The Michigan Messenger

Top Stories

The Michigan Messenger going forward

By Staff Report | 11.16.11

I am writing today to announce the closure of the Michigan Messenger. After four years of operation in Michigan, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news into a single site, The American Independent at Americanindependent.com. This is part of a shift in strategy, towards new forms [...]

Colorado-based abstinence program provided false and misleading information to Michigan students

HIV-AIDS-small
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.16.11

An abstinence-only presentation provided to numerous school districts in Calhoun and Eaton Counties in October of this year provided false and misleading information to students about HIV, experts allege.

Class action lawsuit filed against MERS over unpaid taxes

foreclosure
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.15.11

Two county registers of deeds filed a class action lawsuit Monday on behalf of Michigan’s 83 counties alleging that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Services owes millions of dollars in property title transfer taxes.

Schuette fights important mercury regulations

epa_logo
By Eartha Jane Melzer | 11.14.11

Despite evidence of the impact of mercury on children and public health, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette last month joined with 24 other state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to scuttle new EPA regulations that would reduce mercury emissions from power plants.

police tape
 

Michigan high court rules for Dr. Dre

By Ed Brayton | 03.21.11 | 7:52 am

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in favor of rapper Dr. Dre in a case involving a very important legal principle — whether the police have a right to privacy while performing their duties. The state high court said no.
 
The suit was filed by Gary Brown, now a Detroit City Councilman but formerly a high-ranking police official. He and other officers were videotaped while threatening to shut down a concert featuring Dre and Eminem if they showed a sexually explicit video. The video was then included in a DVD produced about the tour.

The court, in a 6-1 ruling, dismissed the suit, saying that there is no right to privacy for police while on the job. The implications of this ruling are far more important than they may seem initially because it explicitly makes it legal in the state of Michigan to record the police while they perform their duties.

This is incredibly important because cell phone videos of police officers have revealed misconduct, abuse and lying on reports in case after case around the country. But in some states, like Illinois, it is illegal to videotape the police in the performance of their duties.

Michigan now has a clearly established legal right for what has become a crucial watchdog on police misconduct.

Comments

  • Anonymous

    Wow, OK this makes a lot of sense dude.

    http://www.real-privacy.it.tc

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gt-QuickPack/100000863502514 Gt QuickPack

    6-1 Ruling? I love michigan.

  • Anonymous

    the same should be said for any government action

  • Anonymous

    Illinois is corrupt, that’s why.

    • http://profiles.google.com/mikelj Michael Giardino

      EDIT: Haha, I should read more carefully, AFV. My mistake.

      • http://profiles.google.com/mikelj Michael Giardino

        Haha, I should read more carefully, AFV. My mistake.

  • http://www.facebook.com/scozbert Bob Davis

    Is there anyway we can get the supreme court to vote on this too?

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ICTR3SQFPAVBOIDLUXN46GUHJA Usnews

      Yes but it will go the other way I bet…

  • Anonymous

    This article misrepresents the Supreme Court’s ruling. The holding was limited to the conversation that occurred backstage at the concert. The Court decided that the police had no reasonable expectation to privacy at the time of the conversation. This ruling does not extend to all police activity while they are on the job, as the article suggests. It was a narrow ruling tailored to one specific event.

    • http://profiles.google.com/leempurdy lee purdy

      This is what is referred to as precedent and will be used as such in ALL future cases of people recording police officers. Try to understand how your nations laws work before commenting in the future please.

      • http://profiles.google.com/diebyspellcheck L’erin Tiger

        A. You could’ve said the exact same thing without being a condescending d-bag. MadisonLaw clearly has legal knowledge; no lay person would use the term ‘holding’.
        B. Furthermore, the specific holding and key facts of a case are very important to determining precedent. It’s persuasive, sure, but one narrow ruling at a state level is hardly binding to all future cases.

    • Anonymous

      LOL YOU’RE FUCKING RETARDED I AM A LAWYER AND YOU’RE FUCKING STUPID LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Anonymous

    This needs to be a national law. Now.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brian-Marble/100000609214740 Brian Marble

    I moved out of Michigan because of the economy and the weather, but man…this makes me proud of my home state.

    • Anonymous

      you wouldnt be so proud if you lived here and knew firsthand how the politians are arseholes here esp Snyder

  • Anonymous

    Even if the ruling is limited to times when the police have no reasonable expectation of privacy, it does allow a lot of misconduct to be documented. It’s still an important ruling.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mikeyzero-Evans/775100373 Mikeyzero Evans

    All Michigan Medical Marijuana Patients should have multi camera systems to protect them from overzealous LEO. Now they know their evidence will be seen in court. Good ruling.

  • http://profiles.google.com/alexeiotmakhov Alexei Otmakhov

    Yea in Boston they can arrest you or take your phone/camera.

  • http://profiles.google.com/alexeiotmakhov Alexei Otmakhov

    Yea in Boston they can arrest you or take your phone/camera.

  • http://profiles.google.com/chivaago chivaago _vaago

    If we do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy as private citizens once we leave our home, then it is inconceivable that any law could be made that would make public servants expectations any different. Unless of course we are living in a country without any real bite in the Constitutional bark – oh wait…

  • Anonymous

    Is it just a test of the surreptitious recording statute or was he asserting some special police privilege? Sounds like they were just affirming that a public conversation is a public conversation, badge or not.

    http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/michigan.html

    Also, I didn’t read the decision.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3MN7KZKPR72PYEYG2APOGOL4YI Bob

    I would say that cops are public figures. Everything they do on the job should be public knowledge. Also they shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns.

    • Anonymous

      I don’t think that disarming the cops is the answer but there are corrupt ones that need to be removed

      • http://twitter.com/DunrobinMacdhai Rob

        Unfortunately people have been trying to get corrupt cops, judges and other officials removed for more a hundred years (actually, almost from when they were first established 150 years ago), yet the problem is worse than ever as the government intrudes further and further into our lives. We need to do more than “reform” for the umpteenth time; we need to rethink the whole system.

  • http://twitter.com/DawudWalid Dawud Walid

    Very important legal point. Thanks for the info.