Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dr. Dre wins LE privacy rights case in Michigan Supreme Court

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dr. Dre wins LE privacy rights case in Michigan Supreme Court

    http://michiganmessenger.com/47523/m...les-for-dr-dre

    Michigan high court rules for Dr. Dre

    The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in favor of rapper Dr. Dre in a case involving a very important legal principle — whether the police have a right to privacy while performing their duties. The state high court said no.

    The suit was filed by Gary Brown, now a Detroit City Councilman but formerly a high-ranking police official. He and other officers were videotaped while threatening to shut down a concert featuring Dre and Eminem if they showed a sexually explicit video. The video was then included in a DVD produced about the tour.

    The court, in a 6-1 ruling, dismissed the suit, saying that there is no right to privacy for police while on the job. The implications of this ruling are far more important than they may seem initially because it explicitly makes it legal in the state of Michigan to record the police while they perform their duties.

    This is incredibly important because cell phone videos of police officers have revealed misconduct, abuse and lying on reports in case after case around the country. But in some states, like Illinois, it is illegal to videotape the police in the performance of their duties.

    Michigan now has a clearly established legal right for what has become a crucial watchdog on police misconduct.

  • #2
    whether the police have a right to privacy while performing their duties.
    I don't think there is a right to privacy with most jobs unless you are in the bathroom or you are performing classified activities.
    Life is what you make of it

    Comment


    • #3
      No big deal to me. I don't know who thought anyone had a right to privacy when out in public. There are security cameras in almost every business nowadays. This is obviously where technology becomes a double edged sword.

      Comment


      • #4
        What about recording someones voice though? I thought that was illegal? It would be on film.
        Been chatting to a girl online. She's funny, sexy and flirty. Now she tells me she is an undercover cop! How cool is that at her age!?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by FromOhio View Post
          What about recording someones voice though? I thought that was illegal? It would be on film.
          Only three states have prosecuted individuals for filming on-duty police officers in public locations without an expectation of privacy: Massachusetts, Illinois, and Maryland.

          I do not go out of my way to film law enforcement, but if someone were arguing with a cop in my vicinity (I tend to avoid such locales), I doubt I could resist. Your industry is particularly fascinating because so much of it is constantly in the political gray.

          “Citizens have a particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue is that of the police. Their role cannot be performed if citizens must fear criminal reprisals….” -Massachusetts Supreme Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall dissenting to a 2001 ruling upholding charges stemming from recording police activity


          Maryland charged the motorcyclist with 'Interception of an Oral Communication' Md. Cts. Jud. Proc. §10-402, which makes it a felony to 'intercept... any wire, oral, or electronic communication'.

          The definition of 'oral communication' under Maryland’s wiretap law(Fearnow v. C & P Telephone Co., 104 Md. App. 1, 33, 655 A.2d 1 (1995), aff’d, 342 Md. 363, 676 A.2d 65 (1996)) requires that the conversation be held with a reasonable expectation of privacy. This was post felony stop.

          DA Joseph Cassilly disregarded this, got a nameless judge (privacy concerns cited) to 'sign' a warrant, and RAIDED THE MAN'S HOME, detained his mother and sister, and seized his camera and four computers. His use of wire-tap laws for such a petty purpose was a public mockery of our justice system. Wire-tap laws exist for a reason, and discouraging public scrutiny of public officials performing public actions is not it.
          Last edited by Carbonfiberfoot; 05-12-2011, 02:28 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            People have been filming cops for years. This is nothing new and there never was an expectation of privacy. Non issue.
            Free Deke O'Mally!!!

            Comment


            • #7
              That dude was an ***. The cop asked him if he lived there and he said no. He was standing on the property of the house. At that point the officer had the right to detain him and investigate. The tool had the duty to comply with his orders at that point. The officer even said that on the tape.
              Today's Quote:

              "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
              Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by IndianaGuy
                That cop was nothing more than a jack-booted *** himself. Hope that he goes to jail for assault and battery, false arrest and whatever else they can pin on his ***. If the officer were in the right, why were the charges dropped and the officer given a free paid vacation, I mean suspension? Huh, answer that one smart guy...

                IndianaGuy
                go be a troll somewhere else
                Happy to be here proud to serve

                "Well it appears this lock does not accept american express."

                Never trust fire fighters to point out a suspect.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by IndianaGuy
                  Non issue huh... yea just ask this guy about it being a non issue...

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsR44NLu5f0

                  IndianaGuy
                  There's already another thread on that video, and a long one. That horse has been beaten to death already...
                  Yeah. That would go poorly. Like, on the Scale of Fail, somewhere between "Titanic" and "Chernobyl."
                  --Squirrel

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Just because a DA decides not to prosecute does not mean the officer was wrong. Officers also frequently get suspended for alledged policy violations and wind up winning the money/back pay back because they did nothing wrong and the agency just overreacted to bad public press.
                    Today's Quote:

                    "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
                    Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I do, and I think that I voiced my opinion in that thread.
                      Chuck

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        By the way, it's very easy to make up reasonable suspicion after the fact. So, it's a no win situation for the guy. He was an *******, but that doesn't change the facts. In my opinion, he should have been left alone. Answering that he did not live in that house was not RS to believe that he was comitting a crime. In fact, it would be pretty damned stupid to believe that he'd be standing there, in plain sight, with a video camera, if he was committing a crime. This is, of course, unless you consider ****ing off the officer a crime. I don't.
                        Chuck

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          And I'm sorry for hijacking this thread.
                          Chuck

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by mdrdep View Post
                            That dude was an ***. The cop asked him if he lived there and he said no. He was standing on the property of the house. At that point the officer had the right to detain him and investigate. The tool had the duty to comply with his orders at that point. The officer even said that on the tape.
                            Wrong. The guy said "I do live here". That cop was an ***. Of course some will say law enforcement is the only profession in the world that should be free from critique. I really don't understand that mentality.

                            However no, I don't think he should be raped in prison, but he should definitely be disciplined with something more than a slap on the wrist, and most certainly this should not be dismissed. His actions should have consequences.
                            Last edited by Dellde; 05-12-2011, 12:45 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Dellde View Post
                              Wrong. The guy said "I do live here". .
                              Go back and listen again. His first reply was that he didn't. As the officer approaches he changes his tune.
                              Today's Quote:

                              "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
                              Albert Einstein

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 3269 users online. 189 members and 3080 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X