An abridgement of rights

An abridgement of rights

Contact with the police in London is usually a pleasant experience. The police are extraordinarily civil and courteous. They have a long standing tradition of being public servants, and they behave appropriately. Not so the police in America. The American culture is influenced by a different tradition - the wild, wild West. The police in London are not even armed unless there is a special situation. But of course guns are not as readily available to the British public as they are to American citizens.

Unfortunately, the American culture has become much too violent to hope that the British tradition of police civility could cross the ocean. Unarmed police officers would be sitting ducks in this gun-crazed country. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to expect that the police in the United States will not contribute, by their conduct, to the tenor of violence.

Sociologists have consistently asserted that pent up anger is a major cause of the violent conduct that lands many young black men afoul of the law. They become aware at an early age that they are disrespected by society. Unnecessarily abusive confrontations by the police only intensify this sense of alienation. Young men in the black community are constantly forced to submit to unconstitutional searches because they fear even more violent treatment if they are arrested on a bogus charge.

Imagine what might happen if the black youth all had tape recorders, and would say to the inquiring police, "please be advised that this conversation will be recorded." There would undoubtedly be a major rush for repairs to smashed tape recorders. As bizarre as it seems, that is precisely what the Supreme Court has ruled the citizen must do before recording the police.

Every state except Vermont has some form of wiretapping or eavesdropping statute. According to a majority of the Court, a citizen has no right to record surreptitiously an interaction with police. The case arose when a motorist who believed he was being picked on by the police, recorded an encounter during a traffic stop. He then used the tape when he filed a complaint of police abuse with the Abington police.

In a strange turn of events, the police then filed a complaint against the motorist for violation of the wiretapping statute. The highest court in the state upheld the validity of the complaint. However, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall disagreed with the opinion of the Court in a brilliant dissent.

She pointed out that under the Court's ruling George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, would have committed a criminal offense. The majority responded to this point with the lame argument that the sound portion of the King tape was not clearly audible. That is pathetic. Most video recordings also record sound, and if the event is close enough the sound will be quite clear. Furthermore, the sound on the King tape could be digitally enhanced to become quite audible.

The language of the wiretapping statute is sufficiently vague that it can be understood only by reference to the history of hearings and reports to illuminate the intention of the Legislature. Chief Justice Marshall finds no language in the legislative history to support the conclusion of the majority.

To deny the public the right to record in secret the public conduct of the police is so oppressive, the language of the law would have to be explicit and unambiguous. Fortunately, Chief Justice Marshall's experience with police abuse in South Africa has made her an ardent protector of the rights of the public. It is now up to the Legislature to remedy what the Court has undone.