Cook County Judge Says Law Banning Recording Police Is Unconstitutional

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cook County Judge Says Law Banning Recording Police Is Unconstitutional

Posted by timothy on Friday March 2, 2012 @11:22PM 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)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

deal with it by Black+Parrot · 2012-03-02 23:32 · 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 jellomizer · 2012-03-02 23:58 · 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.
2. Re:deal with it by AngryDeuce · 2012-03-03 01:52 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  There are too many cases when something goes wrong the police tape unexpectally cuts out.
  Or this one where seven independent police tapes unexpectedly cut out!!
  And police wonder why people are automatically defensive and nervous around them...
3. Re:deal with it by Ihmhi · 2012-03-03 04:02 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  This is an opportunity for geeks to do something useful here.
  What we need is a device with a video camera and microphone. Once the "record" button is depressed, it records and automatically uploads everything it captures to an off-site server that is secured w/ encryption. Moreover, it doesn't stop recording until a code is entered (to prevent a cop from tampering with it). With the cheapness of electronics nowadays we could probably create something like this for less than a hundred bucks (fees for transmission notwithstanding).
  Or maybe just an iPhone/Android app...
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
4. Re:deal with it by jythie · 2012-03-03 05:30 · 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.
No Problem by aix+tom · 2012-03-02 23:34 · Score: 5, Interesting

The "Police" will just join the RIAA and then sue people on the angle that they recorded their performance.
1. Re:No Problem by Richard_at_work · 2012-03-02 23:42 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  The Police have been covered by the RIAA since the 1970s...
Re:Link to Article Please by Richard_at_work · 2012-03-02 23:39 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
Re:Hello, context here by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-02 23:47 · 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.
My friends a cop... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2012-03-03 00:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

Cops love to be dicks. Trust me.
They dont want to be recorded because it would force them to behave.
Re:Link to Article Please by buchner.johannes · 2012-03-03 00:39 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
Re:You can't have it both ways by AngryDeuce · 2012-03-03 01:47 · Score: 5, Informative

After all, look at the "failure" rate!!:

Lawyers for McCarren say she was investigating possible misuse of government resources and following a county official when she and her cameraman were pulled over by seven police cars. The official had called police about a suspicious vehicle.
McCarren says police dislocated her shoulder and tore her rotator cuff in the incident. Neither she nor her cameraman, Peter Hakel, was ever charged with any violations.
[...]
Questions still remain unanswered as to why police were unable to produce video of the incident from their cameras.
Prince George's County Police vehicles are required to have dashboard video cameras operating as part of an understanding with the U.S. Department of Justice reached in 2004.
Police have denied repeated media outlet requests to review the video.
At the time of the incident county officials, including County Executive Jack Johnson, said none of the cameras in the seven police cars was working.
Re:You can't have it both ways by causality · 2012-03-03 04:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

McCarren says police dislocated her shoulder and tore her rotator cuff in the incident. Neither she nor her cameraman, Peter Hakel, was ever charged with any violations.
That's strange. I'm not a lawyer so I hope someone will correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, if a cop physically harms you but does not charge you with resisting arrest, he is effectively admitting he assaulted you for no reason.

At the time of the incident county officials, including County Executive Jack Johnson, said none of the cameras in the seven police cars was working.
Ever heard of a contract of adhesion? It's when a big entity like your insurance company draws up a standard contract. You have little or no ability to negotiate the wording or terms of the contract. It's a take-it-or-leave-it deal. The flip side is that any unclear or unspecified terms in that contract are automatically interpreted in your favor.

We need a concept like that for police and their "broken" dashboard cameras. If the cameras are faulty or footage is missing, it is assumed that whatever story the citizen tells is the correct one. Overnight, police departments would suddenly start doing a better job maintaining their "faulty" equipment.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein