Aspies For Freedom

BY TOM BOWMAN
Of The Patriot-News

Peter J. Grabko, 25, of Lower Paxton Twp., was driving on Paxton Street Thursday with his brother Joseph D. Grabko in the passenger seat when they came upon a fatal accident.

Peter Grabko, who would like to become a professional photographer, grabbed his camera and began shooting photos of the accident. His brother Joseph, 18, who has autism and other mental disabilities, picked up a miniature audio recorder and began interviewing witnesses.

Their actions got the attention of Swatara Twp. police. Before long, the younger brother was in police custody, facing the felony charge of intercepting communications, plus lesser charges of tampering with evidence and resisting arrest.

Joseph Grabko said yesterday that a Swatara Twp. police officer warned his brother to stop taking photos.

Swatara police Capt. Jason Umberger said yesterday that the reason Peter Grabko was asked to stop taking photos was because the dead driver's body was still in the car. The captain agreed Peter Grabko broke no laws when he photographed the accident.

The same wasn't true for the younger brother. Joseph Grabko was recording the conversation between the police officer and Peter Grabko.

Umberger told Joseph Grabko it is illegal to record someone without asking their permission. He asked Joseph Grabko to hand over the recorder as evidence. The 18-year-old refused, Umberger said, and tried to erase the recording.

Umberger grabbed the recorder. Joseph Grabko resisted and Umberger locked his arm behind his back and handcuffed him.

Joseph Grabko was taken before a district justice, charged and sent home.

Neither brother told police that Joseph Grabko has autism, a neurological disorder that inhibits the ability to communicate and interact socially.

And once more NT's over-react drasticlly.

Policeman or no if someone "grabs" me or anything without apparently good reason, instinct is to hang on and grab it back, police officer or no. Did any of you guys know it's illegal to tape someones voice without consent? - I know I didn't.

"OH MY GOD; HE'S BRANDISHING A TAPE RECORDER!!! - ARREST THAT MAN!" - That policeman needs to get a life =/

Yes I knew of the laws on that, we have those in the UK as well, however I have allways thought them silly in some ways, I mean if he was using the tape recorder which was in some way hidden in order to record people without their knowledge it would to some degree make sense, but if the recorder itself is being used in a way that it is clearly visable I would say concent really could be pretty much presumed, after all it is not like anyone turned around and simply asked him to stop recording prior to attempting to confescate the device, which is to my mind just wrong I would have said.

If he was told that it was illeagel to record people without their knowledge, and then he started to erase the recording, why didn't the police officer let him. Even if it was tampering with evidence, the record of what they said no longer exists, so it seems kind of pointless.

I was thinking along the same lines, he did make an effort to make right the mistake by erasing the tape.