Wow….There is no rights violation. There is no unlawful prejudice. Yes, it prejudices the jury pool… because it’s evidence in the commision of a crime… duh! It’s no different than being caught on tape robbing a bank, or better yet, being caught in a Police agency orchestrated sting operation where it’s ALL filmed. Whether or not it is entrapment may be a consideration in some cases but it’s purely and totally lawful.

SilverStar830 on December 7, 2006 at 11:17 AM

If you’re talking about me, just covering the bases with my opinion. See the last paragraph of my entry. I’ll stand on that.

There is no rights violation. There is no unlawful prejudice. Yes, it prejudices the jury pool… because it’s evidence in the commision of a crime… duh! It’s no different than being caught on tape robbing a bank, or better yet, being caught in a Police agency orchestrated sting operation where it’s ALL filmed. Whether or not it is entrapment may be a consideration in some cases but it’s purely and totally lawful.

1) You need a waiver in cases of a hiden video because, for one reason, many states prohibit the secret recording of conversations. For example, that’s why HBO needs a waiver to air the conversations on Taxi Cab Confessions.
2) You don’t need a waiver if the camera or other recording device is clearly visible and the subject know he is being recorded. Under these circumstances the subject has no reasonable expectation of privacy. This is the typical circumstance when a reporter shows up with a film crew and holds a mic to the subject’s face. This is why Sacha Baron Cohen, AKA Borat, didn’t need waivers for the “interviews” he conducted.
3. As for the “perp walk discussion” above, that is not relevant to the legality of the recording. It relates to whether the “perp” can get a fair trial, and not to whether the recording was legal and whether a waiver was needed.

Perp walks also occur in public places, e.g., outside court houses, where there is no expectation of privacy. This is why you can walk around the city all day with your camcorder, or, if you choose. You could even sit on the sub way and snap pics of your fellow passenger or turn on the tape recorder and record the conversation of the two people loudly talking next to you.

I think this series interferes with the right to trial by jury of peers. Something about prejudicing the jury pool.

And anyone who solicits online for underage sex knowing it is a crime deserves the full punishment of the law. They are playing russian roulette with the lives of everyone in their family. No excuses allowed. None.

It has nothing to do with conviction of the crime. I’m telling you they can air video without permission when the video is of a suspect commiting a crime, regardless of guilt or innocence. They show accused criminals faces on the News ALL THE TIME. But as previously discussed (ie: back read!), they sometimes pixalte or black out the accused criminals face so as not to jeopardize prosecution for the crime.

I don’t think it’s as cut and dried as you claim.

There is Lauro v. Charles, 219 F.3d 202, 212 n.7 (2d Cir. 2000), where the court said that a “perp walk” denotes “a posture connoting guilt” and that absent a legitimate law enforcement purpose, perp walks are unconstitutional. see also Caldarola v. Co. of Westchester, 343 F.3d 570, 573 (2d Cir. 2003).

In a National Law Journal article, authors William R. Mitchelson Jr. and Mark T. Calloway make the case that video of an accused, but not convicted gives an unfair advantage to the prosecutors, especially when white collar crimes are involved as opposed to people accused of violent crimes. Originally, perp walks were done only with violent criminals to insure the safety of the community. But Rudi Giuliani “patented” the perp walk for white collar criminals when he was US Atty for New York, where there was no threat to the community.

Now a perp walk occurs after the arrest. Dateline is showing what happened before the arrest, and clearly places the defendant in a “posture connotating guilt.” In fact, one might say that Dateline is acting as judge and jury in the process.

Certainly such video would be evidence of guilt if admitted at trial. But when shown to a national audience before the trial, Dateline becomes an arm of the prosecution. I’m not sure that there is legitimate law enfocement purpose involved in doing that. I think such might be a violation of the right to a fair trial, instead.

Dateline (the show that got caught deliberately exploding GMC trucks to illustrate alleged poor gas tank design) is skating on the edge if the people they show are acquited, from the point of view of being liable for defamation if they show faces without the subject’s permission.

That’s what happended to Geraldo Rivera when lost a suit after he broadcasted the face of an innocent 3rd party at an arrest scene some years back.

I’m betting that the people arrested have signed waivers, and might even be paid as well.

Billy, find me a way out of this hole.

Truly a classic movie, very quotable if you can do a decent Schwarzenegger impression. Try substituting Sean Connery for laughs.

I saw the dateline where the guy brought his kid (!!) with him to meet the “13 year old”. That was really messed up.

lorien1973 on December 6, 2006 at 10:45 PM

It really is “messed up”. I’m glad Dateline does these episodes. I’m sure the search for ratings is involved, but it’s a story that needs to be told, with the perps publicly humiliated. My grandmother used to have an expression I find useful for child sexual predators: “Hell isn’t hot enough for people like that”.

Seriously, it’s an excellent summary

I think you’re right lorien. Didn’t they say this girl was actually 19 – even though he thought he was meeting someone much younger? However, I’ve seen other Dateline episodes where the girl was indeed younger. Until this guy is convicted of the crime, they have to treat him as innocent.

thedecider on December 6, 2006 at 10:39 PM

It has nothing to do with conviction of the crime. I’m telling you they can air video without permission when the video is of a suspect commiting a crime, regardless of guilt or innocence. They show accused criminals faces on the News ALL THE TIME. But as previously discussed (ie: back read!), they sometimes pixalte or black out the accused criminals face so as not to jeopardize prosecution for the crime.

It might have something to do with entrapment though. However, numerous people arrested as a result of that show’s undercover operations in concert with Law Enforcement have tried that defense and failed, even upon appeal. At a later time the U.S. Supreme Court may take up that issue and reverse the convictions. Only time will tell.

lorien1973 on December 6, 2006 at 10:21 PM

I think you’re right lorien. Didn’t they say this girl was actually 19 – even though he thought he was meeting someone much younger? However, I’ve seen other Dateline episodes where the girl was indeed younger. Until this guy is convicted of the crime, they have to treat him as innocent.

Often, when Police have run out of leads or hit a road block in an investigation of a crime caught on tape, especially a heinous crime like a liquor store robbery where someone is shot, or a high yield crime like a bank robbery, they will air tape or photo stills to the public to assist in the investigation.

I meant to add:

Often, when Police have run out of leads or hit a road block in an investigation of a crime caught on tape, especially a heinous crime like a liquor store robbery where someone is shot, or a high yield crime like a bank robbery, they will air unaltered tape or photo stills to the public to assist in the investigation.

sorry ’bout that chief!

Isn’t it? Cops always hides criminals faces and they are always caught during the commission or just afterwards?

lorien1973 on December 6, 2006 at 10:21 PM

The Police hide the faces in videos/photos of criminals in some cases to avoid tainting the prosecution of the accused. Witnesses may need to identify the perpetrator of a crime at some later time, the Judge may order it, it depends on the risk of a mistrial outweighing the gain of informing the public. Often, when Police have run out of leads or hit a road block in an investigation of a crime caught on tape, especially a heinous crime like a liquor store robbery where someone is shot, or a high yield crime like a bank robbery, they will air tape or photo stills to the public to assist in the investigation.

There is case law on this but I can’t recall the cite. A search on Google may locate the case law but I tried for 5 minutes and was getting sooo many hits on the search terms I decided not to spend half the night trying to find it. I’m familiar with the case law on this since I’m a Law Enforcement Officer veteran of nearly 20 years. It’s out there and if you’re of the mind to spend your Wednesday night finding it, have a go! LoL