03 Sep 11
http://conservativebyte.com/2011/09/man-faces-life-in-jail-for-recording-police/
Police routinely record audio and video on traffic and other stops without permission of the citizen. What's wrong with the citizen doing recording of his own to protect his interests?
I question, not whether Illinois can legally do this. They obviously can. Is the law moral, or should it be changed immediately, and other laws similar to it around the country?
04 Sep 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThere was a pretty comprehensive audio and video in the link. As I recall, there are a number of jurisdictions prosecuting under similar laws. I don't know if anyone has actually been convicted or sentenced to such an injustice yet.
Did someone actually get convicted for something like this with a similar sentence?
The problem is that once this is rolled out, even if this defendant eventually cops a plea, due to the expense and risk of a drawn out trail, the use of this as a precedent will present a cooling effect on citizen actions to keep our lawenforcement under control.
Often these new police policies are testing the waters to find out just how much crap people are willing to take.
04 Sep 11
Originally posted by normbenignI don't think it should be illegal at all to film police in public areas.
http://conservativebyte.com/2011/09/man-faces-life-in-jail-for-recording-police/
Police routinely record audio and video on traffic and other stops without permission of the citizen. What's wrong with the citizen doing recording of his own to protect his interests?
I question, not whether Illinois can legally do this. They obviously can. Is the law moral, or should it be changed immediately, and other laws similar to it around the country?
But let's relax about this 75 years business. These statutory maximums are meaningless. If he gets more than a fine and maybe probation, come back to us.
05 Sep 11
Originally posted by sh76You are probably right that 5 consequetive sentences are unlikely, but they are a tool to squeeze a plea out of the defendant, who really has done nothing wrong.
I don't think it should be illegal at all to film police in public areas.
But let's relax about this 75 years business. These statutory maximums are meaningless. If he gets more than a fine and maybe probation, come back to us.
05 Sep 11
Originally posted by normbenignwhat they are doing is not legal. the court of appeals has already ruled that public filming is protected by the 1st amendment.
http://conservativebyte.com/2011/09/man-faces-life-in-jail-for-recording-police/
Police routinely record audio and video on traffic and other stops without permission of the citizen. What's wrong with the citizen doing recording of his own to protect his interests?
I question, not whether Illinois can legally do this. They obviously can. Is the law moral, or should it be changed immediately, and other laws similar to it around the country?
what they are going for are terror tactics and the defendant's ignorance of the law.
they don't want the public filming the corruption of police and other government and corporate groups.
07 Sep 11
2 edits
Originally posted by normbenignI can't understand how anyone could even take the position that this rule is constitutional. It's well settled that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding what you do on a public street. How the law could prevent people from videotaping police in public is beyond me. The federal courts ought to give this one the constitutional smackdown.
It is perfectly legal in a number of States and cities. Without the 14th amendment it might pass Constitutional muster in individual States.
Is it moral? Should police be immune from public scrutiny?
Edit: If you remember that infamous video in Seattle where the police officer (after enormous provocation) hit that woman in the face with all the cell phone cams running, you kept hearing the police saying to the people something like "Take all the pictures and videos you like, but stand back." In Washington, obviously, it is perfectly legal.
07 Sep 11
Originally posted by sh76As well it should be, but it probably will not be settled until a visit to SCOTUS.
I can't understand how anyone could even take the position that this rule is constitutional. It's well settled that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding what you do on a public street. How the law could prevent people from videotaping police in public is beyond me. The federal courts ought to give this one the constitutional smackdown.
Ed ...[text shortened]... tures and videos you like, but stand back." In Washington, obviously, it is perfectly legal.
07 Sep 11
4 edits
Good articles on the case:
http://www.copblock.org/tag/michael-allison/
http://www.disclosurenewsonline.com/2011/09/06/misinformation-distraction-the-real-story-of-felony-eavesdropping-charges-in-illinois/
It seems that the case isn't about recording the police, it's a little more complicated. He wasn't charged with any crime until he lied to a judge's direct question about whether he was recording the judge during court proceedings for a different crime unrelated to wiretapping. One of the charges, I think, was that he taped the officers too, but I'm not sure that's the hottest water he's in.
Have other states revised their laws to make it ok to similarly tape court proceedings? I'm relatively certain that lying to a judge won't go over well.
08 Sep 11
Originally posted by WoodPushlying to a judge? worse case scenario, perjury. 75 years for perjury?
Good articles on the case:
http://www.copblock.org/tag/michael-allison/
http://www.disclosurenewsonline.com/2011/09/06/misinformation-distraction-the-real-story-of-felony-eavesdropping-charges-in-illinois/
It seems that the case isn't about recording the police, it's a little more complicated. He wasn't charged with any crime until he lied to a ju ...[text shortened]... pe court proceedings? I'm relatively certain that lying to a judge won't go over well.
08 Sep 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritHe didn't get 75 years, nor is he going to.
lying to a judge? worse case scenario, perjury. 75 years for perjury?
This use of theoretical statutory maximums based on inconceivable consecutive sentencing for many counts by irresponsible journalists is bad enough. We don't have to humor it by using the same silly numbers.