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.

(Boston Herald)   Woman was too drunk to remember that recording police arresting you is a felony in Massachusetts   (bostonherald.com) divider line 138
    More: Dumbass, Massachusetts, felony, Springfield District Court  
•       •       •

7078 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 May 2014 at 10:24 AM (15 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-13 09:02:48 AM
Ugh, this is one of the things I dislike most about Massachusetts.  I really hope we change this soon.
 
2014-05-13 09:34:41 AM

SphericalTime: Ugh, this is one of the things I dislike most about Massachusetts.  I really hope we change this soon.


I don't even get why they would have that law. I mean I get it from a law enforcement standpoint, but from a regular citizen's POV, it's complete horseshiat.

All police cars should have two cameras. One for the department, and one that's recorded by a separate third-party company with ZERO ties to any law enforcement department or organization. Maybe run by the ACLU or something.
 
2014-05-13 09:52:56 AM
Land of the Free.
 
2014-05-13 09:54:47 AM

scottydoesntknow: SphericalTime: Ugh, this is one of the things I dislike most about Massachusetts.  I really hope we change this soon.

I don't even get why they would have that law. I mean I get it from a law enforcement standpoint, but from a regular citizen's POV, it's complete horseshiat.

All police cars should have two cameras. One for the department, and one that's recorded by a separate third-party company with ZERO ties to any law enforcement department or organization. Maybe run by the ACLU or something.


All cops should have to wear them.
 
2014-05-13 09:58:15 AM

PreMortem: scottydoesntknow: SphericalTime: Ugh, this is one of the things I dislike most about Massachusetts.  I really hope we change this soon.

I don't even get why they would have that law. I mean I get it from a law enforcement standpoint, but from a regular citizen's POV, it's complete horseshiat.

All police cars should have two cameras. One for the department, and one that's recorded by a separate third-party company with ZERO ties to any law enforcement department or organization. Maybe run by the ACLU or something.

All cops should have to wear them.


Yea, that too.
 
2014-05-13 10:06:18 AM
What justification is there to make that a crime? I mean she seems like a real coont but that's beside the point.
 
2014-05-13 10:07:10 AM

scottydoesntknow: SphericalTime: Ugh, this is one of the things I dislike most about Massachusetts.  I really hope we change this soon.

I don't even get why they would have that law. I mean I get it from a law enforcement standpoint, but from a regular citizen's POV, it's complete horseshiat.

All police cars should have two cameras. One for the department, and one that's recorded by a separate third-party company with ZERO ties to any law enforcement department or organization. Maybe run by the ACLU or something.


I think it's originally derived from wiretapping laws, but now it just means being in the vicinity of an arrest and taking a video of a friend saying something stupid at the same time could get you arrested on felony charges.

Videoing on-duty police should always be okay. Always.
 
2014-05-13 10:17:09 AM

scottydoesntknow: SphericalTime: Ugh, this is one of the things I dislike most about Massachusetts.  I really hope we change this soon.

I don't even get why they would have that law. I mean I get it from a law enforcement standpoint, but from a regular citizen's POV, it's complete horseshiat.


It is so they can do illegal shiat. There is literally no other reason.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-05-13 10:23:12 AM
 
2014-05-13 10:28:47 AM

SphericalTime: Videoing on-duty police should always be okay. Always.


For some reason, cops don't tend to agree.

And they're the ones with the law on their sides.   They always have the law on their sides, de facto, really.  Which means that they are never wrong.
 
2014-05-13 10:28:47 AM

PreMortem: scottydoesntknow: SphericalTime: Ugh, this is one of the things I dislike most about Massachusetts.  I really hope we change this soon.

I don't even get why they would have that law. I mean I get it from a law enforcement standpoint, but from a regular citizen's POV, it's complete horseshiat.

All police cars should have two cameras. One for the department, and one that's recorded by a separate third-party company with ZERO ties to any law enforcement department or organization. Maybe run by the ACLU or something.

All cops should have to wear them.


And they should be on the entire time they're wearing them, which should be the entire time that they're in uniform.

/they should be fined, HEAVILY, for "losing" the tapes
//jail time for repeat offenders
 
2014-05-13 10:28:55 AM
I thought SCOTUS ruled this was entirely legal?
 
2014-05-13 10:29:12 AM
The abuse of this law has gone on way too farking long at this point, the first publicized case about this should have pissed off enough people to have it changed but you constantly hear stories about it coming out of MA, kinda embarrassing actually.
 
2014-05-13 10:29:25 AM

Mugato: What justification is there to make that a crime? I mean she seems like a real coont but that's beside the point.


There is no valid justification.
 
2014-05-13 10:30:17 AM
I'm not understanding how this law can survive any kind of review.
 
2014-05-13 10:31:16 AM
Tape?

She break out the Betamax old school style?
 
2014-05-13 10:33:01 AM

SphericalTime: Ugh, this is one of the things I dislike most about Massachusetts.  I really hope we change this soon.


Federal courts have already ruled against a similar law in Illinois. Hopefully they'll overturn this one.
 
2014-05-13 10:34:06 AM
Is this a recording cops charge, or recording anyone without their knowledge charge?

She also sounds like a raging beyotch,
 
2014-05-13 10:35:14 AM

Prometheus_Unbound: Mugato: What justification is there to make that a crime? I mean she seems like a real coont but that's beside the point.

There is no valid justification.


Because they can?

There are so many conflicting laws, they're pretty much arbitrary.  So, here is the truth:  If the DA is willing to prosecute, then the law believes that you are doing something wrong.

Conversely, if they don't, then you aren't.   Which is why cops are never wrong.  Also, politicians and white collar embezzlers. People that aren't you, or this lady.
 
2014-05-13 10:35:34 AM
This is why she shouldn't have told the police anything about it. Hold onto it until court and then prove whatever purjury she thought she could get.

/Starr v Clinton
 
2014-05-13 10:40:26 AM
Illinois has this stupid two party law too. It's stupid and needs to go away. If you have to tell someone you're recording them  they're obviously not going to do what your trying to catch them doing.
 
2014-05-13 10:40:52 AM
While this biatch is a crazy coont, Police officers have no expectation of privacy while on the job.
 
2014-05-13 10:43:20 AM

abhorrent1: Illinois has this stupid two party law too. It's stupid and needs to go away. If you have to tell someone you're recording them  they're obviously not going to do what your trying to catch them doing.


On the flip side, should they be able to record civilians at any and all times, without consent?
 
2014-05-13 10:44:50 AM
Glik v. Cunniffe happened in Massachusetts.  I don't understand why they think they can charge her with this.
 
2014-05-13 10:44:52 AM
sounds like a Romney rule..
 
2014-05-13 10:45:44 AM

nitefallz: I thought SCOTUS ruled this was entirely legal?


Not SCOTUS, but First Circuit (PDF).

Law is unconstitutional, qualified immunity doesn't attach.

The ACLU and others have been raking in some settlement cash ever since that decision was handed down. You'd think the cops would learn by now.
 
2014-05-13 10:46:30 AM

nitefallz: I thought SCOTUS ruled this was entirely legal?


It's legal to photograph, videotape, or audiotape in public if all parties know the audio is being recorded.

An example would be whipping out a camera phone when the cops are locking someone up and recording it.  They have no legal grounds to sop you from recording it.

The laws here in PA are very similar.  As a matter of fact, the state police have wearable microphones they use on traffic stops.  They have to get the permission of the motorist to turn the mic on before they record with it, then state to the driver, on the recording, that they are being recorded.

Some see wiretap laws like this some sort of boon to the police.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  In PA (an "all party" state) the police can't secretly audio tape a suspect while questioning him/her.  It makes the recording inadmissible in court.

In DE (a "one party") state the police can (and do) record you without your knowledge.  Detectives have been known to carry as many as 3 recoding devices, whip the first one out, take out the second, convincing the suspect that was your "back up" and there's no way he's recording you, and get you to chat it up "off the record".  The whole time you're spilling the beans, the tape is a rollin' and it's all legal.


The real issue here is 5 o'clock vodka?  Really?  It's farking paint thinner.  I'm guessing she has a Fark handle
 
2014-05-13 10:47:02 AM
So glad liberals in liberal states care about the rights of individuals.
 
2014-05-13 10:47:12 AM

Tigger: scottydoesntknow: SphericalTime: Ugh, this is one of the things I dislike most about Massachusetts.  I really hope we change this soon.

I don't even get why they would have that law. I mean I get it from a law enforcement standpoint, but from a regular citizen's POV, it's complete horseshiat.

It is so they can do illegal shiat. There is literally no other reason.


There is "literally" another reason. The origins of the law were to protect civil liberties. Mass is a two-party consent state; without a warrant, no one can record anyone's voice without their permission. Why you think it's a good idea to change that is beyond me; it also keeps police from wiring informants without a warrant, from tapping a phone call with one party's permission and not the other's.

It's why when you call customer service you get a message that "This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes;" in one-party consent states they can record the call without telling you but it would be a crime to do so in two-party states.

