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."

Comments

caselaw summary

[Trepidity]

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.

Re:caselaw summary

[immaterial]

It is also worth noting the US Department of Justice also believes recording is a constitutional right and important to "engender public confidence in our police departments, promote public access to information necessary to hold our governmental officers accountable, and ensure public and officer safety," and they've set forth a clear set of guidelines that can help police departments set their policy and officer training accordingly.

Re:caselaw summary

[hairyfeet]

You've never actually been poor, have you? those are the laws for the rich folks, I've known plenty of poor folks that have spent anywhere from 3-5 days in jail before just being let go, and good fucking luck finding a lawyer that will take up your case.

You should really come down to the meth highway and get a nice taste of REAL America, its a place where a couple of guys can get run over on a train track with the engineer saying they were covered in a police tarp at the time only to have the ME rule they had "passed out on the tracks due to marijuana intoxication" (yeah no shit, they actually used THAT as an excuse) or the guy that was shot, stabbed, beaten, and thrown off the bridge...cause of death? Suicide...snicker snicker. And nobody is gonna say jack shit about any of it because its common knowledge the last snitch was handed by the cops to a local brutal drug trafficker who "pulled a Fargo" on him without killing him first.

yeah...really don't matter what your little rule books say if nobody cares about that shit. watch the video i linked to, cops acting no different than the gangbangers and then realize less than 2% of those in the video even got fired for that shit.

Re:In Illinois?

[Millennium]

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.

Re:In Illinois?

[compro01]

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.

Re:Just in Illinois?

[cdecoro]

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.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[dkleinsc]

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.