That's what you get when you have criminals running the government.

I seem to remember an ongoing boycott of South Carolina by blacks.  Could Maryland really afford a boycott of Conservatives?  Not there's a helluva lot to see in Maryland or much of a reason to go there, but it might give them a pause.  Then again, it might not, so they ought to be boycotted just for thinking up this bullshit.

I thought Nilfong was fired??  Did he just move up the coast, or what?

Man...talk about an uprising if they do prosecute.

Could this be another racist act? 

"....Patricia Jessamy, is an avid Obama supporter and contributor"

After a video search of Jessamy, one might easily conclude she is a huge fan of ACORN.

I'm a refugee from the Democratic Party.

Can someone subpoena all records of the  Baltimore City State’s Attorneys Office? I think the American people have a right to know who is supposedly complaining. (You need to get the subpoena out soon before records are destroyed.)

The people of Maryland need to take a long look at Patricia Jessamy.

Limited Disclosure:  I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.

So I take it that Maryland doesn't have any local news stations with consumer advocate reporters who do hidden camera work to catch companies or individuals who are screwing people over or anything like that?  Something smells rotten here...

Maryland is a one party state. Care to guess which party?

When exposing criminal behavior is then prosecuted, something is terribly wrong with both the law and the prosecutor. Ignore the criminals and destroy those who expose the crime? ONLY if they are on the wrong side of the political fence. The reaction of the prosecutor is what is CRIMINAL! But hey, Acorn is a criminal organization and their lawyer is now our president! So $billions, (yes with a B, as in Barack) to the criminals and persecution for anyone who gets in the way. We are being goverened by a criminal (gang) organization! Enough change for you yet, America?

   Ms. Jessamy is black and the filmers are white so this is obviously a case of racism against the filmakers

  The democratic party is a criminal enterprise.

  Watergate is laughable compared to the corruption going on today.

Hope there's a tape of Holder/Raum/Axelrod's phone call saying to the AG of Maryland---"Go get these two. Teach them a lesson."

No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.

"The Wire"......Operation ACORN.

I'm a refugee from the Democratic Party.

It will be the biggest mistake they'll ever make if they do prosecute those two. I hope they do prosecute--our people need further awakening about the coup d'etat we're living in.

So, does that mean they'll prosecute 60 Minutes, 20/20, Dateline, etc., etc.? Oh wait...

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason

Shades of Helen-Jones Kelly.

These Obama supporters think nothing of using their public positions and power to cover for allies.

One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.

This sounds like it would be malicious prosecution. But it is going nowhere, in my estimation, from reading this:

Published by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/consent.html

FEDERAL

Consent and its limits

Generally, you may record, film, broadcast or amplify any conversation where all the parties to it consent. It is always legal to tape or film a face-to-face interview when your recorder or camera is in plain view. The consent of all parties is presumed in these instances.

The use of hidden cameras is covered only by the wiretap and eavesdropping laws if the camera also records an audio track. However, a number of states have adopted laws specifically banning the use of video and still cameras where the subject has an expectation of privacy, although some of the laws are much more specific. Maryland’s law, for example, bans the use of hidden cameras in bathrooms and dressing rooms.

Whether using an audiotape recorder or a hidden camera, journalists need to know about the limits to their use.

Criminal purpose. Federal law requires only one-party consent to the recording and disclosure of a telephone conversation, but explicitly does not protect the taping if it is done for a criminal or tortious purpose. Many states have similar exceptions. Employees of a “psychic hotline” who were secretly recorded by an undercover reporter working for “Primetime Live” sued ABC for violation of the federal wiretapping statute, arguing that the taping was done for the illegal purposes of invading the employees’ privacy. The federal appellate court in Pasadena (9th Cir.) affirmed the dismissal of the employees’ claim in September 1999. According to the court, an otherwise legal taping that is done to achieve a “further impropriety, such as blackmail,” becomes a violation of the law. But even if ABC’s means of taping were illegal because the act violated the employees’ privacy, that does not make the taping illegal under the wiretap act, the court held. Because the employees “produced no probative evidence that ABC had an illegal or tortious purpose” when it made the tape, the reporter did not violate the federal statute. (Sussman v. American Broadcasting Co.)

