Audio Taping Police Stands
- The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez’s plea to allow enforcement of a law aimed at stopping people from recording police officers on the job.
The justices on Monday left in place a lower court ruling that found that the state’s anti-eavesdropping law violates free speech rights when used against people who tape law enforcement officers. The law sets out a maximum prison term of 15 years.
Opponents of the law say the right to record police is vital to guard against abuses.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in 2010 against Alvarez to block prosecution of ACLU staff for recording police officers performing their duties in public places. It’s one of the group’s long-standing monitoring missions.
"Public Way" means the Public Way, and even a most basic reading of case law, precedent and the actual text of the Constitution had this one a loser for Anita from the word, "Go." But then again, after all the years of fighting the plain language of the Second Amendment, why would any Illinois politician feel the need to read the First?
Act like you're being recorded at all times.
Labels: dumb ideas
posted by SCC at 12:01 AM
38 Comments:
'Act like you're being recorded at all times.'
If you haven't been doing this for at least the last five years, you're just not paying attention.
'Act like you're being recorded at all times.'
If you haven't been doing this for at least the last five years, you're just not paying attention.
I saw a report on channel 7. It featured a north suburban case of a driver getting arrested for having his phone record a traffic stop. ( guy spent night in jail, charges dropped)
But the irony of it was that the police car recorded the traffic stop.
So while the cop is arresting the driver for recording the traffic stop without the cop's permission. The police are recording the arrest (and traffic stop) without the driver's permission.
Why don't the Liberals record the westside wildings downtown oh sorry to PC for that. Hay Liberal scum you are the sheep who will not be protected. You created these animals now reap what you sow ACLU and then go cry to the media and Andy Shaw, he will save you.
I doubt if most politicians even know there is a Constitution.Democraps for sure have no idea.
Another victory for tyranny ?
Chicago government records phone conversations without a warrant, yet complains when the public records the actions of CPD. What is wrong with this? Can you say double standards?
Judge (in name only) Anita is out to protect the powerful in Chicago and is clueless as to what is in the Constitution.
Answer your calls in a timely fashion, provide service and leave. If you do this you have nothing to worry about...
i agree it should be shot down, there should be no need to worry about being recorded.
Let me get this straight. Youre criticizing Anita for trying to protect coppers? I wonder what your posts would have said if she didnt.
WTF?
This job keeps getting more and more difficult as times goes on. The percentage of officers who actually do police work is diminishing. The ones who do very little or no work collect pay checks and never get accused of wrong doing or get sued in federal court. Even tough the lazy have no sense of pride or morals, they are the ones laughing at us. The stress level of this job is getting unbearable and we will be paying the consequences. The promises we were made upon retirement when choosing this line of work is being threatened. God help us.
Then can I have a personal recording device for my interaction with citizens, not one given by the department? I want to be protected from lies.
What great comedy YOUTUBE would have from interaction on a few streetside ghetto domestics.
inevitable
Another victory for tyranny ?
11/27/2012 03:55:00 AM
How do you figure???
If an officer can record a traffic stop (without prior consent) why can't the motorist record the officer handing out the ticket?
You're all cordial and polite, so what's the beef?
Anyone who is so abusive or that power-hungry to want to avoid being recorded should have no position on the police force.
Next case.
Anonymous said...
Another victory for tyranny ?
11/27/2012 03:55:00 AM
----
How so?
So while the cop is arresting the driver for recording the traffic stop without the cop's permission. The police are recording the arrest (and traffic stop) without the driver's permission.
==================
The king's men have never had to follow the rules us mere subjects have to follow.
Anonymous said...
I saw a report on channel 7. It featured a north suburban case of a driver getting arrested for having his phone record a traffic stop. ( guy spent night in jail, charges dropped)
But the irony of it was that the police car recorded the traffic stop.
So while the cop is arresting the driver for recording the traffic stop without the cop's permission. The police are recording the arrest (and traffic stop) without the driver's permission.
And your point?
Record the stop for yourself, preserve it, and use it when necessary.
Uh... This was a good decision. Read the 1st Amendment.
"Act like you're being recorded at all times."
That sums up the CPD today and I agree with you 110%!
Too bad so many forget this one simple rule to navigate this job.
Or, put in terms some may like better, "don't start shit, won't be shit".
If you haven't been acting like you're being recorded since the Rodney King/LAPD incident......you're crazy!
Tyranny? Are you kidding? The Illinois eavesdropping laws are there for one reason and one reason only: protect the political class. They fought the recording of police to not weaken their real goal, protect themselves from anyone secretly recording what they say. I highly doubt many of these backroom deals could be accomplished if they thought someone had a hidden tape recorder. If I am talking to you I should be able to record this conversation without telling you as you and I have no expectation of privacy. If Iplay that recording for someone else, then you have the option to sue me, not have me arrested.
If this is the case, why don't we record the wildings downtown and post it on youtube and wherever?
Why don't we start recording the results of the over-liberalized, enabled, entitled communities who call 911 because their kids won't get out of bed for school, the domestics at thanksgiving when the crackhead brothers fight over who gets to cook the turkey, the open-air drug dealing, the citizens (term applied loosely here) who hate the police and let us know same?
like the ACLU, maybe we should have our own website with videos of the people who go to the store, load up the cart with cheetos, grape soda, hot dogs, etc. paid for with their LINK card, and then go outside and load up their new Honda SUV parked illegally in the handicapped spot without any HC placard?
