Motorcycle Speeder Charged With Felony For Posting Traffic Stop

[RoadkillStewie]

I'm curious into the general thoughts in regards to this incident, and feelings in regards
to officers being 'filmed' by non-leo's.

After spending 26 hours in the Baltimore County Jail, Anthony Graber still doesn’t understand what he did wrong.

Sure, the 24-year-old man admits to speeding on his motorcycle, but does that merit having a plainclothes cop pull a gun on him?

Does that merit six state troopers raiding his parents’ home and seizing four computers at the crack of dawn?

Does that merit getting charged with a felony and threatened with five years in prison?

Of course it doesn’t

This is nothing but an obscene case of police intimidation. A Constitutional violation against a man who has served six years in the Air National Guard and who has never been arrested before.

A knee-jerk reaction from the Maryland State Police after Graber posted the video of the cop pulling a gun on him on Youtube (video is below).

That cop’s name is Joseph David Uhler, in case you were wondering. He has no business wearing a badge.

So how come he’s not being punished?

Well, we already know that answer. He’s above the law. They are above the law. The Maryland State Police Department, that is.

Why else would a judge sign a search warrant, allowing them to raid Graber’s parents home at 6:45 a.m. on a weekday, detaining his entire family for 90 minutes, forbidding his mother from going to work and younger sister from going to school while they rummaged through the family’s personal belongings?

And that judge’s name?

That’s a secret.

“There is no signature from the judge on the paperwork,” Graber said in an exclusive Photography is Not a Crime interview Thursday night, just hours after he was released from jail.

“They told me they don’t want you to know who the judge is because of privacy.

Is this America? Where cops are allowed to violate your Fourth Amendment rights – not to mention your First Amendment right to film them – on the approval of some secretive judge?

Well maybe not all judges agree.

“The judge who released me looked at the paperwork and said she didn’t see where I violated the wiretapping law.”

Ah yes, the wiretapping charge. That old standby that cops use when you happen to videotape them in public while they are on duty when they have absolutely no expectation of privacy.

Sure, the First Amendment supposedly allows us to photograph police in public. Numerous court rulings have determined that.

But now cops have turned to irrelevant wire-tapping charges to crack down against those who video them in public.

Those laws are designed to protect people whose voices are recorded in telephone calls. You know, when you actually have an expectation of privacy.

Fortunately, most judges end up throwing these charges out of court when the cops don’t have an expectation of privacy.

The case against Graber began on March 5 when he was speeding on his 2008 Honda CBR 1000RR motorcycle on Interstate 95. He had a video camera strapped to his helmet and was filming the ride.

He sped past Uhler’s unmarked car, who claimed he was popping a wheelie while traveling 100 mph.

And Uhler was only “visually estimating” his speed. He did not have a radar gun, which usually means it wouldn’t stand up in court.

Graber also admits to speeding past a marked car. However, he never heard any sirens behind him and even at one point in the video where Graber looks back, the only car behind him is Uhler’s unmarked car with no lights.

That was when Graber was already exiting the interstate. When he came to a complete stop behind the other cars at the exit, Uhler cut him off and hopped out of his car with a gun drawn, never flashing a badge and not identifying himself as an officer until several seconds later.

Uhler never mentioned that he pulled out his gun in his report.

But he did mention that he spotted “a strange looking object on the operator’s helmet that was later realized to be a video camera.”


The camera Graber was wearing when he was pulled overAnd he did mention that he cited Graber a single citation for traveling 80 mph in a 65 mph zone.

So what’s the problem?

Well, Graber decided to post the video on Youtube, which made Uhler look like a thug.

In fact, if you look at the video, you’ll notice Uhler glance at the marked unit behind Graber and moved his gun behind him, as if trying to hide it from the other officer, before tucking it back into his pocket.

After all, an officer is only supposed to pull out his gun if he believes his life is in danger. Surely, that doesn’t happen with every traffic stop. Does it?

Ten days later, Uhler discovered that Graber posted the video online. Two videos. A longer one without audio and a shorter one with audio.