So no, keeping cops out of trouble is not literally (or figuratively) the only reason for the law. It's the idea that secretly recording someone is creepy and unfair.
 
2014-05-13 10:47:20 AM
All police activity should be recorded and monitored for safety reasons.
Drunken crazy people should be removed from public for safety reasons.

Nice to read an article where the cops didn't break the law.
Even if the law should be broken, in this case.
 
2014-05-13 10:49:08 AM
wire tap laws are interesting...

shows that at one point, people were very apprehensive about having their conversations logged to be used out of context (against them) at a later date.

then came the internetz....

and literally every conversation is now captured.
and we..  ignore it because it's so damned convenient.
 
2014-05-13 10:51:03 AM

lizyrd: Tigger: scottydoesntknow: SphericalTime: Ugh, this is one of the things I dislike most about Massachusetts.  I really hope we change this soon.

I don't even get why they would have that law. I mean I get it from a law enforcement standpoint, but from a regular citizen's POV, it's complete horseshiat.

It is so they can do illegal shiat. There is literally no other reason.

There is "literally" another reason. The origins of the law were to protect civil liberties. Mass is a two-party consent state; without a warrant, no one can record anyone's voice without their permission. Why you think it's a good idea to change that is beyond me; it also keeps police from wiring informants without a warrant, from tapping a phone call with one party's permission and not the other's.

It's why when you call customer service you get a message that "This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes;" in one-party consent states they can record the call without telling you but it would be a crime to do so in two-party states.

So no, keeping cops out of trouble is not literally (or figuratively) the only reason for the law. It's the idea that secretly recording someone is creepy and unfair.


its not difficult to understand.  If cops have no expectation of privacy, and the person they are interacting with is doing the recording, then no law has been broken.  The recorder has obviously given consent by initiating the recording, and the cops have no ability to refuse.
 
2014-05-13 10:51:05 AM
You'd think the cops would be glad to have this idiot chick record herself behaving badly while they respond professionally.
 .
 
2014-05-13 10:51:13 AM

lizyrd: Tigger: scottydoesntknow: SphericalTime: Ugh, this is one of the things I dislike most about Massachusetts.  I really hope we change this soon.

I don't even get why they would have that law. I mean I get it from a law enforcement standpoint, but from a regular citizen's POV, it's complete horseshiat.

It is so they can do illegal shiat. There is literally no other reason.

There is "literally" another reason. The origins of the law were to protect civil liberties. Mass is a two-party consent state; without a warrant, no one can record anyone's voice without their permission. Why you think it's a good idea to change that is beyond me; it also keeps police from wiring informants without a warrant, from tapping a phone call with one party's permission and not the other's.

It's why when you call customer service you get a message that "This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes;" in one-party consent states they can record the call without telling you but it would be a crime to do so in two-party states.

So no, keeping cops out of trouble is not literally (or figuratively) the only reason for the law. It's the idea that secretly recording someone is creepy and unfair.


Which is why every other state where it is legal to record cops also have huge, huge problems with creepers recording everybody else that they see.

No wait, no they don't. Make an exception for recording the police. Simple as that.
 
2014-05-13 10:52:43 AM

hermitage_deux: wire tap laws are interesting...

shows that at one point, people were very apprehensive about having their conversations logged to be used out of context (against them) at a later date.

then came the internetz....

and literally every conversation is now captured.
and we..  ignore it because it's so damned convenient.


Yeah, it seems that only weird old conservative fogies care about privacy any more.
 
2014-05-13 10:53:01 AM

The My Little Pony Killer: PreMortem: scottydoesntknow: SphericalTime: Ugh, this is one of the things I dislike most about Massachusetts.  I really hope we change this soon.

I don't even get why they would have that law. I mean I get it from a law enforcement standpoint, but from a regular citizen's POV, it's complete horseshiat.

All police cars should have two cameras. One for the department, and one that's recorded by a separate third-party company with ZERO ties to any law enforcement department or organization. Maybe run by the ACLU or something.

All cops should have to wear them.

And they should be on the entire time they're wearing them, which should be the entire time that they're in uniform.

/they should be fined, HEAVILY, for "losing" the tapes
//jail time for repeat offenders


While it's a good idea, actually implementing this kind of system would be pretty pricey just in terms of storing and maintaining the data.  I'm actually working with a camera manufacturer and the local metro force now to explore this possibility.  The primary problem is getting high enough resolution to be legally viable in a courtroom (40 pixels per foot is the magic number for legal identification) to couple with lightweight wearable hardware that has reliable storage capabilities.  Right now high-speed recording on microSD cards is a pretty shaky technology.  The data has a lot of problems with corrupting itself but the technology is improving every day. Also the power necessary to run a camera like that requires a fairly bulky battery system if you're operating it trying to walk around. All of the crusiers here already have on-board always on cameras that download to the primary server every time the cruiser goes back to the motorpool.  It is definitely something worth pushing and I hope we can be successful with this project here.
 
2014-05-13 10:55:28 AM
"...Dziewit [was] already under arrest for disorderly conduct. Police said she was charged with this after a lengthy disturbance during which she declined the advice of police, her two male companions whom she was yelling obscenities at and even passers-by on the street who were all urging her to exercise to right to remain silent."

So, does the reasonable expectation of privacy concept apply here?  Multiple people, some cops, some not, are in this little fracas, all trying to get her to shut up and go home, and she gets slapped with an extra charge for recording?  But if one of the bystanders recorded this, it wouldn't be an offense?

I'm so confused.
 
2014-05-13 10:56:03 AM

lizyrd: Tigger: scottydoesntknow: SphericalTime: Ugh, this is one of the things I dislike most about Massachusetts.  I really hope we change this soon.

I don't even get why they would have that law. I mean I get it from a law enforcement standpoint, but from a regular citizen's POV, it's complete horseshiat.

It is so they can do illegal shiat. There is literally no other reason.

There is "literally" another reason. The origins of the law were to protect civil liberties. Mass is a two-party consent state; without a warrant, no one can record anyone's voice without their permission. Why you think it's a good idea to change that is beyond me; it also keeps police from wiring informants without a warrant, from tapping a phone call with one party's permission and not the other's.

It's why when you call customer service you get a message that "This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes;" in one-party consent states they can record the call without telling you but it would be a crime to do so in two-party states.

So no, keeping cops out of trouble is not literally (or figuratively) the only reason for the law. It's the idea that secretly recording someone is creepy and unfair.


The law should be rewritten so that on-duty police do not have to give consent to be recorded. That would prevent one party taping by cops of citizens but stop idiocy like this from being a felony.
 
2014-05-13 10:58:16 AM

OnlyM3: So glad liberals in liberal states care about the rights of individuals.


Wow, you have such a keen mind to see things everyone else doesn't beyond the facts.
 
2014-05-13 10:58:56 AM

scottydoesntknow: I don't even get why they would have that law.


Powerful police unions, although I have to wonder how they have this law but also traffic cameras and shiat like that.  Did I give you consent to wiretap me by walking past your building?  I can see claiming that having a sign posted means I've opted in by entering your business, but walking past it?  Nope.
 
2014-05-13 11:00:01 AM

sendtodave: Prometheus_Unbound: Mugato: What justification is there to make that a crime? I mean she seems like a real coont but that's beside the point.

There is no valid justification.

Because they can?

There are so many conflicting laws, they're pretty much arbitrary.  So, here is the truth:  If the DA is willing to prosecute, then the law believes that you are doing something wrong.

Conversely, if they don't, then you aren't.   Which is why cops are never wrong.  Also, politicians and white collar embezzlers. People that aren't you, or this lady.


In an ideal world, the court would let her squirm for a little longer, then the DA decline to prosecute.  She comes out a little nicer, more reasonable person for the experience, having learned her lesson... you know, the silly sitcom ending.

Oh, my.   I crack myself up.
 
2014-05-13 11:00:18 AM
Massachusetts: "you better not film us beating your ass. Us beating your ass is a misdemeanor for you but filming it is a felony for you."
 
2014-05-13 11:01:33 AM
There is no constitutional right to privacy. Simple as that.
 
2014-05-13 11:01:48 AM

WyDave: So, does the reasonable expectation of privacy concept apply here?  Multiple people, some cops, some not, are in this little fracas, all trying to get her to shut up and go home, and she gets slapped with an extra charge for recording?  But if one of the bystanders recorded this, it wouldn't be an offense?

I'm so confused.


Well, she was intoxicated, so, even if she actually gave up her privacy, she wasn't rationally in a position to give up her privacy.

At least, if we use the same logic as we would regarding sexual consent. If a person can't consent to sex when/because they are drunk, how can they consent to give up any other rights?

Actually, thinking on it, how can we charge drunk people for anything, if they aren't in their right mind, and are unable to understand the ramifications of their decisions?
 
