Riding a Bicycle Isn¹t Protected Expression for First Amendment Purposes

Some guy in western Massachusetts decided to be a bit of an asshole
about taking the lane, and some cop decided to be a bit of a thug to
prevent him from doing so. The case hasn't gone to trial yet; this is
just the judge ruling on some requests for summary judgement. But I did
learn a couple of things from reading the judge's memorandum:

1. You can't justify taking the lane on the basis of free speech;

2. In Massachusetts you can be charged with wiretapping for wearing a
helmetcam while talking to a cop! The charge was dismissed, but still.
that's ridiculous.

http://www.volokh.com/2013/08/14/rid...ected-expressi
on-for-first-amendment-purposes/

On 8/16/2013 7:42 AM, John White wrote:
Some guy in western Massachusetts decided to be a bit of an asshole
about taking the lane, and some cop decided to be a bit of a thug to
prevent him from doing so. The case hasn't gone to trial yet; this is
just the judge ruling on some requests for summary judgement. But I did
learn a couple of things from reading the judge's memorandum:

1. You can't justify taking the lane on the basis of free speech;

2. In Massachusetts you can be charged with wiretapping for wearing a
helmetcam while talking to a cop! The charge was dismissed, but still.
that's ridiculous.

http://www.volokh.com/2013/08/14/rid...ected-expressi
on-for-first-amendment-purposes/



Can't imagine taking the lane on route 9 to be a pleasant experience. I
remember a lot of fast traffic on that road when driving it. Don't think
I ever rode my bike on it. What's the speed limit there?

Anyway, can't wait to hear the replies to this.

On 8/16/2013 7:42 AM, John White wrote:
Some guy in western Massachusetts decided to be a bit of an asshole
about taking the lane, and some cop decided to be a bit of a thug to
prevent him from doing so. The case hasn't gone to trial yet; this is
just the judge ruling on some requests for summary judgement. But I did
learn a couple of things from reading the judge's memorandum:

1. You can't justify taking the lane on the basis of free speech;

2. In Massachusetts you can be charged with wiretapping for wearing a
helmetcam while talking to a cop! The charge was dismissed, but still.
that's ridiculous.

http://www.volokh.com/2013/08/14/rid...ected-expressi
on-for-first-amendment-purposes/


#2, there was a case in MD a few years ago where a motorcycle rider
was riding southbound on I-95 (I think, might have been the B-W Parkway)
wearing a helmet cam. He was speeding, and apparently passed a police
officer who was in an unmarked car and in plain clothes. The officer
followed the rider to an offramp, passed him on the right, cut him off,
and jumped out of the car with his weapon drawn. The rider posted the
resultant video on YooToob and was charged with felony wiretapping for
doing so.

here it is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Graber

nate

"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...
On 8/16/2013 7:42 AM, John White wrote:
Some guy in western Massachusetts decided to be a bit of an asshole
about taking the lane, and some cop decided to be a bit of a thug to
prevent him from doing so. The case hasn't gone to trial yet; this is
just the judge ruling on some requests for summary judgement. But I
did
learn a couple of things from reading the judge's memorandum:

1. You can't justify taking the lane on the basis of free speech;

2. In Massachusetts you can be charged with wiretapping for wearing a
helmetcam while talking to a cop! The charge was dismissed, but
still.
that's ridiculous.

http://www.volokh.com/2013/08/14/rid...ected-expressi
on-for-first-amendment-purposes/


#2, there was a case in MD a few years ago where a motorcycle
rider was riding southbound on I-95 (I think, might have been the B-W
Parkway) wearing a helmet cam. He was speeding, and apparently passed
a police officer who was in an unmarked car and in plain clothes. The
officer followed the rider to an offramp, passed him on the right, cut
him off, and jumped out of the car with his weapon drawn. The rider
posted the resultant video on YooToob and was charged with felony
wiretapping for doing so.

here it is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Graber

At least the outcome was positive. Though it does say he spent 26 hours
in jail and had his house searched, items seized etc.

