Malicious Prosecution

Man arrested for filming an encounter with a Maryland Police officer. Watch the video that is linked.

I have 3 basic comments on this:

1. Prosecutorial Abuse - Listen to how incredibly stupid the Harford County Prosecutor Sounds. He states that the victim/arrestee wore a camera to intentionally incite an incident from a police officer so that he could later post a "gotcha" moment on Youtube. However, given that the camera was mounted to his helmet (clearly visible) and that the arresting officer was an off-duty officer in an unmarked vehicle. That explanation seems contrived, stupid and even evil in the sense that it is used to justify arresting someone and charging them with a crime that could net a five-year prison sentence. This is nothing but a charade and ultimately the individual is being charged more because of "contempt of cop" than because he recorded anyone.

2. Is this against the law - The video is correct that Maryland is a 2 party consent state, meaning that both parties must consent to the recording. However, my understanding of the law (without much research - admittedly) is that there is an exception to the law, which requires a reasonable expectation of privacy. The ACLU is correct that this recording occurred on a public road and in public view. However, it is also a depiction of a public official operating in an official capacity to enforce public laws. How can something so public contain a reasonable expectation of privacy? Finally, since the police have, apparently, released the video to the media (granted they blur the face of the officer), aren't they ultimately consenting to having the video and audio played publicly? I mean, if it's so private and potentially harmful, why did the officer and the police department allow the media to access it.

3. This is a bad law anyway - It is amazing how the government is only really concerned about privacy when it comes to criticism of its agencies. Again, this is a public official given way more authority than the average citizen. Why should he have any privacy at all when performing public duties? If I were to go into court and tell the judge that I did not consent to having my testimony recorded, I'd be slapped down pretty quickly and informed that the public proceeding trumps my desire not to be recorded. It's also pretty stupid that the spoken word is given more privacy rights than say - a private e-mail exchange or text or IM. Given the now countless examples we have of police officers lying (and getting busted later on camera), shouldn't we encourage the recording of police officers whenever they engage the public?

Just wanted to update to add this link to Reason's coverage of this story.

Wow, Maryland Courts Actually Rule In Favor of Privacy

and against the cops no less.

The state's highest court has invalidated the body search of a drug offender, effectively wiping out his conviction by ruling yesterday that police had not given him enough privacy when they checked a common drug-stashing location: between his buttocks.

Baltimore County detectives could have searched the Fallston man at a police station or "in the privacy of a police van," Judge Clayton Greene Jr. wrote for the majority of the Court of Appeals. Instead, a gloved investigator searched John August Paulino at night at the Dundalk carwash where he was arrested and where his friends who were with him might have seen.

Greene called the search unconstitutional and unreasonable, writing that it was not an emergency and should not have been done in public.

But Judge Lynne A. Battaglia, a former U.S. attorney for Maryland, disagreed, saying that the majority opinion ties the hands of police.

"By holding as it does, the majority impermissibly restricts the police's ability to conduct reasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment for drugs that are secreted on an individual known to be carrying such drugs to prevent their loss," she wrote in the dissent.

I do love how the dissent says that they already know the individual is carrying drugs. If that's true, why not just throw them in jail? What's the point of the search?

Anyway, the guy has already served six years of his wrongful 10-year sentence, and it's hard to have too much sympathy for a crack dealer (accidental pun not intended, but nonetheless mildly funny), but I'm glad that the Court does value privacy and the presumption of innocence even if only a little.

Kid H.

How the Government Stole Our Airwaves and why the FCC Sucks.

I'm so tired of hearing the FCC whine about the status of television. It has so little regard for free speech, free expression or just plain common sense, that I must admit I revel in the recent decision by the courts that prevents the FCC from fining stations when someone accidentally lets slip a bad word on live television.

The FCC isn't necessary at all. Frequencies should be owned by individuals. The only way the government should intervene is to enforce the property rights of the owners - much like you call the sherrif when someone trespasses on your lands.

Here is a little history of the FCC:

Radio voice broadcasts began in the US in November 1920, and within two years, there were 576 licensed broadcast stations.