2014-05-13 11:04:04 AM

The My Little Pony Killer: lizyrd: Tigger: scottydoesntknow: SphericalTime: Ugh, this is one of the things I dislike most about Massachusetts.  I really hope we change this soon.

I don't even get why they would have that law. I mean I get it from a law enforcement standpoint, but from a regular citizen's POV, it's complete horseshiat.

It is so they can do illegal shiat. There is literally no other reason.

There is "literally" another reason. The origins of the law were to protect civil liberties. Mass is a two-party consent state; without a warrant, no one can record anyone's voice without their permission. Why you think it's a good idea to change that is beyond me; it also keeps police from wiring informants without a warrant, from tapping a phone call with one party's permission and not the other's.

It's why when you call customer service you get a message that "This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes;" in one-party consent states they can record the call without telling you but it would be a crime to do so in two-party states.

So no, keeping cops out of trouble is not literally (or figuratively) the only reason for the law. It's the idea that secretly recording someone is creepy and unfair.

Which is why every other state where it is legal to record cops also have huge, huge problems with creepers recording everybody else that they see.

No wait, no they don't. Make an exception for recording the police. Simple as that.


So you should be able to secretly record a conversation with a cop, but he can't do it to you?

Sorry, but I think my rights are better protected knowing that no one can legally record me secretly and trading off that I can't secretly record a cop.
 
2014-05-13 11:06:03 AM
Well, from what I saw in the article, good luck with that lady, as the cops took it in for evidence...

It'll either end up broken if they couldn't get to the recording to delete it, or they'll find evidence of child porn or other laws broken...
 
2014-05-13 11:06:42 AM

sendtodave: WyDave: So, does the reasonable expectation of privacy concept apply here?  Multiple people, some cops, some not, are in this little fracas, all trying to get her to shut up and go home, and she gets slapped with an extra charge for recording?  But if one of the bystanders recorded this, it wouldn't be an offense?

I'm so confused.

Well, she was intoxicated, so, even if she actually gave up her privacy, she wasn't rationally in a position to give up her privacy.

At least, if we use the same logic as we would regarding sexual consent. If a person can't consent to sex when/because they are drunk, how can they consent to give up any other rights?

Actually, thinking on it, how can we charge drunk people for anything, if they aren't in their right mind, and are unable to understand the ramifications of their decisions?


Blame MADD. Their antics have bled over into any situation involving alcohol.
 
2014-05-13 11:07:44 AM

lizyrd: The My Little Pony Killer: lizyrd: Tigger: scottydoesntknow: SphericalTime: Ugh, this is one of the things I dislike most about Massachusetts.  I really hope we change this soon.

I don't even get why they would have that law. I mean I get it from a law enforcement standpoint, but from a regular citizen's POV, it's complete horseshiat.

It is so they can do illegal shiat. There is literally no other reason.

There is "literally" another reason. The origins of the law were to protect civil liberties. Mass is a two-party consent state; without a warrant, no one can record anyone's voice without their permission. Why you think it's a good idea to change that is beyond me; it also keeps police from wiring informants without a warrant, from tapping a phone call with one party's permission and not the other's.

It's why when you call customer service you get a message that "This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes;" in one-party consent states they can record the call without telling you but it would be a crime to do so in two-party states.

So no, keeping cops out of trouble is not literally (or figuratively) the only reason for the law. It's the idea that secretly recording someone is creepy and unfair.

Which is why every other state where it is legal to record cops also have huge, huge problems with creepers recording everybody else that they see.

No wait, no they don't. Make an exception for recording the police. Simple as that.

So you should be able to secretly record a conversation with a cop, but he can't do it to you?

Sorry, but I think my rights are better protected knowing that no one can legally record me secretly and trading off that I can't secretly record a cop.


I think my rights would be better protected by being able to record public officials on duty and no one being able to record me without permission. Why do you have an issue with that?
 
2014-05-13 11:08:38 AM
"She went nuts when I brought her home," Fred Dziewit said. "Slamming doors, screaming, crying. How would you feel if you were a young girl locked up for 14 hours?"

I'd like to see the tape of the arrest.

(Don't get me wrong.  I'm definitely in favor of cops having "cop cams" attached to their freaking badges filming 24/7.  It would solve a lot of problems, judicially, and not just in favor of the perp).
 
2014-05-13 11:12:13 AM

special20: OnlyM3: So glad liberals in liberal states care about the rights of individuals.

Wow, you have such a keen mind to see things everyone else doesn't beyond the facts.


As a liberal I hope people saying stuff like that embarrasses enough people to get this law changed, rock on M3.
 
Displayed 50 of 138 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report