"Incident
In March, 2010, Graber was speeding on his motorcycle, swerving across
traffic lanes, and did at least one wheelie on Interstate 95 while
recording with a video camera on his helmet. He was cut off by an
unmarked gray sedan. A man in jeans and a sweatshirt exited the vehicle
and with gun drawn commanded Graber to get off his motorcycle. The man,
Maryland State Trooper Joseph D. Uhler dressed in plainclothes, then
identified himself as "state police", and cited Graber with a moving
violation for 80 mph in a 65 mph zone. Uhler's badge, which was located
on his belt, was not visible in the video.[1][2]
On March 10, Graber posted the video of the encounter on YouTube.
Prosecutors obtained a grand jury indictment charging Graber with
violation of Maryland wiretap laws for audio recording of the officer
without his consent.[1][2][3]

On April 8, police searched Graber's residence and seized the camera,
thumb drives, external hard drives, and four computers. Graber was not
arrested at that time because he had just had gall bladder surgery. When
he turned himself in a week later he was arrested and spent 26 hours in
jail.[1][2][3]
On June 1, he was arraigned in Harford County Circuit Court in Bel Air.
He was charged with four felonies and faced a maximum of 16 years in
prison if convicted on all charges.[1][2][3]

Outcome
On September 27, 2010, some criminal charges against Graber were
dropped.[5] Harford County Circuit Court Judge Emory A Plitt Jr.
dismissed four of the seven charges filed against Anthony Graber,
leaving only traffic code violations. The judge ruled that Maryland's
wire tap law does not prohibit recording of voice or sound in areas
where privacy cannot be expected and that a police officer on a traffic
stop has no legal expectation of privacy.[5]
Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of
the state are ultimately accountable to the public. When we exercise
that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be
shielded from public observation.
- Judge Emory A. Plitt, Jr., Maryland v. Graber

The court also threw out the charge of "recording illegal activity" on
the grounds that the law was unconstitutional, noting that "the video
taping of public events is protected under the First Amendment."

On 8/16/2013 10:09 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 8/16/2013 7:42 AM, John White wrote:
Some guy in western Massachusetts decided to be a bit of an asshole
about taking the lane, and some cop decided to be a bit of a thug to
prevent him from doing so. The case hasn't gone to trial yet; this is
just the judge ruling on some requests for summary judgement. But I did
learn a couple of things from reading the judge's memorandum:

1. You can't justify taking the lane on the basis of free speech;

2. In Massachusetts you can be charged with wiretapping for wearing a
helmetcam while talking to a cop! The charge was dismissed, but still.
that's ridiculous.

http://www.volokh.com/2013/08/14/rid...ected-expressi
on-for-first-amendment-purposes/


#2, there was a case in MD a few years ago where a motorcycle rider
was riding southbound on I-95 (I think, might have been the B-W Parkway)
wearing a helmet cam. He was speeding, and apparently passed a police
officer who was in an unmarked car and in plain clothes. The officer
followed the rider to an offramp, passed him on the right, cut him off,
and jumped out of the car with his weapon drawn. The rider posted the
resultant video on YooToob and was charged with felony wiretapping for
doing so.

here it is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Graber


I wonder how this works when you have people recording stuff with their
cell phones all the time. Rodney King...