That prompted Uhler to issue an arrest warrant against Graber, citing that “Graber did not inform Tfc. Uhler that he was recording him by video or audio, thus violating criminal law 10-402(b).”

He also tacked on the charges of “reckless driving” and “negligent driving” to the arrest warrant.

And then six cops raided his parent’s home where Graber is living early one morning.

“They spent 90 minutes there,” he said.

“My mom had to go to work and they wouldn’t let her. My sister had to go to school and they wouldn’t let her.

“I just had gall bladder surgery and had bandages on my stomach.”

In fact, after a phone call to the commissioner, that was the only reason they didn’t arrest him on the spot. They told him he had to turn himself in when he got better, which he did.

“I just wanted to do the right thing,” he said.

When he showed up to the jail, they set his bond at $15,000, which is a little extravagant considering there is a maximum $10,000 fine for a wiretapping conviction.

He spent 26 hours in jail before he was released upon his own recognizance. The judge who released him took one look at the report and said that it didn’t appear he violated the wiretapping law.

“She said, ‘I have no idea why you’re charged with this’,” he said.

In fact, Maryland requires there to be an expectation of privacy in order to make that charge valid, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

State courts interpreted laws to protect communications only when parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy

The incident has left Graber with a serious distrust of police.

“I’m now afraid of the police. Afraid of what they can do to me. I’ve never been arrested in my life before this,” he said.

He is now making arrangements to sell his motorcycle because he doesn’t feel comfortable riding it anymore.

And he is waiting for his preliminary trial to see if prosecutors will decide to pursue this case.

(Note: I don't neccessarly agree with the tone/comments... there are some points that seem to be of potential concern) Google "Motorcycle Speeder Charged With Felony For Posting Traffic Stop" for the video

[GoDirectly2Jail]

Is that an actual news article you quoted? Is there a source?

[RoadkillStewie]

Is that an actual news article you quoted? Is there a source?

Google it with ABC for one of the new reports... the one I quoted is from CarlosMiller blog, seem to be some
allegations in it, not mentioned in the abc news report (ie: The anonymous judge who signed the warrant).
(Insufficient post count for me to add url's)

Summary of the video: Rider is speeding and acting a hooligan, pull up to traffic. Grey car pulls along side and up-ahead of the rider. See a guy in jeans and a grey pull over get out, pull a gun holding at his side and telling the rider to get off the bike. Rider starts to back up, it's approx 5-7 seconds before the guy from the car identifies himself as State Police.

[JR180]

Google it with ABC for one of the new reports... the one I quoted is from CarlosMiller blog, seem to be some
allegations in it, not mentioned in the abc news report (ie: The anonymous judge who signed the warrant).
(Insufficient post count for me to add url's)

Summary of the video: Rider is speeding and acting a hooligan, pull up to traffic. Grey car pulls along side and up-ahead of the rider. See a guy in jeans and a grey pull over get out, pull a gun holding at his side and telling the rider to get off the bike. Rider starts to back up, it's approx 5-7 seconds before the guy from the car identifies himself as State Police.

You mean this stop? Doesnt seem that there is enough information for anyone here to comment intellegently on it, huh? How are we to know if the trooper felt like his life was in danger? With such a limited video and the other one doesnt even have audio it kind of seems fishy.

[JR180]

Also, the OP made it seem like police officers shouldnt have arrest powers when not on duty. So you dont think they should have arrest powers off-duty but should still not be exempt from having unlawful video taken of them as a normal citizen would? That seems kind of like a double standard, huh? The extended video clearly shows the driver endangering dozens of lives with his reckless and retarded driving.

[ChevySSP]

Well I'm looking at the video and at no point in time did the troop ever point the gun at the guy.

There is also a marked crown vic behind the bike when he stops. He did not get "pulled over" but was detained after he stopped at a traffic light.

In the longer version between 0:30 and 0:44 he's going pretty fast and poppin wheelies. Don't need a radar gun to tell me that. At that speed you can bet your bottom dollar that he's gunning it if he can pop wheelies doing 70 mph. Wreckless driving imo, especially since he started doing it besides a bus.

