.
 
2013-03-23 01:51:22 PM
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

She was dealing with the Warrants, part of that job is to decide if there is a actual reason for the warrant to be issued after hours or if it can wait until normal hours- will evidence be lost or destroyed? Searching a car that will be locked in the impound lot until it is searched is not a emergency need unless the officer needs overtime!

Perhaps your neighbor deals with officers who understand the difference between a emergency need and one that can be handled during normal hours.
 
2013-03-23 01:54:06 PM
THIS is what the death penalty should be for.
For when privileged authorities in our society use their powers and immunity to falsely incriminate someone...
And when members of the justice system decline to adequately punish the above.
Just think what a world we'd have if law enforcement and justice systems did their jobs instead of fight tooth and nail for more power and immunity to just do whatever they want.
 
2013-03-23 02:08:08 PM

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.




Sunshine Law down here.
 
2013-03-23 02:09:15 PM

cantsleep: Cop was wrong making the recording, judge sounds like she didn't want to do her job.


Sounds like she did want to do her job.  She had problems with the warrant application and asked for the cop's supervisor.  Cop said his super wasn't on duty and he didn't want to bother his boss at home.  Rather than fail  to do her job of signing only valid warrants, she said, "OK, we'll wait until Monday when I can speak to your boss."  Then she approved another warrant the same night.

Cop was trying to bulldoze judge and she wasn't having it.
 
2013-03-23 02:23:36 PM

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.


The public areas of a public building are protected ground.  Restricted areas are not. "Who's a journalist and who's just pretending" is still very much up in the air.
 
2013-03-23 02:26:42 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Sounds like she did want to do her job.  She had problems with the warrant application and asked for the cop's supervisor.


It was the investigating officer that called first, and she asked to speak to his supervisor. It was the supervisor that recorded the call. She then asked to speak to HIS supervisor and that started the dispute.

Warrants in cases where the cops want to search a car in which the victim of a shooting was found are pretty basic.  Makes me wonder what she saw wrong with the warrant affidavit.

I also find it odd that she wanted to talk to supervisors. Warrant affidavits fall under the "four corners" doctrine in which it is necessary that all of the information be contained within the four corners of the affidavit. If sufficient information to support the warrant isn't there, the warrant is simply denied. The judge in this case should have just denied the warrant as factually deficient. No need to speak to any supervisors unless she wanted to complain about being awakened in the middle of the night.
 
2013-03-23 02:35:03 PM
Sounds like two egos collided, and the one with lesser intellectual horsepower lost.
 
2013-03-23 02:42:01 PM
(•looks at headline - reads article - leaves confused as to relation•)
 
2013-03-23 02:54:00 PM
In Maryland you can leave a message on someone's voicemail telling them that you are going to gun them down the next time you see them and it cannot be used in court nor can it be used to arrest you unless there is a wiretap order from a judge.  Also, if you set up a hidden camera in your house and later see your hired baby sitter physically and sexually abusing your 2 year old on the clip, you have to delete the video and even if you do you could still be charged and convicted of illegal wiretapping.  But, if you send an email to the county executive of Montgomery County telling him that you think he's a "penny n^gg&r in need of a good watermelon" the county will have the FBI investigate you for months.  The FBI will assign multiple agents to follow you around who never can obtain any evidence that could be used to convict you of a crime.
 
2013-03-23 03:08:28 PM
Anybody know a site that lists by state whether it's a one party or two party recording state?
 
2013-03-23 03:13:46 PM
It should be perfectly legal to record public officials while they are doing their job.

For instance, a judge or a cop.
 
2013-03-23 04:06:08 PM

BullBearMS: It should be perfectly legal to record public officials while they are doing their job.

For instance, a judge or a cop.


It is, when they're doing their jobs in public.  Phone conversations carry an expectation of privacy.
 
2013-03-23 04:26:49 PM

BarkingUnicorn: BullBearMS: It should be perfectly legal to record public officials while they are doing their job.

For instance, a judge or a cop.

It is, when they're doing their jobs in public.  Phone conversations carry an expectation of privacy.