On 8/16/2013 10:29 AM, Gus wrote:
"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...
On 8/16/2013 7:42 AM, John White wrote:
Some guy in western Massachusetts decided to be a bit of an asshole
about taking the lane, and some cop decided to be a bit of a thug to
prevent him from doing so. The case hasn't gone to trial yet; this is
just the judge ruling on some requests for summary judgement. But I did
learn a couple of things from reading the judge's memorandum:

1. You can't justify taking the lane on the basis of free speech;

2. In Massachusetts you can be charged with wiretapping for wearing a
helmetcam while talking to a cop! The charge was dismissed, but still.
that's ridiculous.

http://www.volokh.com/2013/08/14/rid...ected-expressi

on-for-first-amendment-purposes/


#2, there was a case in MD a few years ago where a motorcycle
rider was riding southbound on I-95 (I think, might have been the B-W
Parkway) wearing a helmet cam. He was speeding, and apparently passed
a police officer who was in an unmarked car and in plain clothes. The
officer followed the rider to an offramp, passed him on the right, cut
him off, and jumped out of the car with his weapon drawn. The rider
posted the resultant video on YooToob and was charged with felony
wiretapping for doing so.

here it is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Graber

At least the outcome was positive. Though it does say he spent 26 hours
in jail and had his house searched, items seized etc.

Yes, that's really why I end up rolling my eyes a lot at our legal
system. Simply being charged with a BS "crime" is punishment in and of
itself, what with the incarceration, legal fees, time off work, etc...

Heck, even if you're not charged with anything the legal system can dick
with you... friend of mine owns a small business and was subpoenaed
recently regarding a former employee. Without going into details, it
basically cost him a morning away from the shop for a colossal charlie
foxtrot that could easily have been avoided had the prosecutor actually
called and talked to him before the morning of the hearing, but he had
no idea why he was being subpoenaed only that there was a people v. dude
case and he was being called to testify. But I'm not really inclined to
find out, should it ever happen to me, what happens when you ignore a
subpoena...

nate

rider 'took the lane' in front of law enforcement ? good luck.

law enforcement is exempt in lawful pursuit of duty in the public's interests defined on the scene, overlooked by USC

https://www.google.com/#bav=on.2,or....ts+42+usc+1983

NO DOUBT law there was prepped on this. If the route is essential or if there's a rideable berm...

http://www.florida-criminal-lawyer-b.../PG031408a.jpg

"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
Yes, that's really why I end up rolling my eyes a lot at our legal
system. Simply being charged with a BS "crime" is punishment in and
of itself, what with the incarceration, legal fees, time off work,
etc...

Heck, even if you're not charged with anything the legal system can
dick with you... friend of mine owns a small business and was
subpoenaed recently regarding a former employee. Without going into
details, it basically cost him a morning away from the shop for a
colossal charlie foxtrot that could easily have been avoided had the
prosecutor actually called and talked to him before the morning of the
hearing, but he had no idea why he was being subpoenaed only that
there was a people v. dude case and he was being called to testify.
But I'm not really inclined to find out, should it ever happen to me,
what happens when you ignore a subpoena...

nate


And once you charged there will be some people that think you must have
been guilty of something. A bit off topic, but these people realeased
because of DNA evidence are still often treated like they were guilty.

The more you learn about the criminal system, the less you ever want to
be on the other side of it.


Cases like this are very disturbing:

"...Slevin's mistreatment by Dona Ana County started the moment he was
arrested back in August of 2005, his attorney told NBC News."He was
driving through New Mexico and arrested for a DWI, and he allegedly was
in a stolen vehicle. Well, it was a car he had borrowed from a friend; a
friend had given him a car to drive across the country," Coyte said in
an interview last January.

Slevin was depressed at the time, Coyte explained, and wanted to get out
of New Mexico. Instead, he found himself in jail. "When he gets put in
the jail, they think he's suicidal, and they put him in a padded cell
for three days, but never give him any treatment." Nor did they give him
a trial, Coyte said. Slevin said he never saw a judge during his time in
confinement. After three days in the padded cell, jail guards
transferred Slevin into solitary confinement with no explanation.

"Their policy is to then just put them in solitary" if they appear to
have mental health issues, Coyte told NBC News.