Personally if you started video taping people at work and posting on the internet I'd like to see their reactions. Don't think it be much different but hey...

[Curt581]

Here's what I think...

I think that was one of the most blatantly anti-police biased articles I've ever seen posted here.

I think this was a set-up from the beginning. I think the rider went out with the preplanned intention of either instigating a police pursuit so he could post it on YouTube, or in the hopes of filming a traffic stop incident from which he could win the lawsuit lottery.

I think he's done it before, but this time, traffic wasn't didn't cooperate in his scheme and he got trapped at the end of the off-ramp. I think the State Troopers are familiar with that bike, if not the rider, from prior incidents.

I also think that if the marked car would've tried to stop the rider on the main lanes of the highway, a pursuit would have ensued... which they would have terminated after a few miles, traveling at triple digits of speed and providing the rider with the pursuit footage he wanted. Instead, the troopers hung back and let traffic box him in.

I think the troopers found out that he'd posted footage of those prior incidents on Youtube, and got a search warrant for his computer, with the intention of using the evidence found to ask for additional charges on the prior incidents.

I think the "unsigned" search warrant that the author is up in arms about was actually a telephonic warrant that was faxed to the judge for signature. The cops gave him the copy that hadn't been signed yet. The original signed copy will be in the case file when it goes to court.

I think this is less about 'filming officers during arrests' than it is about knucklehead filming himself while he thumbs his nose at the cops then posting it on the Internet to show his sport-biker buddies how cool and daring he is.

Lastly, I think the rider has thoroughly screwed himself. He's not nearly as smart as he thinks he is, nor are we as stupid as he thinks. Oops.

[greg72982]

In fact, if you look at the video, you’ll notice Uhler glance at the marked unit behind Graber and moved his gun behind him, as if trying to hide it from the other officer, before tucking it back into his pocket.

Actually it looked to me he was simply trying to reholster his weapon and since he wasn't looking missed the first time or two.

Of course, that would be the truth and would be devastating to this DB's blog.

[MPI1]

Graber also admits to speeding past a marked car. However, he never heard any sirens behind him and even at one point in the video where Graber looks back, the only car behind him is Uhler’s unmarked car with no lights.

Yeah of course you didn't hear sirens you idiot, you were doing 100+, you were out running the sound of the sirens that were BEHIND you...what a doucher! I am glad this guy admitted that he was speeding hopefully the courts are not as stupid as this guy and all but the wire tapping charges stick!

MPI1

[RoadkillStewie]

You mean this stop? Doesnt seem that there is enough information for anyone here to comment intellegently on it, huh? How are we to know if the trooper felt like his life was in danger? With such a limited video and the other one doesnt even have audio it kind of seems fishy.

Based on both sites I refer to, it's the audio part that is the primary basis of the LEO contention that's the heart of the legality of the recording.

Also, the OP made it seem like police officers shouldnt have arrest powers when not on duty. So you dont think they should have arrest powers off-duty but should still not be exempt from having unlawful video taken of them as a normal citizen would? That seems kind of like a double standard, huh? The extended video clearly shows the driver endangering dozens of lives with his reckless and retarded driving.

To me, I think it's about the fact that a guy comes out, pulls a gun starts giving orders several seconds (6.5?) before identifying himself as a LEO. The 'stink' about it all, is not the stop...but the warrant and arrest for having recorded and posted the video.

Well I'm looking at the video and at no point in time did the troop ever point the gun at the guy.

Aimed at the rider or not, as a LEO do you react differently when you pull someone over if they just pull a gun vs aim it at you?





I'd cut/pasted the ABC report, but it's got a copyright disclaimer, the 3rd party 'blog' didn't.


The rider did not/does not contest the charges in relation to the incident. His objection was in regards to the warrant, siezure and arrest in relation to the recording (posting?) of the video.

I think the troopers found out that he'd posted footage of those prior incidents on Youtube, and got a search warrant for his computer, with the intention of using the evidence found to ask for additional charges on the prior incidents.

If I may, why was he then charged for 'illegaly recording' the stop/officer (This is noted in a copy of page 2 of the application for statement of charges)...and why weren't those additional charges made as part of the original violation?