In 1922, Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover initiated a series of annual radio conferences, attended by major broadcasters and orchestrated by the Department of Commerce. At the first such conference, L.R. Krumm of Westinghouse complained that it was "perfectly possible to establish a so-called broadcasting station for about $500 or $1000 initial investment." The programming from these upstarts consisted of "nothing but phonograph records, and that sort of station can interfere very disastrously with such a station as we are trying to operate." And just in case his meaning wasn't clear, Krumm added, "I believe 12 good stations, certainly a maximum of 15, would supply most of the needs of the country."

Hoover began to withhold additional licenses, claiming the need to prevent interference among broadcasters. A 1923 federal court case, Hoover v. Intercity Radio, denied him the authority to withhold licenses, but allowed the Secretary to select times and wavelengths so as to minimize interference.

For the next three years, Hoover continued to ration broadcasting licenses by assigning frequency, geographic location, and time of day (in keeping with the Intercity verdict), and even by refusing (in defiance of Intercity) to process new license applicants.

Hoover's annual broadcast conferences continued and in 1925 they outlined a policy agenda in which they advocated a "public interest" standard for licensing.

So you see, the FCC was really created to protect friends of the government from having to actually compete in the market. Read the whole article - it really is insightful and explains how Hoover, when his regulatory scheme was challenged, created chaos by refusing to protect the property rights of frequency owners. Now, the FCC must scream about indecency and about the lack of shows that are beneficial to our children and our national education because, if these things were really in demand, we wouldn't need the FCC (What kind of backwards logic is that?).

Here is a great quote that sums up the attitude of the censors and bureaucrats at the FCC:

If ever there was an appropriate time for Commission action, this was it. If we can’t restrict the use of the words 'fuck' and 'shit' during prime time, HOLLYWOOD will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want."

Wow. That guy really values free speech.

Kid H.

Link via Hit & Run

Thank you for saving me from myself . . . again

It seems you can't get firework ingredients anymore from this company. The link above shows how idiotic this is - even federally licensed dealers can't get these things. Here's the article about the case:

A federal judge in Boise has ruled in favor of the government in a lawsuit against an Internet retailer that sold ingredients used to make illegal fireworks.

U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill has ordered Firefox Enterprises Inc., of Pocatello, to stop selling chemicals, tubes, end caps and fuses used in M-80s, quarter sticks and other illegal fireworks.

"This court ruling is a victory for consumer safety," Nancy Nord, acting chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission said Friday in a news release. "There are far too many injuries and deaths from the manufacture and use of illegal fireworks. By taking strong action against individuals and companies that sell chemicals and components to make these dangerous devices, CPSC can stop illegal fireworks from being made and keep consumers safe."

The commission said its investigation found that Firefox sold and shipped fireworks components in hundreds of transactions between November 1999 and May 2005. Winmill ruled that Firefox's packaging and shipping of chemicals violated the Federal Hazardous Substances Act and the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Materials Regulations.

Winmill granted summary judgment in favor of the government in December and made his order permanent Monday. He also imposed shipping and record keeping requirements and authorized the commission to make surprise inspections of Firefox.

Deaths, injuries and property damage from consumer-product incidents cost the nation more than $700 billion annually, the agency said.

First, I'm sick of how legislators dismiss the slippery slope idea when it comes to passing legislation to protect people, while in the same breath banning this product or that one because "it could be possibly maybe used in some negative fashion." Hell, fire takes oxygen to burn, when is Congress or some dumbass court going to ban air?

Also look at the last weasely qote above (I put it in italics for you). What does that have to do with the issue at hand? Nothing. I mean, if you damage your house because your washing machine overflowed, that's included in that number. How stupid does the government think we are? Oh . . . I forgot . . . they think we're very stupid . . . because we keep letting them get away with this crap.

This just confirms one of my theories: nothing good ever comes out of Boise.

Kid H.

P.S. If they're just worried about the wrong people getting their hands on this stuff, way to drive those people underground and make them more difficult to trace. Good job guys. Keep up the mediocre to below average work.