Phone conversations don't carry that expectation-- some people just assume it-- and for the most part, people having banal conversations with their acquaintances have every reason to assume it.  People conducting business, blackmailers making demands, couples arguing about child support payments, or judges having contentious debates with police involving an ongoing crime investigation probably shouldn't just assume that sort of thing.

I'm still trying to figure out how this specifically violates a wire tapping ordinance.  I though "wire tapping" had a fairly clear connotation.
 
2013-03-23 04:40:39 PM

Earguy: Anybody know a site that lists by state whether it's a one party or two party recording state?


http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/state-state-guide
 
2013-03-23 04:43:38 PM

boinkingbill: In Maryland you can leave a message on someone's voicemail telling them that you are going to gun them down the next time you see them and it cannot be used in court nor can it be used to arrest you unless there is a wiretap order from a judge.  Also, if you set up a hidden camera in your house and later see your hired baby sitter physically and sexually abusing your 2 year old on the clip, you have to delete the video and even if you do you could still be charged and convicted of illegal wiretapping.


Bad.

But, if you send an email to the county executive of Montgomery County telling him that you think he's a "penny n^gg&r in need of a good watermelon" the county will have the FBI investigate you for months.  The FBI will assign multiple agents to follow you around who never can obtain any evidence that could be used to convict you of a crime.

Good and funny. Why did you do this? Health Department tell you to get a septic and stop shiatting in your yard?
 
2013-03-23 04:46:53 PM

Azlefty: 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

She was dealing with the Warrants, part of that job is to decide if there is a actual reason for the warrant to be issued after hours or if it can wait until normal hours- will evidence be lost or destroyed? Searching a car that will be locked in the impound lot until it is searched is not a emergency need unless the officer needs overtime!

Perhaps your neighbor deals with officers who understand the difference between a emergency need and one that can be handled during normal hours.


Did you think that maybe time was of the essence? The quicker they search the car, the quicker they catch the shooter?  We do not know all of the particulars of the case that precipitated the warrant in question!
 
2013-03-23 05:19:33 PM

boinkingbill: Also, if you set up a hidden camera in your house and later see your hired baby sitter physically and sexually abusing your 2 year old on the clip, you have to delete the video and even if you do you could still be charged and convicted of illegal wiretapping.


I'll gladly take the 30 day suspended sentence (first time offender) in order to expose the criminal pedo. Who wouldn't??
 
2013-03-23 05:38:28 PM
biatch judge vs asshole cop. Wow. Hard to choose a side here.
 
2013-03-23 06:14:15 PM

bratface: Did you think that maybe time was of the essence? The quicker they search the car, the quicker they catch the shooter? We do not know all of the particulars of the case that precipitated the warrant in question!


Yes but the Judge Did, or do you think Judges are to stupid to ascertain that? FYI: all that evidence will sit for few days or weeks until they process it so time is moot unless the shooter is in the trunk. It does not work like it does on CSI.
 
2013-03-23 06:37:55 PM

thamike: BarkingUnicorn: BullBearMS: It should be perfectly legal to record public officials while they are doing their job.

For instance, a judge or a cop.

It is, when they're doing their jobs in public.  Phone conversations carry an expectation of privacy.

Phone conversations don't carry that expectation-- some people just assume it

I'm still trying to figure out how this specifically violates a wire tapping ordinance.  I though "wire tapping" had a fairly clear connotation.


"Wire tapping" has a very clear legal definition; your connotation is irrelevant.

Phone conversations in a private place carry the reasonable expectation that only the participants will hear it.
 
2013-03-23 06:41:55 PM

bratface: Azlefty: 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

She was dealing with the Warrants, part of that job is to decide if there is a actual reason for the warrant to be issued after hours or if it can wait until normal hours- will evidence be lost or destroyed? Searching a car that will be locked in the impound lot until it is searched is not a emergency need unless the officer needs overtime!

Perhaps your neighbor deals with officers who understand the difference between a emergency need and one that can be handled during normal hours.

Did you think that maybe time was of the essence? The quicker they search the car, the quicker they catch the shooter?  We do not know all of the particulars of the case that precipitated the warrant in question!


Cop:  "I don't wanna explain any more; just sign it."
Judge:  "Let me speak to your supervisor."
Cop:  "I don't wanna disturb him on his night off."
Judge:  "Fine, then wait until Monday."