[fatboyjim154]

To me, I think it's about the fact that a guy comes out, pulls a gun starts giving orders several seconds (6.5?) before identifying himself as a LEO. The 'stink' about it all, is not the stop...but the warrant and arrest for having recorded and posted the video.

It isn't 6 seconds, the gun didn't appear until 4 seconds into the recording and at the same time the officer starts to speak, so the orders are roughly 2 seconds before the officer says "State Police". Which is realistically about as good as you are gonna get in a dynamic situation where the officer could be run over by someone that may or may not willing to just that to get away.

Re the facts surrounding the reason for issuing the warrant we only have the rider and the media to rely on for the facts. One wants to muddy the waters the other wants you to buy the sh1t sold in the comercials they have online or shown during airtime.

As for the charges, doesn't the prosecutor file the charges?

[Curt581]

First, both you and the author have some serious misconceptions about what police officer can and can not do with regards to firearms. The phrase "pulling a gun" on someone is meaningless. The statement that police officers are only "allowed" to draw their guns if they think their life is in danger is absurd. News flash: If I think my life is danger, not only can I draw my gun, I can shoot you with it. Therefore, the criteria for merely 'drawing' is by definition less than "life in danger".

I often draw my weapon and hold down next to my leg when approaching suspicious or what I perceive to be dangerous persons or vehicles, for the simple fact that 'action beats reaction'. If I'm confronted with an armed suspect who suddenly points a gun at me, I will not have time to draw my own weapon before the suspect shoots. Most of the drivers in those situations never realized I did so.

According to our Use of Force guidelines, simply drawing a weapon from the holster is not, repeat NOT, a Use of Force which would require inclusion in any subsequent report. Pointing a firearm at a suspect IS a Use of Force. At no time during the video did the officer point his weapon at the rider, hence, no Use of Force, and no need to include it in the report.

Without reading the actual affidavit for the search warrant, or the criminal complaint itself, there is no way to know what the police were trying to accomplish. Apparently, their reasoning was good enough for the judge who issued the warrant, since he did sign it. If it were as defective as the author alleges, why didn't the rider's attorney raise that issue?

In any case, at the beginning of your post, you asked for thoughts an opinions. That's what I gave you... my thoughts and opinions. You are free to like them or not.

Strangely, I get the strong impression that you're sympathetic to the rider and largely in agreement with the author of that opinion piece. That being the case, you get nothing more from me.

IBTL

[mobrien316]

I'm fairly sure that, in Connecticut at least, even a sealed search warrant bears the judge's signature on page 5. We are required to provide a copy of page 5 to the person named in the warrant even if the warrant is sealed.

[Samuel]

And YMMV (greatly) - I can point a gun at you as much as I want and it wouldn't be a use of force by my guidelines/definition.

And since, despite your efforts to front impartiality, you are clearly in bed with the rider... ::CLICK::

[RoadkillStewie]

In any case, at the beginning of your post, you asked for thoughts an opinions. That's what I gave you... my thoughts and opinions. You are free to like them or not.

Strangely, I get the strong impression that you're sympathetic to the rider and largely in agreement with the author of that opinion piece. That being the case, you get nothing more from me.

Curt581
I fail to see why it would be 'strange', I make no claim at being a Leo. I created the thread to get some opinion and open discussion.
Look at it from a PoV other than a LEO... you pull up to traffic, a car pulls alongside/ahead of you a guy steps out, moving toward you and pulls out a gun (it's 6 seconds from opening of door to stating he's with the state police). I'm not looking for 'right/wrong' but yea some opinion and thought. Do you think it might have been better then, to state he was LE at getting out of the vehicle opposed to the approach used?

Sure, at this point I'm sympathetic to the rider to a degree. He was speeding and riding like an idiot..should have tagged him with all the could regarding his riding at the forefront.

The topic is getting slightly off track though...my real interest is more in regards to photography/videography involving interactions with LEO and the essential accusations. I can see a use for wanting of evidence, though the claimed actions would seem to be extreme in obtaining them, but as point out only two PoV's are provided.