Can people record police officers? Illinois ban gets no help at Supreme Court

[Harsh_77 718]

http://news.yahoo.com/people-record-police-officers-illinois-ban-gets-no-001706984.html?bcmt_s=m#ugccmt-container

The US Supreme Court refused Monday to hear an appeal on behalf of an Illinois eavesdropping law that prohibits recording a law enforcement officer, leaving in place a federal appeals court ruling that barred enforcement of the law on the grounds it “likely violates” free speech guarantees.

The eavesdropping law, which makes recording law enforcement officers a first-class felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison, is among the most severe in the nation regarding surreptitious audio or video recording of public or private conversations.

Illinois is one of just 10 states, plus the District of Columbia, where all parties must give their consent to a recording, according to data provided by The National Conference of State Legislatures.

Any thoughts?

[decocker 7,198]

the purpose of police is to serve and protect the citizens. how can we keep their authority in check if we can't record evidence against improper enforcement of the law? or proper enforcement of the law? how, in this day and age, do we police not only the citizens, but the cellphones in their pockets? it's unreasonable and irresponsible for any court to suggest that recording a public servant in the line of duty is a criminal act.

[Harsh_77 718]

That’s exactly was my thought as an employee I can always be recorded by my employer while on the clock.

Any police officer of public servant is employed by the citizens and citizens should have all the rights to record their employee.

This just shows how a court system and police work hand in hand without caring for the rights and liberty of the citizens.

[decocker 7,198]

This just shows how a court system and police work hand in hand without caring for the rights and liberty of the citizens.

a united states where police can't be recorded and citizens can be indefinitely detained without charge..

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Buy ammo.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

the purpose of police is to serve and protect the citizens. how can we keep their authority in check if we can't record evidence against improper enforcement of the law? or proper enforcement of the law? how, in this day and age, do we police not only the citizens, but the cellphones in their pockets? it's unreasonable and irresponsible for any court to suggest that recording a public servant in the line of duty is a criminal act.

Absolutely.

I remember back home in Ottawa, a story about a bus driver being filmed because he was doing paperwork WHILE DRIVING the bus. He literally had a binder full of paper up on the steering wheel and was writing things down.

And his employers stuck up for him originally, saying the passengers should not have the right to film him. It was ridiculous.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Evylin

[decocker 7,198]

Buy ammo.

for what? we're talking of shooting cops with cameras not guns..

[natty bumppo 297]

the purpose of police is to serve and protect the citizens. how can we keep their authority in check if we can't record evidence against improper enforcement of the law? or proper enforcement of the law? how, in this day and age, do we police not only the citizens, but the cellphones in their pockets? it's unreasonable and irresponsible for any court to suggest that recording a public servant in the line of duty is a criminal act.

wishful thinking.

lawsuits against governmental entities for failure to prevent harm to an individual have been dismissed repeatedly. all the police do is arrive after the fact, draw the profile line around the body, take pictures, and call someone else to clean-up the mess.

start your research and education with:

DeShaney v. Winnebago County

Castle Rock v. Gonzales

Edited November 28, 2012 by natty bumppo

[Harsh_77 718]

Buy ammo.

lol buying ammo is not the right solution.

People should be aware of things like this and they should force their elected officials to take right action.

State can pass a law where court ruling could be overturned.

People should be aware that such things are not acceptable.

[decocker 7,198]

wishful thinking.

lawsuits against governmental entities for failure to prevent harm to an individual have been dismissed repeatedly. all the police do is arrive after the fact, draw the profile line around the body, take pictures, and call someone else to clean-up the mess.

start your research and education with:

DeShaney v. Winnebago County

Castle Rock v. Gonzales

oh no. i don't believe that the police serve and protect citizens, that's just what they say they're doing..

(this quote is from a larger lecture, but the overall point is more in line with my thinking)

“The function of that police action, those interventions in Central America and the Middle East, the function is system sustaining. It is to maintain that overall system! And you don’t look at the particular cost. I could demonstrate to you that every single bank robbery, that in every single case practically, the cost of the police was more than the actual money that the robbers took from the bank. Does that mean, ‘Oh, you see, there’s really no economic interest involved, then. They’re not protecting the banks. The police are just doing this because they’re on a power trip, or they’re macho, or they’re control freaks, that’s why they do it.’ No, of course it’s an economic… of course they’re defending the banks. Of course, because if they didn’t stop that bank robbery, regardless of the cost, this could jeopardize the entire banking system. You see, there are people who believe that the function of the police is to fight crime. And that’s not true; the function of the police is social control and protection of property.” - Michael Parenti http://www.michaelparenti.org/

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

http://news.yahoo.com/people-record-police-officers-illinois-ban-gets-no-001706984.html?bcmt_s=m#ugccmt-container

The US Supreme Court refused Monday to hear an appeal on behalf of an Illinois eavesdropping law that prohibits recording a law enforcement officer, leaving in place a federal appeals court ruling that barred enforcement of the law on the grounds it “likely violates” free speech guarantees.

The eavesdropping law, which makes recording law enforcement officers a first-class felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison, is among the most severe in the nation regarding surreptitious audio or video recording of public or private conversations.

Illinois is one of just 10 states, plus the District of Columbia, where all parties must give their consent to a recording, according to data provided by The National Conference of State Legislatures.

Any thoughts?

I know some of the laws also distinguish between public and private recording - IE recording police during duties on the street is legal and then a few cases hit a grey area regarding the interior of vehicles etc.

To me it makes perfect sense to allow it, so long as they are in uniform.

[Harsh_77 718]

I know some of the laws also distinguish between public and private recording - IE recording police during duties on the street is legal and then a few cases hit a grey area regarding the interior of vehicles etc.

To me it makes perfect sense to allow it, so long as they are in uniform.

This is not even the grey area… can you imagine the state of mind of this judge from US courts of Appeals?

This is just blatant showoff of power, where police and courts can do whatever they want to do and Supreme Court would not hear the case.

As per this law the cities in Illinois should not be able to have any camera on the public street nor have the red right cameras either – that would be violation of privacy laws.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Buy ammo.

[Harsh_77 718]

Normally I agree with you on lot of points.... not this one just buying ammo is not the solution.

Just coz cop is not doing his job you not going to shoot him but if you can record him that can be proved in any court of law.

Lets say cop is going to donout shop and he parks in the handicap spot, you not going to shoot him for that, but if you can reocord him doing it a complaint can be filed and video or pic can be used as the proof.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Normally I agree with you on lot of points.... not this one just buying ammo is not the solution.

Just coz cop is not doing his job you not going to shoot him but if you can record him that can be proved in any court of law.

Lets say cop is going to donout shop and he parks in the handicap spot, you not going to shoot him for that, but if you can reocord him doing it a complaint can be filed and video or pic can be used as the proof.

When we type "buy ammo" it means for the revolution that's eventually going to go down and that's when this country gets cleaned up and set right again.