You don't get uppity with a judge.
 
2013-03-23 07:24:37 PM
Unless your name is Linda Tripp then it's totally cool.
 
2013-03-23 09:18:55 PM
www.mememaker.net
 
2013-03-23 09:39:19 PM
CruiserTwelve: 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.

Let me get this straight: when an Officer records a judge, it's a public service and it's okay.  But, when a civilian videotapes an Officer he gets a hefty prison sentence. And that makes sense to you?
 
2013-03-23 10:07:48 PM

fnordfocus: Let me get this straight: when an Officer records a judge, it's a public service and it's okay.  But, when a civilian videotapes an Officer he gets a hefty prison sentence. And that makes sense to you?


No. I don't remember ever agreeing with people getting arrested for recording an officer. Maybe you can refresh my recollection.
 
2013-03-23 11:04:12 PM

BarkingUnicorn: BullBearMS: It should be perfectly legal to record public officials while they are doing their job.

For instance, a judge or a cop.

It is, when they're doing their jobs in public.  Phone conversations carry an expectation of privacy.


They should not when the call consists of conducting business on behalf of the public who elected you.
 
2013-03-24 12:58:39 AM
Heh, silly judge, I guess he forgot that's legal now.
farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2013-03-24 06:53:52 AM
How many times have I hear the argument, the law is the law, and it is simply the job of officers to make arrests and the criminal justice system will deal with it.

Let his fellow officers arrest him after the judge makes the complaint, just as anyone else would be arrested.

Then a jury can decide from there.
 
2013-03-24 08:38:14 AM

BarkingUnicorn: "Wire tapping" has a very clear legal definition; your connotation is irrelevant.

Phone conversations in a private place carry the reasonable expectation that only the participants will hear it.


Uh, yes. My "connotation" is irrelevant.  Which is why I...mentioned that wire tapping has...

You know what, I'll just skip past trying to figure out your response and post a link to the legal definition of wire tapping (according to Maryland)


The cop has a way out of this.  Or maybe he had one until he chose to blubber on the stand.  At any rate, you get free beer for getting BullbearMS to defend wire tapping.
 
2013-03-24 08:44:02 AM

dbrunker: Heh, silly judge, I guess he forgot that's legal now.
[farm4.staticflickr.com image 500x381]


"Warrantless Wiretapping" was put into effect under Bush and was reviewed and amended in 2008.
 
2013-03-24 11:01:19 AM
There is a slight difference between recording public officials while they are using the extraordinary powers granted to them by the public, and recording everyone all the time. A public official should have no expectation of privacy while executing their office.

When not using powers granted by the public, they should have the same privacy rights as anyone else.

Here's the sort of current action I definitely do not support.

The Obama administration told a federal court Tuesday that the public has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in cellphone location data, and hence the authorities may obtain documents detailing a person's movements from wireless carriers without a probable-cause warrant.

and

The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to allow the government, without a court warrant, to affix GPS devices on suspects' vehicles to track their every move.

and

The Obama administration is urging Congress not to adopt legislation that would impose constitutional safeguards on Americans' e-mail stored in the cloud.

and

The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to halt a legal challenge weighing the constitutionality of a once-secret warrantless surveillance program targeting Americans' communications

and

The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order

and

The Obama administration is drawing up plans to give all U.S. spy agencies full access to a massive database that contains financial data on American citizens and others who bank in the country

and

Certain sections of the Patriot Act, which originally passed Congress a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks with near-unanimous support, have long been criticized by civil libertarians in both political parties.

But the Obama administration and its allies on Capitol Hill have been eager to renew about-to-expire provisions that expanded domestic intelligence collection and wiretapping powers. As the AP put it, "The idea [of the deal] is to pass the extension with as little debate as possible to avoid a protracted and familiar argument over the expanded power the law gives to the government."


and

For more than two years, a handful of Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee have warned that the government is secretly interpreting its surveillance powers under the Patriot Act in a way that would be alarming if the public - or even others in Congress - knew about it.
 
2013-03-24 11:04:06 AM
Good for you.
 
2013-03-24 12:16:08 PM

BullBearMS: There is a slight difference between recording public officials while they are using the extraordinary powers granted to them by the public, and recording everyone all the time. A public official should have no expectation of privacy while executing their office.

