Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Blocks Illinois Law Against Recording Police
An anonymous reader writes "The Illinois anti-eavesdropping law was cut down slightly. While protecting the average citizen from eavesdropping, it also put in place prohibitions against recording the police as they were doing their jobs. An appeals court sided with the ACLU, saying that it was too great a restriction on First Amendment rights. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal, cementing in place the lower court's ruling. In Illinois, you can now secretly record the police."
With the Supreme Court not yet weighing in, here's a summary of the current state of case law. Every federal appellate circuit to consider the matter has come out in favor of recording being protected, however.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The SCOTUS didn't make any ruling; in fact, they refused to hear the case at all. That means the previous decision stands, but only within the jurisdiction of the court that made that decision. Thus, it doesn't apply to the whole country.
Correction: This is a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling left undisturbed by the S.C.O.T.U.S. In Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin you can probably now secretly record police officers - but might still get arrest for it and have to fight a protracted Court battle. In the rest of the Country there's this 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that was left undisturbed by the S.C.O.T.U.S. your lawyer can now cite to if you get arrested for secretly recording police officers -- the judge in your federal Habeas Corpus action might be persuaded by that authority or might reject it.
The problem is it hasn't actually been upheld by the Supreme Court. If the SC heard the case and upheld it, that would be nationwide binding precedent. But they just chose not to hear the case at all, which has no precedential effect.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
No, the SCOTUS declined to hear the case, meaning the lower court ruling stands, but is only applicable within that court's jurisdiction. Specifically, the ruling was from the 7th circuit court, so it applies to Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
No it doesn't. The Supreme Court refuses to hear most of the cases that seek certification to appeal. It could mean they agree with the ruling, or that they don't see any need to weigh in because there's no dispute between the rulings and no obvious error of law. Sometimes it means they want to see the ruling in action before accepting a later appeal. Often it means that there's something about the underlying fact pattern which has rendered the issue moot (e.g. if the criminal charges have been dropped - if a criminal action - or there is no claim for damages - if a civil suit. If there is no further purpose to the ruling other than to satisfy the curiosity of the parties about the meaning of the law, then the case is probably moot and the Supreme Court will reject the appeal).
That's why we say that the Court's refusal to hear an appeal does not have precidential effect -- we don't know the underlying reasoning behind the Court's decisions and shouldn't assume they agree with the ruling below just because they refused to hear the case. That's not a clear inference.
Gardening is a much higher risk job then being a cop. Roofing and fishing is another league completely.
Your right; don't lunge at cops. But not because they are in great danger, because they are armed trigger happy bullies.
The biggest work place risk of being a cop? Traffic accidents.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
No, no, no. Not at all. The Supreme Court has been overwhelmingly clear that a refusal to grant certiorari (that is, a refusal to hear an appeal) has no precedentiary value *whatsoever.* But you're not the first to make that mistake. See, e.g., United States v. Carver, 260 U.S. 482, 490 (1923) ("The denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times."), quoted in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 296 (1989).
If the Court wishes to express that a lower court case is a "non-case," as you put it, they will make what is known as a summary disposition.
The rules are actually not all that complicated.
Police can legally use force:
- To subdue a civilian who is physically resisting arrest. If that civilian is using or threatening to use deadly force, such as shooting at cops, then the cops can shoot back.
- To protect another civilian. If a bad guy is attempting to kill somebody, the cops can shoot him. If the bad guy is trying to beat someone up, the cop can use non-lethal force to stop him and arrest him.
Police cannot legally use force:
- Towards a civilian that is not physically resisting them.
- Towards a civilian that is unable to resist them (e.g. handcuffed and pinned on the ground).
Police cannot legally use deadly force towards a civilian that does not present a lethal threat to the officer or another civilian. For example, a cop encountering a fistfight is supposed to use non-lethal force only.
The Rodney King beating was a crime (in my view) because the cops continued to use force after Rodney King was unable to resist.
I am officially gone from
They exist. Qik, UStream, and TapIn are among them. TapIn in particular was designed for protestors and recording authorities, and provides no means to delete footage on the recording device itself - it must be done from the user's account page, by which time the video will have been downloaded and redistributed beyond the user's (or the police's) ability to control.
Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
http://www.tsanewsblog.com