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.
I think most cop shops are afraid of something happening like occurred with the video of Rodney King's beatdown, in which the news snipped off crucial sections in which King repeatedly lunged at police. In addition, they tended not to mention his 100+mph evasion attempt, his prior criminal record or his extensive drug use. We all know how that turned out.
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.
Finally the line "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" can be used against law enforcement. Since law enforcement agencies across the country are adopting ever more invasive tactics to monitor citizens, it's refreshing to see that we can finally monitor them without fear of reprisal.
Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
Well, they really didn't rule. They just refused to hear the case. I would have preferred they actually stated outright that we have the right to film the cops so as to invalidated all the state laws against it.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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
They will still arrest you for, among other things, creating a disturbance, interfering with an officer, resisting arrest, mopery and dopery. ;)
And well they should--this country is being overrun with mopery & dopery. The more mopes & dopes we can get off the streets, the better!
Secretly? How about openly? I'd say that you'd better record secretly if you don't want to spend the night in jail and get hit with some BS resisting arrest charge or the like.
There are plenty of officers who don't like the idea of being recorded, and their reasoning varies from concerns about "Monday morning quarterbacking" to the sociopaths not wanting to get caught abusing their power. Still, if they can record us, we should be able to record them.
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
The problem is that mopes and dopes got 98% of the votes 3 weeks ago.
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.
Are we really in a first world country when we are punished for attempting to hold our law enforcement officers to a standard?
The fact that we are even discussing this issue makes me question the validity of our laws.
No, the ban was ruled unconstitutional, so we aren't in such a country (did you even read the headline?). That's one thing the courts are for, so I would say the law is working as intended, more or less (in this case, of course). It's up to Illinois voters to remove the people responsible for trying to make such a law from power, but that would be their problem.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
No, they refused to hear the appeal entirely. They did not either affirm or overturn the decision; they just left it in the hat and didn't pick it out at all.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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'
One large bullet should do. Unless you move, then I might need to add some more.
If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear officer.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
It is NOT illegal to refuse an unlawful order. The police have some discretion, but they are HIGHLY constrained to the types of orders they can give, and have to provide reasonable justification, albeit later.
Good-bye
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.
I love it.
Cops and other forms of authority are always telling people that if they are doing nothing wrong, then they shouldn't be concerned about a lack of privacy.
Right back at you Police Officers. If you are doing your job without breaking the law you have no reason to be concerned about me recording you.
You don't mind getting roughed up a little and sitting in jail for an
evening on trumped up charges and then paying for a lawyer to
eventually dismiss your charges for which you file a complaint that
is ultimately ignored.
Gardening is a much higher risk job then being a cop. Roofing and fishing is another league completely.
When it comes to death/injury rates, yes. Psychologically speaking, definitely no. There is a distinct difference between dealing with passive inanimate hazards and hostile people. Lawnmowers do not come to life and attack gardeners except in bad movie adaptations of Stephen King stories.
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
Pretty much designed specifically for this purpose: http://www.tapin.tv/
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
I'm sure the first time a police officer asks for a bribe to let you out of a traffic ticket or slams you against the ground because he did not like the bumber stickers on your car, you will wish that the whole episode was being recorded. We have seen a few officers caught on tape being mean violent bullies have to pay the piper. Without those pieces of video it is the revered representative of the law's word against yours. The court usually favors its own and they know it.
That is not to say that more than a small percentage of law officers are bad seed, but this they are paid by the public to do the publics work in law enforcement and they are and should be beholding to us as their bosses and be held to a very high standard of conduct. Most law officers do their duty honorably but those that don't should be held account or we drop into a police state.
I'm all for a limit on how long someone can be a cop before they are required to get an honest job.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I'm sure the first time a police officer asks for a bribe to let you out of a traffic ticket or slams you against the ground because he did not like the bumber stickers on your car, you will wish that the whole episode was being recorded. We have seen a few officers caught on tape being mean violent bullies have to pay the piper. Without those pieces of video it is the revered representative of the law's word against yours. The court usually favors its own and they know it.
That is not to say that more than a small percentage of law officers are bad seed, but this they are paid by the public to do the publics work in law enforcement and they are and should be beholding to us as their bosses and be held to a very high standard of conduct. Most law officers do their duty honorably but those that don't should be held account or we drop into a police state.
Whoooosh...
That was the sound of sarcasm flying by your head ;-)
No it doesn't. The Supreme Court refuses to hear most of the cases that seek certification to appeal.
According to the Supreme Court website they agree to hear about 1% of the petitions they receive. This case was part of the 99%.
My favorite is "resisting arrest" What did you arrest them for? Resisting arrest. What were they resisting arrest from? Resisting arrest. Apparently 95% of people only resisting arrest were resisting arrest for their resisting arrest charge (and 83.4% of spastics are made up).
Learn to love Alaska
Most law officers do their duty honorably but those that don't should be held account or we drop into a police state.
There are two types of cops, bad cops and cops who cover for bad cops. There are no good cops.
Learn to love Alaska
When you're levelling a blanket insult at a group of people, and that group comprises 98% of your compatriots, it's time to consider the possibility that maybe you're not perfect.
And that is probably why they refused. If they heard the case they'd have to make a ruling which would apply across the entire country. By refusing to hear it they can contain the "damage" to just Illinois.
No I really want good cops. but if they are not turning in the bad cops then how can you say they are good cops. When they witness a crime or abuse of authority (which, let's be honest, should be a crime) then they have proven they are no better then the ones committing the acts. The thin blue line isn't there to protect "good" cops.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.