When not using powers granted by the public, they should have the same privacy rights as anyone else.

Here's the sort of current action I definitely do not support.

The Obama administration told a federal court Tuesday that the public has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in cellphone location data, and hence the authorities may obtain documents detailing a person's movements from wireless carriers without a probable-cause warrant.

and

The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to allow the government, without a court warrant, to affix GPS devices on suspects' vehicles to track their every move.

and

The Obama administration is urging Congress not to adopt legislation that would impose constitutional safeguards on Americans' e-mail stored in the cloud.

and

The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to halt a legal challenge weighing the constitutionality of a once-secret warrantless surveillance program targeting Americans' communications

and

The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order

and

The Obama administration is drawing up plans to give all U.S. spy agencies full access to a massive database that contains financial data on American citizens and others who bank in the country

and

Certain sections of the Patriot Act, which originally passed Congress a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks with near-unanimous support, have long been criticized by civil libertarians in both political parties.

But the Obama administration and its allies on Capitol Hill have been eager to renew about-to-expire provisions that expanded domestic intelligence collection and wiretapping powers. As the AP put it, "The idea [of the deal] is to pass the extension with as little debate as possible to avoid a protracted and familiar argument over the expanded power the law gives to the government."

and

For more than two years, a handful of Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee have warned that the government is secretly interpreting its surveillance powers under the Patriot Act in a way that would be alarming if the public - or even others in Congress - knew about it.


Christ on a cracker, dude, you no longer have an axe to grind. I'm pretty sure at this point it's worn down to just a single splinter.

/waaaah! Obama is trying to make it legal to fark me in the ass without the lobster dinner my ass demands! Waaaah!
//Shut. The. Fark. Up.
///No one died 8 years ago when Bush was doing all this same bullshi---oh, never mind...now I get it
//you're not really a crybaby-douche, you just don't want anyone else to make the same mistake you did! Such a great American!
 
2013-03-24 12:45:12 PM

mooseyfate: Obama is trying to make it legal to fark me in the ass without the lobster dinner my ass demands!


No, Obama is trying to expand Bush's warrantless spying in every way possible.

If you didn't support Bush starting it, then you would be a total asshat to suddenly make excuses for Obama expanding it.

/Yes, I'm well aware that Fark is full of just such asshats
//See: Politics Tab
 
2013-03-24 05:12:38 PM

thamike: dbrunker: Heh, silly judge, I guess he forgot that's legal now.
[farm4.staticflickr.com image 500x381]

"Warrantless Wiretapping" was put into effect under Bush and was reviewed and amended in 2008.


And also in 2011, although Barak Obama signed it at the very last second and as secretly as possible (and since "warrantless" sounded so... illegal, the news changed the name to "roving wiretaps")
Patriot Act Extension Signed By Obama -Huffington Post
 
2013-03-24 06:54:20 PM
We also recently snuck through a five year extension to the FISA amendments that were called a dangerous attack on the Fourth Amendment. I believe the often repeated phrase was that Bush was wiping his ass with the Constitution.

It was so bad that Senator Obama promised to filibuster the FISA extensions before he had managed to win the nomination over Hillary.

However, Obama did clinch the nomination before it came to the Senate floor, whereupon Obama voted for it instead of keeping his word to filibuster.

At the end of last year, they set out to pull another patriot act extension deal where they reauthorized FISA with as little publicity as possible without debate.

The Senate is about to vote on an extension of the controversial FISA Amendments Act-the unconstitutional law that allows the NSA to warrantlessly spy on Americans speaking to people abroad. Yet you wouldn't know it by watching CSPAN because the Senate isn't debating it.

When Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act in 2008, despite deep privacy concerns by Americans across the political spectrum, they included an expiration date of December 31, 2012 to ensure that the law would get a thorough review. Yet Senate leaders have so far refused to schedule any time on the Senate floor for debate or consideration of vital privacy-protecting amendments. Worse, they won't even tell the American public when they're going to vote on it. It's possible they may vote on this bill-with no privacy protective changes-without any debate at all, and we won't know until it is happening.


You'd almost never know the oath of office was to "defend and protect the Constitution".
 
Displayed 80 of 80 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report