----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Villaseñor" > Richard Amirault: "If this `helmet cam' incident happened in Massachusetts > it would seem that it would be a violation." > > Under the same fact pattern, no it would not. > > Graber's video recording was not surreptitious, done with sinister motive, > posed no public harm and was a continuation of lawful conduct engaged on > public lands BEFORE the police officer stopped him. Consequently criteria > established under Mapp vs. Ohio make the evidence worthless; there are no > two ways about that.
Sorry, a very good case can be made that the recording *was* surreptitious. Yes, it was in plain sight. BUT was it obvious to the officer that it was a recording device .. and, I think more importantly, was it obvious that it was in record mode? Richard Amirault Boston, MA, USA http://n1jdu.org http://bostonfandom.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
