Massachusetts Police Officer False Tells Driver Videotaping Him Is A Crime And Then Denies Threatening To Take Camera At Hearing

We have another case of a police officer threatening a citizen after falsely telling him that filming a police officer in public is a crime. What adds to this particularly case is that Massachusetts state police trooper Kenneth Harold is also now accused of giving false testimony under questioning by driver. We have been following the continuing abuse of citizens who are detained or arrested for filming police in public. (For prior columns, click here and here). Despite consistent rulings upholding the right of citizens to film police in public, these abuses continue.

The recording of this encounter shows Harold clearly falsely claiming that filming him is a crime and clearly stating that he would seize the camera if the filming continues. Harold accused the driver of violating “the wiretap law” but, despite the efforts of Massachusetts police and prosecutors, it is legal to film officers. Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled that the state law deals with surreptitious audio recording.

Here is the stop:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKGGbzhHeSs

The false assertion that Maya is violating the law should itself be a disciplinary offense. However, Maya now charges that the officer lied under oath in the subsequent hearing in this exchange:

Maya: When you pulled me over, did you threaten to steal any of my property?
Harold: No, I did not.
Maya: So, you didn’t threaten to take anything of mine?
Harold: No, I did not.

. . .

Maya: Did you have a warrant to take my camera?
Harold: I’m sorry?
Maya: Did you have a warrant to take my camera?
Harold: [dodging the question] I didn’t take your camera.
Maya: But you threatened to.
Harold: No, I did not threaten to.

That does not square with the videotape of the incident in which Harold can be heard saying “I will ask you one last time, then I will take that from you.”
Here is the hearing:

Maya proceed to post a video accusing the officer of lying.

It does appear that the officer misrepresented the law and threatened a citizen who was engaging in a protected activity. It also appears clear that his testimony was not accurate. There is no record however of any disciplinary action being taken in the case.