I think it's time to turn the cameras on the savages. It will be like watching "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom - Urban Style".
Off Topic:
As if we needed more proof of the drastic lack of hiring on this job,this year,in 011, it took 12 years to make 2nd watch by bid. 12 fuckin years! In 011!!! Last year it was only 10. I've seen it as low as 8. Can only imagine what it's like in the more "prime" districts.
Anonymous said...
I saw a report on channel 7. It featured a north suburban case of a driver getting arrested for having his phone record a traffic stop. ( guy spent night in jail, charges dropped)
But the irony of it was that the police car recorded the traffic stop.
So while the cop is arresting the driver for recording the traffic stop without the cop's permission. The police are recording the arrest (and traffic stop) without the driver's permission.
11/27/2012 12:44:00 AM
The law was changed to allow for police filming of interactions. It shouldn't matter anyways to the police. Just because the filming may have been illegal previously does not mean it was not used against the police, it always has been.
Why not have cameras in evey politicians office and every phone conversation taped? We have more whore politicians then any other state they wanna record us let the same happen with them.
I saw a report on channel 7. It featured a north suburban case of a driver getting arrested for having his phone record a traffic stop. ( guy spent night in jail, charges dropped)
But the irony of it was that the police car recorded the traffic stop.
So while the cop is arresting the driver for recording the traffic stop without the cop's permission. The police are recording the arrest (and traffic stop) without the driver's permission.
--------------------------------
You are correct. The police enforce laws. There is a law against the driver recording the stop without the other parties consent (the officer). There is a law that allows the police officer to record the traffic stop without permission (the driver).
Or at least there was, after all, this is Illinois - the most messed up state in the union.
I'm retired now but I was around when the eavesdropping laws were being re-written. The reason that Illinois is a two party state is because our politicians (on any level within the state) did not want law enforcement to be able to record THEM without oversight. They were willing to pass a one party statute only if politicians were excluded. The framers of the law said no, and we have the two party consent system that we have now.
As to "why can the police record drivers, but drivers can't record the police"? The question posed in many posts here is why can the police record them without their consent? The driver DOES give consent. implied consent. They enter into an agreement with the government that they can be recorded merely by the fact that they have been granted a drivers license. That's why the mikes and cameras used by police on squad cars are not hidden. It has to be open and understood that the recording is taking place. By accepting the drivers license you are acknowledging that the recording is okay with you. So in effect both parties are giving consent, the police ( or governmental) organization gives consent through the officer and the driver through implied consent. If the driver does not want to potentially be recorded, don't drive. You can't accept the license, give implied consent and then bitch because you got recorded.
Implied consent does not cover surreptitious recordings because one of the parties has hidden the recording device. The guy selling the dope can't see the recorder, and the UC doesn't tell him about it. That's why the judge acts as the second party in an overhear or a wire tap.
Sould the citizens be able to record the police? I guess the quick answer is why not? If you're not doing anything wrong what's the harm? But we all know that things aren't so clear. It a tough question but I fear for those of you still out there, it is the unfortunate future.
Stay safe everybody.
For all you trolls out there that are bitching about the police recording traffic stops real. Have your shit in order and you wont get stopped.
I give the SA office credit on fighting this one.
What happens when we are talking/interviewing a victim of a crime or a potential informant? Now who will want to talk to us? It will only diminish our ability to gather effective intelligence on the street.
Another sad day for law enforcement. But then again, who cares anymore.
...this year, in 011, it took 12 years to make 2nd watch by bid.
How did some of these people remain on 2nd watch by management? I mean really, what's the criteria? Say what you will about RC, she is a worker. Same for EJ & RP. This is BULLSHIT!
Therefore , I am allowed to videotape the asshole who tries to lie and sue me? Freedom of speech, public way
Anonymous said...
Then can I have a personal recording device for my interaction with citizens, not one given by the department? I want to be protected from lies.
What great comedy YOUTUBE would have from interaction on a few streetside ghetto domestics.
11/27/2012 07:30:00 AM
I don't work for Gall's, nor do I have any financial interest therein.
http://www.galls.com/cgi/CGBCSTYL?PMSTYL=CA125
The Scorpion is pretty low profile, but I'd black out the logo with a permanent magic marker.
The i-KAM Extreme has the advantage of providing eye protection as well as showing everything you see.
I've been considering getting something like this for the areas of our facility that aren't under video surveillance. Also, our video surveillance systems don't record sound. These things do.
ECS
Why don't these ACLU folks tape gangbangers selling drugs in the community..oh! they might get shot doing it!
Off Topic:
As if we needed more proof of the drastic lack of hiring on this job,this year,in 011, it took 12 years to make 2nd watch by bid. 12 fuckin years! In 011!!! Last year it was only 10. I've seen it as low as 8. Can only imagine what it's like in the more "prime" districts.
002- 12 years for 3rd, 18 for 2nd
"Act like you're being recorded at all times."?? How does this change the way an honest cop does his job?
"Then can I have a personal recording device for my interaction with citizens, not one given by the department? I want to be protected from lies."
go ahead!
"If this is the case, why don't we record the wildings downtown and post it on youtube and wherever?"
go ahead!
002- 12 years for 3rd, 18 for 2nd
Dam! 12 years to make 3rd watch? Then again, 002 inherited all of the district formerly known as 021's old timers.
I know a lot of folks may not like this decision but I think it works both ways. I fully support officers being able to tape the asswipes.
Post a Comment
<< Home