US Court of Appeals Strikes Down MA Wiretapping Law

[JohnnyD]

Up until today, it became precedent in this state for the police to arrest people in Massachusetts for filming police on duty. The law was being leveraged in a way that was not in line with its initial intent.

Pretty big win for the protection of free speech. Article below:
Court says state law used to ban recording of police officers in public is unconstitutional | Universal Hub

In its ruling, which lets Simon Glik continue his lawsuit, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston said the way Glik was arrested and his phone seized under a state wiretapping law violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights:

[UserRemoved1]

GOOD maybe some of the bull#^&#^&#^&#^& harassment out there will stop now.

Remember the guy in Las Vegas this year?

[JohnnyD]

There's a quote from Ayn Rand that's always stuck in my head:
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws."

[likwid]

Read the whole commentary then the ruling.

The court continued that while exercise of these rights do come with limits in certain circumstances, an arrest on the Boston Common, "the oldest city park in the United States and the apotheosis of a public forum," is not one of them.

Next up is the precedence which sets those limits.

This is the key item in the ruling that allowed it to beat the wiretapping laws:

the law requires a secret recording and the officers admitted that Glik
had used his cell phone openly and in plain view to obtain the
video and audio recording.

So don't go running spy cams on cops, you WILL lose.

Along with:

The filming of government officials engaged in their
duties in a public place, including police officers performing
their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles.
Gathering information about government officials in a form that can
readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment
interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of
governmental affairs."

Finally,

It was never a violation of MA wiretapping laws due to the fact that he never "secretly" recorded the police. He was out in the open in clear view in a public space recording the arrest. And the police openly acknowledged he was taking pictures/recording them.

This wasn't "striking down" law, it was wrongful arrest.
The cop didn't know the law, the lawyer did.

[Swimmer]

I knew the original post to be in error not in that what was said was wholey wrong, its just that the poster didn't go far enough. You still cannot surreptiously wiretap anyone. And I wouldn't be surpised to see this more clearly defined to mean in this case only, or the ruling to be overturned. It was never illegal as ascertained to film any officer, ever. Someone needs to find a case that says otherwise.

Likwid the cop did know the law. Up until this particular judge interpreted the law as he wanted this particular time it was illegal to wiretap.

Not all cell phones record sound either. Most new ones do, but some of the older ones dont.