Slashdot Mirror
Cook County Judge Says Law Banning Recording Police Is Unconstitutional
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."
Hello,
On this internet site people think privacy and transparency can work together. They can, when we work together.
Thank you,
Agent Smitz
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
The "Police" will just join the RIAA and then sue people on the angle that they recorded their performance.
Ars is covering it...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/illinois-judge-law-barring-recording-police-is-unconstitutional.ars ...with lots of nice links.
The law attempted to prevent audio or video recording anyone without their consent, not just police.
Of course - of course - it was abused by Illinois' finest, but that wasn't really who it was intended to protect.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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.
I'm all in favor of the result of this decision, but this makes no sense: "... unconstitutional because it potentially criminalizes 'wholly innocent conduct."
Isn't it the very purpose of criminal law to criminalize what would otherwise be innocent conduct? What law wouldn't be stuck down by this reasoning?
I'd love to RTFA to find out more, but there's NO LINK. Source please?
You'd think Sting was used to being recorded by now.
And it's sad that we're here to cheer about something that should have been the status quo in the first place.
The law never should made it illegal to record the police. I suspect this is mostly a law designed to protect slippery government officials from getting snagged by whistle blowers.
I any case... it's disgusting this ever was law in the first place.
The police cannot be a legitimate servant of the law or the people so long as such laws remain on the books. They are entirely and manifestly unacceptable.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Cops love to be dicks. Trust me.
They dont want to be recorded because it would force them to behave.
By virtue of their PUBLIC presence they pretty much surrender any expectation of privacy while they wear the uniform. EVERYTHING they do and say is and should be subject to public scrutiny; if this requires the midstep of recording them for use later, then so be it.
In the UK the Data Protection Act 1998 reflects this in section 36, thus:
"Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual’s personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles and the provisions of Parts II and III."
This has been used to (successfully) argue that audio recording anywhere outside a situation where Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 comes into play (ie anywhere outside a military installation) for personal purposes, including legal (which falls within the definition in section 36) is *legally* permitted. Police officers walking on a public right of way does not fall into the category of military installation, therefore does not fall into the purview of OSA, therefore in this respect recording (audio or video) of police officers is legal.
Of course, that doesn't prevent them from threatening you with arrest under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (been there), which funnily enough only grants an authority to stop and search for terrorism-related paraphernalia. Which last time I looked, didn't extend to camera equipment.
IAAL.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Yes, here is a particularly interesting one (don't get distracted by the filename)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/if-you-pull-out-your.ars
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Actually, GP is bang on.
ANYTHING which requires a licence to be LEGAL
MUST be fundamentally LAWFUL.
Car analogy:
Does not possessing a driving license physically prevent you from driving a motorised vehicle skilfully and safely? Of course not. That is entirely down to training, experience, temperament and habit.
Does possession of a driving license physically protect you in any way shape or form from any sort of incident while behind the wheel? No.
Does possession of a license indemnify you legally in any way? No.
What is the purpose of a driving license? To identify you as the operator of a motorised vehicle and as a permission slip to use the public highways.
Are you children? Must you ask for permission to drive a vehicle? Watch TV? Keep an animal? Operate a radio transmitter?
There are some activities that are inherently hazardous (eg driving, shooting), for which there is not a *legal* requirement but more one of common sense; that you are insured against incidents. I was stopped just once, not for not having a license (I never had a license), or a tax disc (never had one of these either - you can't get 'em for unregistered vehicles), or speeding or running a light, but because I wasn't wearing three point seatbelt (I had a certificate of exemption, but the prick still tried to ticket me for it). The only reason I wasn't run in for the rest of them, I was told, was that I had insurance documents.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
The short of this is that we need a federal law (or supreme court decision) that specifically makes recording of law enforcement officers performing their duties in public places legal. Full stop. No restrictions or loopholes.