In another case, an ophthalmologist who agreed to be interviewed for “Primetime Live” sued ABC under the federal wiretapping statute for videotaping consultations between the doctor and individuals posing as patients who were equipped with hidden cameras. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago (7th Cir.) rejected the doctor’s wiretapping claim because the federal statute requires only one-party consent, and the undercover patients had consented to the taping. The court further held that the network did not send the testers to the doctor for the purpose of defaming the doctor, and that therefore ABC did not engage in the taping for a criminal or tortious purpose. (Desnick v. ABC)

These cases make two points journalists should remember when they think about taping a conversation: consent requirements under state and federal laws must always be met, and even then taping can be illegal if it is done in furtherance of a crime.

Trespass. A party whose conversation is surreptitiously recorded, whether with a tape recorder or a hidden camera, may also raise such newsgathering claims as trespass and intrusion, examining the issue of the scope of a party’s consent. For example, in Desnick, the doctor sued the network for trespass because he did not know of the taping. But the court stated that consent to an entry is “often given legal effect” even though the entrant “has intentions that if known to the owner of the property would cause him . . . to revoke his consent.”

On the other hand, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond (4th Cir.) ruled in October 1999 that ABC reporters — again with “Primetime Live” — who obtained jobs with a Food Lion grocery store and therefore had legal permission to be in nonpublic areas of the store nonetheless exceeded the scope of that permission by using hidden cameras on the job. Food Lion had not consented to their presence for the purpose of recording footage that would be televised, the court held, and therefore the reporters’ presence in the nonpublic areas constituted trespass.

However, Food Lion could not prove it was damaged by the trespass, the court found. Damage to its reputation caused by the resulting story was due to the facts reported in the story that alarmed consumers, not due to the trespass, the court held. As a result, Food Lion was only able to recover nominal damages of one dollar for the trespass claim. (Food Lion Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC Inc.)

Expectations of privacy. The other issue that courts address in evaluating these cases is whether or not the plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area where the filming took place. In Desnick, the court held that the doctor did not have such an expectation of privacy in an area where he brought his patients.

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/maryland.html
Maryland

Under Maryland’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, it is unlawful to tape record a conversation without the permission of all the parties. See Bodoy v. North Arundel Hosp., 945 F.Supp. 890 (D. Md. 1996). Additionally, recording with criminal or tortuous purpose is illegal, regardless of consent. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402.

Disclosing the contents of intercepted communications with reason to know they were obtained unlawfully is a crime as well.

Violations of the law are felonies punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years and a fine of not more than $10,000. Civil liability for violations can include the greater of actual damages, $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. To recover civil damages, however, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew it was illegal to tape the communication without consent from all participants. MD. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-410.

State courts have interpreted the laws to protect communications only when the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and thus, where a person in a private apartment was speaking so loudly that residents of an adjoining apartment could hear without any sound enhancing device, recording without the speaker’s consent did not violate the wiretapping law. Malpas v. Maryland, 695 A.2d 588 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997); see also Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., 649 F. Supp. 9 (D. Md. 1986) (salesman’s presentation in stranger’s home not assumed to carry expectation of privacy).

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland held that because states are at liberty to adopt more restrictive provisions than those contained in federal law, the secretary-treasurer of a local union who recorded conversations between himself and management representatives could still be prosecuted under the state statute, even if his conduct was arguably protected under the National Labor Relations Act. Petric v. State, 504 A.2d 1168 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1986).

It is a misdemeanor to use a hidden camera in a bathroom or dressing room. It is also a misdemeanor to use a hidden camera on private property “for purposes of conducting deliberate, surreptitious observation of a person inside the private residence,” or in a private place with “prurient intent.” Md. Crim. Law §§ 3-901, -902, -903. A person who is viewed in violation of these statutes has a civil cause of action. The court may award actual damages and reasonable attorney fees. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding $2,500 or both.

The way to honor the 3000 people hideously murdered by Islamo-Nazis on 9/11 is to ... PAINT A WALL, so orders President Obama, Whitewasher-in-Chief.

This is amazing.  These people uncover corruption and find themselves the ones being threatened with prosecution by the authorities.

Our country is a banana republic. Now we see. Therefore we change. It is time to kick em out. everywhere. These young reporters are very brave people indeed. They may have to fight litigation. To try them in court would only cement the cause to change.

Let's give a hand to all the resident liberals who avoided this thread like the plague.

You have to read between the lines, but only the most ignorant of trolls would come in here and defend such a notion as prosecuting these budding journalists.

This is an Upton Sinclair moment.  A look into the liberal world of making and hiding sausage.

One thing liberals don't want is for Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart even mentioning Giles and O'Keefe might need a smidge of financial help for a legal defense fund.