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

[natty bumppo 297]

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/

many police departments have removed the "serve and protect" language from their arsenal of generic public proclamations and the sides of patrol cars for the simple reason they have no obligation to perform this task. it confuses the public and costs money when people sue them for failure to "protect"

[james&olya 1,121]

The real question is whether the police serve the citizens or the citizens serve the police. This ruling helps to re-establish that the police are there to serve the citizens. Otherwise we are well on our way to becoming a despotic police state!

[james&olya 1,121]

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.

Only problem is who gets to determine what that 'right' direction is. We currently have a sort of democracy but with the corruption of huge corporate money in our politics. That is still far preferable to what I perceive as the goal of the tea party, pro-revolution types who wish to impose their will on everyone else! Those that watch only Fox 'news' and get all their 'information' from within the right wing echo chamber are out of touch with the reality of what the true majority thinking is in this country. It is decidedly UN-American to assume you can seize power through armed revolution and put in place a government representing a decidedly minority viewpoint! It is time for all of you to wake up and realize how stupid and dangerous a lot of your rhetoric is!!!

[Harsh_77 718]

The real question is whether the police serve the citizens or the citizens serve the police. This ruling helps to re-establish that the police are there to serve the citizens. Otherwise we are well on our way to becoming a despotic police state!

How does this ruling re-establish police is there to serve citizens?

This ruling says they can do whtever they want to do and as a citizen you cannot do nothing. You can file a complaint against them but you cannot record them violating a law so there is no evidence against them.

[Neonred 3,648]

what I perceive as the goal of the tea party, pro-revolution types who wish to impose their will on everyone else!

I see you have no idea about the Tea Party and it's platform.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Only problem is who gets to determine what that 'right' direction is. We currently have a sort of democracy but with the corruption of huge corporate money in our politics. That is still far preferable to what I perceive as the goal of the tea party, pro-revolution types who wish to impose their will on everyone else! Those that watch only Fox 'news' and get all their 'information' from within the right wing echo chamber are out of touch with the reality of what the true majority thinking is in this country. It is decidedly UN-American to assume you can seize power through armed revolution and put in place a government representing a decidedly minority viewpoint! It is time for all of you to wake up and realize how stupid and dangerous a lot of your rhetoric is!!!

I'm guessing your either an immigrant who did their schooling somewhere else or very young.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

American Revolution

[james&olya 1,121]

I'm guessing your either an immigrant who did their schooling somewhere else or very young.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

American Revolution

Your guesses are off target also!

[james&olya 1,121]

I see you have no idea about the Tea Party and it's platform.

So then why don't you enlighten us all about the tea party's platform? If you aren't too busy stockpiling ammo!

Edited November 29, 2012 by james&olya

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I see you have no idea about the Tea Party and it's platform.

I look at the candidates that they have either nominated to be sent to Washington or have actually managed to send to Washington. Nutcases. All of them.

[Harsh_77 718]

I look at the candidates that they have either nominated to be sent to Washington or have actually managed to send to Washington. Nutcases. All of them.

Thats your opinion but anyway that has nothing to do with the topic.

Original message is not Republican or Democrat it affects every single individual of Illinois + 10 other states and Washington D.C.

Courts giving immunity to police officer and they cannot be filmed on the street on the grounds of privacy is absurd.

[james&olya 1,121]

Thats your opinion but anyway that has nothing to do with the topic.

Original message is not Republican or Democrat it affects every single individual of Illinois + 10 other states and Washington D.C.

Courts giving immunity to police officer and they cannot be filmed on the street on the grounds of privacy is absurd.

You may have misread the article. The legislatures enacted laws to ban filming of police on the job. The courts have ruled AGAINST the enforcement of those laws and the SCOTUS chooses not to change this action of the lower courts!

[Darnell 8,479]

Any thoughts?

Carry 10 small sized consent and release forms in yer wallet. Need one? pull it out, have the cop sign, then get on with yer business of recording the policeman.

[james&olya 1,121]

Carry 10 small sized consent and release forms in yer wallet. Need one? pull it out, have the cop sign, then get on with yer business of recording the policeman.

Only necessary if the cop is off-duty and has a reasonable expectation of privacy! If he is on-duty then he is not granted that expectation of privacy as he interacts with members of the public!

[Harsh_77 718]

You may have misread the article. The legislatures enacted laws to ban filming of police on the job. The courts have ruled AGAINST the enforcement of those laws and the SCOTUS chooses not to change this action of the lower courts!

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.

That decision arrived just before the NATO summit in Chicago when thousands of protesters were expected to swarm the city’s downtown area, most armed with some kind of digital recording devices. The city said it would not enforce the law during that time.

Lead public attorneys in other Illinois counties have been hesitant to enforce the law as written, saying either that the punishment is too excessive or that it presents constitutional flaws.

State Attorney Anita Alvarez has been using that law and prosecuting ppl for recording the police officer.

[james&olya 1,121]

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.

That decision arrived just before the NATO summit in Chicago when thousands of protesters were expected to swarm the city’s downtown area, most armed with some kind of digital recording devices. The city said it would not enforce the law during that time.

Lead public attorneys in other Illinois counties have been hesitant to enforce the law as written, saying either that the punishment is too excessive or that it presents constitutional flaws.

State Attorney Anita Alvarez has been using that law and prosecuting ppl for recording the police officer.

You are still missing the significance of what the courts have done. The law was ruled not enforceable by the lower courts (basically it was struck down, invalidated, reversed, whatever!) and the supreme court has decided to go along with the lower court's ruling. Bottom line - You now cannot be arrested for video recording a police officer when he is in public doing his job!!

So now the esteemed state attorney of Illinois will no longer be able to use that law to prosecute anybody!