The problem we're fighting is there's too much abuse of power and lack of outside accountability within most law enforcement groups. (sorry, an "internal investigation" leaves much doubt as to the impartialness of the findings) Recordings have been used over and over again to change the course of internal investigations that were attempting to (or had already) neatly sweep things under the rug and "failed to find any evidence of misconduct". The need for these recordings has been demonstrated so many times, and I don't recall a single incident of the recordings being challenged for any reason other than an attempt to cover up or retaliate. They have NO reasonable or lawful basis to deny this law. Law has no expectation of privacy while performing their duty in public, that should be obvious to all.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
A lot of arm waving unfortunately does not accomplish much unless followed up with something to turn the law around. Wake me up when there's something to vote on.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Is there anything in the Constitution that actually forbids such laws?
You mean other than the Ninth Amendment, which clarifies that people have other rights that happen not to be listed in the Bill of Rights, and the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires due process and equal protection from the several states?
Have you noticed that whenever you see anyone say "turn that camera off" you can sense a deep underlying fear in them?
There scared cause there conscious isn't clear
That is not entirely true. I have seen times where someone has been saying "turn that camera off" because they know that the person (or the organization behind the person) cannot be trusted to present what is recorded in context. As an example, someone says, "When he said, 'I don't have to do obey the law.' I told him that he did indeed." Some untrustworthy sources have cut that to show that someone saying, "I don't have to obey the law."
However, you are correct that most of the time when someone says "turn that camera off" it is because they do not want a record of what they are going to do.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
It's not a courtesy for the ignorant. It's a requirement. Before the cops conduct a custodial interrogation, they are required to inform you of your rights. If they do not, any information gained from that interrogation, and any information following from it, will likely be excluded.
Get rid of resisting arrest. It is only used to arrest people who haven't done anything wrong. It's everyone's duty to resist arrest.
What right do you think applies in this case?
I imagine that the right to record in a public place is implicit in the First Amendment right to free expression. Practical free expression requires the ability to back up your assertions with evidence, be it original research or citations, and recording is one way of collecting evidence. And because political speech is historically the most thoroughly protected kind of free speech, this would include collecting evidence about abuses perpetrated by the executive branch of the government.
Is there any case history for it?
Sorry. I'm not a lawyer or even a professional paralegal, so I can't recall off hand any relevant rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court.
That's different. If you attack the officer or his car, that's already a crime, unrelated to whatever you're being arrested for. Resisting arrest is used when people argue with police or when police unlawfully shove you and you don't immediately go down into fetal position. It's also used to punish people who are being beaten by police and fight back. All of these are things you should be allowed to do.
The other problem I have with it is the license it gives cops when you're resisting. Say you're on the ground being cuffed and you aren't cooperating - not letting them pull your arm behind your back. Resisting arrest means a crime is in progress right now and they psychologically justify doing things like tasering you, when you're no danger to anyone.
The deeper one looks into this, the more bizarre it looks. The current law is here: http://goo.gl/f0OyQ. Section 14-2 is the real meat of it, its amendments are 94-183 and 91-657, and it was introduced by 79-781.
According to Senator Millner, at the time in 1994 it was actually a class 4 felony for police officers to leave their dashboard cameras running. (pdf, @ page 32 http://goo.gl/sJlf7)
Going back further, the original motivation for the committee that started drafting the bill in 1975 seems to track back to then Senator Partee's mention of a report from the IL State Comptroller which claimed that there were a number of electronic eavesdropping devices unauthorized by any court around and within the State Capitol (pdf page 9 http://goo.gl/vssR9.) The outrageous abuse of this law to prevent police accountability certainly doesn't seem to have been the original intention of the bill at any point down the line, at least from the legislative material I've seen.
Before the cops conduct a custodial interrogation, they are required to inform you of your rights.
Absolutely correct, sir! It is required only when you are in a custodial setting.
HOWEVER, any answers you give to ANY police questioning AT ANY TIME also will be used against you and there is no requirement for them to Mirandize you.
That is why you must ALWAYS seriously consider whether or not to answer ANY questions by police, even during a traffic stop, for example.
Two things to remember:
1) You can't talk yourself out of trouble, but you can certainly talk yourself into it; and,
2) All cops will lie to you. You, however cannot lie to them. BUT. You can refuse to answer any questions at any time.
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
In UK and Australia, under common law, you are legally allowed to use reasonable force to resist an unlawful arrest. Reasonable force is use of a roughly equivalent level of force as that used against you.