>> ^NordlichReiter:

I don't give a shit what the biker was doing. That cop should be fired, and here's why. Pull a weapon with no identification, and just say you are State Police? Given different circumstances that cop could have been killed for that break in protocol, or put innocent lives of motorists in danger. In my state the unmarked cars have lights and sirens.
What would he have done if the biker had fled? Shot him? I'm sure that would have been all well in court, as he was subduing a dangerous criminal. Felony speeding is not assault with a deadly weapon.
I'm all for the biker being arrested but I'm also pretty fucking pissed about the weapon with no identification. Shit makes me irate.
I'm also a bit pissed they took all his shit for a faulty wiretapping law. Schmawy thanks for the context, I was under the impression that the cop was being a dip-shit.
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!


The (marked) state police car was directly behind him. They were chasing the guy down. Watch the end of the longer video. The guy on the bike knew he was being pulled over .. watch him look behind himself at 3:00 before he finally has to stop. This guy was fleeing. The cop was totally in his rights to draw his weapon, which he immediately holstered after he had the situation under control.

Weird how there's no audio (sirens) in the longer version isn't it?

I don't give a shit what the biker was doing. That cop should be fired, and here's why. Pull a weapon with no identification, and just say you are State Police? Given different circumstances that cop could have been killed for that break in protocol, or put innocent lives of motorists in danger. In my state the unmarked cars have lights and sirens.

What would he have done if the biker had fled? Shot him? I'm sure that would have been all well in court, as he was subduing a dangerous criminal. Felony speeding is not assault with a deadly weapon.

I'm all for the biker being arrested but I'm also pretty fucking pissed about the weapon with no identification. Shit makes me irate.

I'm also a bit pissed they took all his shit for a faulty wiretapping law. Schmawy thanks for the context, I was under the impression that the cop was being a dip-shit.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!

That blurb isn't an accurate summary, it goes more like:

1. Drunk Erie cop gets recorded in bar making fun of murder victim.
2. Said recording is posted to YouTube.
3. YouTube video is noticed by Erie police.
4. Internal Affairs Officer along with the previously Drunk Officer visit man they believe is video poster (actually posted by his brother), and threaten to arrest him on Federal Wiretapping Laws (while Drunk Cop cries he could lose his job) if he does not take video down.

http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090419/NEWS02/304199926

Wepwawet, you are scarily wrong. You always have the right to record a public official. (Except if you posed a threat, block traffic, do not follow orders, or interfere)
-----------
"When a public employer is involved, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and its state equivalents are implicated. (A few states apply their Fourth Amendment equivalent to private parties as well. These states include Massachusetts, California and Florida. All employers in those states must comply with the constitutional tests, in addition to the statutory and common law tests.) The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by state action. Actions by a public entity employer may qualify as "state actions."

Generally, there are two components to a Fourth Amendment analysis, under the public employer test: (I) is there a subjective (actual) expectation of privacy and (ii) is this expectation of privacy reasonable. If the surveillance is of an area open to public view, surveillance is generally permissible, since there can be no expectation of privacy in an area open to public view. The issue of whether other less obvious examples invoke a reasonable expectation of privacy is less settled.
---------
More examples of police getting in a huff about videotapes. But I think in the case of a police officer, the public interest outweighs the wiretap laws. (as it pertains to audio) Not sure what the FL law is. http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/NEWS01/106290121 http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060805/NEWS01/108050086

NH law: "It is a crime under state law (RSA 570-A:2) to use any sort of electronic device to eavesdrop or record conversations without the consent of everyone involved. It’s a felony to record other people’s conversations, and a misdemeanor to record one’s own conversations without the other person’s consent."

There is also the ruling of a man videotaping Truck inspections, that was arrested multiple times by police. PA courts upheld his right to videotape. http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0847P.pdf
----
The activities of the police, like those of other public officials, are subject to public scrutiny. Indeed, "the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers." City of Houston, Tex. v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461 (1987).
Videotaping is a legitimate means of gathering information for public dissemination and can often provide cogent evidence, as it did in this case. In sum, there can be no doubt that the free speech clause of the Constitution protected Robinson as he videotaped the defendants on October 23, 2002. See Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000); see also Stanley, 394 U.S. at 564 (1969); Whiteland Woods, L.P. v. Township of West Whiteland, 193 F.3d 177, 180 (3d Cir. 1999).