Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cook County Judge Says Law Banning Recording Police Is Unconstitutional

Posted by timothy on from the isn't-anyone-offended-by-the-original-charge? dept.

schwit1 writes "A Cook County judge Friday ruled the state's controversial eavesdropping law unconstitutional. The law makes it a felony offense to make audio recordings of police officers without their consent even when they're performing their public duties. Judge Stanley Sacks, who is assigned to the Criminal Courts Building, found the eavesdropping law unconstitutional because it potentially criminalizes 'wholly innocent conduct.' The decision came in the case of Christopher Drew, an artist who was arrested in December 2009 for selling art on a Loop street without a permit. Drew was charged with a felony violation of the eavesdropping law after he used an audio recorder in his pocket to capture his conversations with police during his arrest."

13 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. deal with it by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Law enforcement officials need to get in line with the fact that society is going to require them to behave.

    Those that can't need to find another line of work.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:deal with it by marcello_dl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't even have to imply anything about their behaviour. In fact since they are the good guys they have nothing to hide, so they should be recordable.

      Now, there are corner cases where, say, an undercover cop would be exposed if a film of him in operation is PUBLISHED. But that's another matter. Let first citizen record whatever they want and use it to defend themselves in court. Let them also be responsible of all the damages they indirectly cause if the release of film to the publc damages some cop, which last time I checked is a citizen too and has equal rights).

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    2. Re:deal with it by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that there are a lot of bad cops out there. If you ore someone is getting arrested fore something they should have a record of it for themselves. There are too many cases when something goes wrong the police tape unexpectally cuts out.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:deal with it by jythie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree most cops are good people who work hard BUT police have an institutionalized problem of protecting the bad cops. So even though there are only a few bad apples, departments and fellow officers generally protect the bad cops rather then prosecute them due to the whole 'brotherhood' sticking together.

    4. Re:deal with it by NormalVisual · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A cop doesn't have to be "on the take" to be a bad cop. He can be a brutal and violent thug with utter disregard for the rights of citizens or the truth without taking a single bribe.

      Or he can be absolutely clean in his interactions with the public, but still have knowledge of this kind of stuff going on while turning a blind eye to it.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  2. You can't have it both ways by penix1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Police just love it when they record suspects and will use other sources of recordings besides those given with consent against suspects. Those suspects should also have the right to use recordings in their defense. If you ban recordings, then the ban should be on both sides. That would mean every dashboard mounted camera should be removed from all those police cars if this law was allowed to stand.

    --
    This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    1. Re:You can't have it both ways by hldn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      hate to break it to you, but the cops that don't want the public recording them would be just fine not having dash cams in their own cars too.

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  3. Re:Hello, context here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > The law attempted to prevent audio or video recording anyone without their consent [arstechnica.com], not just police.

    IMHO, here lies the problem.

    See, Stuart the man has a right about his privacy as anyone else -- but Officer Stuart has not.

    People take different roles and live through corresponding different contexts. A Law Officer must be transparent at all times; while I will certainly not want to be nitpicky about how many post-its he uses, I certainly want his use of the gun monitored. A Police Officer has a public job and as such, he is accountable.

  4. My friends a cop... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cops love to be dicks. Trust me.

    They dont want to be recorded because it would force them to behave.

  5. Re:Police are PUBLIC SERVANTS by HBI · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For bad police, cameras are terrorism.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  6. Re:No Problem by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There needs to be a "+1, Terrifying" mod option.

  7. Re:Hello, context here by TCFOO · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree. Once a police officer puts on thier uniform s/he waves any right of privacy until they are off duty. Recording officers on duty creates evidence that can be used in court or by the departments internal affairs personell to punish bad cops or reward good cops.

  8. Re:Hello, context here by cdrguru · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem that nobody seems to want to talk about is I, Bystander B is watching and recording the police dealing with Citizen A. Citizen A is very loudly disclaiming that he had anything whatsoever to do with Woman W, who is also standing by the police clearly accusing Citizen A of doing something nasty and wanting the police to "do something about it".

    I take my recording home and realize Citizen A just recently had their picture in the news as some supposedly upstanding person. I now have easy blackmail material or can simply sell my recording to the same news organizations for a tidy profit.

    It doesn't matter what Citizen A was or was not doing - their public life will be filled with innuendo and snarky comments. If they happen to be married, that might be over now as well. Just having a recording of someone interacting with the police is grounds for termination from any number of public-facing jobs. So with one recording you get to destroy someone's entire life.

    Now, if you are Citizen A and making the recording yourself that is a whole different matter. But what the public wants and news organizations will pay for is Bystander B's recording. Today in most jurisdictions attempting to do something like this openly will get you a trip to the jail and your recording device confiscated - you might get it back if you apply in person and pay the $50 fine. Or you might not. You can assume that if these laws are unconstitutional and go unenforced anyone with a life they value will just run from any interaction with the police for fear of it being recorded and used against them.

    Sure, the right attitude is that if there is no conviction there is no crime. But that isn't how things work today. If you are publiclly arrested and questioned about rape or child molestation you can figure it will get out and your life is over - no matter if they have the wrong person or not. Having a recording of some school principal getting a traffic ticket when they were complaining about student drivers is going to be lots of fun for people. So this could really stack up to be quite entertaining.