Police Refusal to present ID-Possible Officer Hubert Interview 08162014
Channel: John Lloyd Scharf
Date: 2014-08-17

Officer refused/failed to properly ID with Police ID.  Infers he did not know he was being recorded from the start and claims he works "under cover." However, under Oregon case law, only one party to an oral conversation needs to know in Oregon and Officer did not stop conversation after verbal warning. 
STATE  v. UNDERWOOD TC 80,1217; CA A20054; SC 28112. 648 P.2d 847 (1982)293 Or. 389
STATE of Oregon, Respondent On Review,v.Walter UNDERWOOD, Petitioner On Review.
We find that a reading of the interception statutes as a whole makes it clear that no interception occurs when one party records a communication. This reading is consistent with federal caselaw under a prior form of the federal law regarding interception of communications, former 47 U.S.C. § 605, which allowed recording with one party consent. See Rathbun v. United States, 355 U.S. 107, 78 S.Ct. 161, 2 L.Ed.2d 134 (1957).
We hold that when a police officer participates in a telephone communication with a person and records the communication, the evidence is not an "interception" under ORS 133.721(4) and is therefore not subject to suppression under ORS 133.735 when obtained without a court order.
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19821495648P2d847_11461.xml/STATE%20v.%20UNDERWOOD

Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public. When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation.
— Judge Emory A. Plitt, Jr., Maryland v. Graber
http://www.aele.org/Md_Graber.pdf

Brian D. KELLY, Appellant v. BOROUGH OF CARLISLE; David J. Rogers, individually and as a police officer for the Carlisle Borough Police Department.
In Robinson v. Fetterman, 378 F.Supp.2d 534, 541 (E.D. Pa. 2005), the court ruled that there is a free speech right to film police officers in the performance of their public duties. Robinson claimed to be concerned about the way police were conducting truck inspections on a local road, so he decided to document their behavior by filming them from an adjacent property. Robinson videotaped from a position approximately 20 to 30 feet from the highway and never physically interfered with police activities. The police told him to knock it off and, when he refused, they arrested him for harassment.
Robinson was convicted of harassment, but the conviction was overturned on appeal, and Robinson filed a § 1983 action against the troopers. The judge found that no officer could reasonably believe that Robinson was violating the Pennsylvania harassment law. The court ruled against the troopers and took the rare step of awarding punitive damages against the individual officers in addition to general compensatory damages.
42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.