While in solitary confinement, a prisoner is entitled to one hour per
day out of the cell, but often times, Slevin wasn't even granted that,
Coyte said. "Your insanity builds. Some people holler or throw feces out
their cell doors," he said. "Others rock back and forth under a blanket
for a year or more, which is what my client did." By the time Slevin got
out of jail, his hair was shaggy and overgrown, his beard long, and his
face pale and sunken, a drastic contrast from the clean-shaven booking
photo taken of him when he was arrested two years prior.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...ettlement?lite


And this:
LOS ANGELES - A year after Daniel Chong, a San Diego college student,
was found hallucinating and suffering from kidney failure inside a Drug
Enforcement Administration holding cell where he had been accidentally
left for four days, the agency has agreed to compensate him for his
ordeal.
Mr. Chong was picked up last year during a raid on his friend's house,
where he and some friends had gathered to smoke marijuana. Mr. Chong, a
student at the University of California, San Diego, and the other
suspects were taken to D.E.A. offices, where he was interviewed. Agents
told Mr. Chong that he would be released, he said, and he was taken to a
holding cell to wait for what he was told would be a few minutes.

Instead, he was forgotten inside the cell for four days. Without food or
water, he drank his own urine, contemplated suicide, and tried to
scratch a goodbye note to his mother into his arm. When agents found
him on the fifth day, he thought he might be minutes from death. He
spent several days in a hospital intensive care unit, where he was
treated for severe dehydration and kidney failure. Over the last year,
his lawyers said, he has continued to suffer from post-traumatic stress
disorder.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/01/us...-dea-cell.html



And Randall Adams:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNL5A4D0G4g

At a legislative hearing, Adams said:
" The man you see before you is here by the grace of God. The fact that
it took 12 and a half years and a movie to prove my innocence should
scare the hell out of everyone in this room and, if it doesn't, then
that scares the hell out of me.[18]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 10:46:09 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

On 8/16/2013 10:29 AM, Gus wrote:
"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...
On 8/16/2013 7:42 AM, John White wrote:
Some guy in western Massachusetts decided to be a bit of an asshole
about taking the lane, and some cop decided to be a bit of a thug to
prevent him from doing so. The case hasn't gone to trial yet; this is
just the judge ruling on some requests for summary judgement. But I did
learn a couple of things from reading the judge's memorandum:

1. You can't justify taking the lane on the basis of free speech;

2. In Massachusetts you can be charged with wiretapping for wearing a
helmetcam while talking to a cop! The charge was dismissed, but still.
that's ridiculous.

http://www.volokh.com/2013/08/14/rid...ected-expressi

on-for-first-amendment-purposes/


#2, there was a case in MD a few years ago where a motorcycle
rider was riding southbound on I-95 (I think, might have been the B-W
Parkway) wearing a helmet cam. He was speeding, and apparently passed
a police officer who was in an unmarked car and in plain clothes. The
officer followed the rider to an offramp, passed him on the right, cut
him off, and jumped out of the car with his weapon drawn. The rider
posted the resultant video on YooToob and was charged with felony
wiretapping for doing so.

here it is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Graber

At least the outcome was positive. Though it does say he spent 26 hours
in jail and had his house searched, items seized etc.

Yes, that's really why I end up rolling my eyes a lot at our legal
system. Simply being charged with a BS "crime" is punishment in and of
itself, what with the incarceration, legal fees, time off work, etc...

Heck, even if you're not charged with anything the legal system can dick
with you... friend of mine owns a small business and was subpoenaed
recently regarding a former employee. Without going into details, it
basically cost him a morning away from the shop for a colossal charlie
foxtrot that could easily have been avoided had the prosecutor actually
called and talked to him before the morning of the hearing, but he had
no idea why he was being subpoenaed only that there was a people v. dude
case and he was being called to testify. But I'm not really inclined to
find out, should it ever happen to me, what happens when you ignore a
subpoena...

nate

I believe that a subpoena is a legal order to appear before a court
and that failure to obey results in an arrest warrant being issued.
--
Cheers,

John B.