Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/24/2011 1:51:12 PM EDT

We've often written on the disconnect between current laws and the reality of the digital age. When a person gets charged over a million dollars for pirating and sharing a few songs, and a robber stealing a dozen CDs might have to a pay a few hundred in fines, the system can seem incredibly flawed at times.

Another example of this disconnect that has recently been brought into sharp focus include laws that police are using to try to prosecute those that digitally record their actions. We already covered how police in some areas can arrest you, if you videotape or photograph them in a public or private setting. Well, in some areas they can arrest you for even recording an audio conversation.

Illinois is one of the states with the toughest laws against audiotaping a conversation between you and another party without their knowledge. The law [text] states that you can face up to 15 years in prison for committing the offense.

Full article here: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=20735


First off, I did a search and didn't find this posted. I don't want this to degenerate into a bash thread, but I do have one legitimate question after reading this article:

The article states that "Mark Donahue, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said his organization cheered the decision, stating that he "absolutely supports" throwing those who tape police officers behind bars. He complains that citizens monitoring police activities for wrongdoing might "affect how an officer does his job on the street."

So my question is: How would this law affect how an officer "does his job on the street"?
In what way? A positive way? I would love to hear Mark Donahue's explanation as to how keeping an officer of the peace accountable for his/her actions is a bad thing?
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 1:56:34 PM EDT
uh most states have laws against taping without the other party knowing.

The cops don't make the laws.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:00:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1911greg:
uh most states have laws against taping without the other party knowing.

The cops don't make the laws.

You didn't read the article, did you? If you did, you would have seen that there is a BIG difference in the law for recording a police officer versus another civilian (Class 1 Felony versus Class 4 Felony).
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:02:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2011 2:05:06 PM EDT by Admiral_Crunch]
All these so-called wiretapping laws need a serious update. They were written for a different era and are being used very inappropriately now.

I have to wonder how the people who record sporting events aren't violating this law. After all, they didn't notify or get permission of the fans that they would be recorded.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:04:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 1911greg:
uh most states have laws against taping without the other party knowing.

The cops don't make the laws.


Actually, most states are single party states.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:05:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jtb33:

Originally Posted By 1911greg:
uh most states have laws against taping without the other party knowing.

The cops don't make the laws.

You didn't read the article, did you? If you did, you would have seen that there is a BIG difference in the law for recording a police officer versus another civilian (Class 1 Felony versus Class 4 Felony).


And one is a public official, in the course of their job. Slightly lower privacy bar.
Also, most states are one party states, IE either party can consent (duh, it's a recording of what they witnessed).
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:06:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 1911greg:
uh most states have laws against taping without the other party knowing.

The cops don't make the laws.


An awful lot of states don't.

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/quick.html

Looks like only 12 ban it if you are one of the people in the conversation.



Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:16:38 PM EDT
15 years?! For recording them? You would get less time for assaulting an officer. Which I am certainly not condoning, I'm just pointing out how fucking insane 15 years is. Assuming a class 1 felony is the same as Indiana's class A (highest felony), that would put it on the same level as owning a meth lab, absolutely ridiculous. Not to mention most squad cars have video camera systems now, what difference does it make?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:23:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2011 2:28:41 PM EDT by pale_pony]
Originally Posted By 1911greg:
uh most states have laws against taping without the other party knowing.

The cops don't make the laws.


Uh...no they don't.
Most states adhere to federal guidelines set forth in the Omnibus Crime Act of 1968 that dictates only "One-Party Consent" is necessary to record audio conversations. Only 12 states out of 50 have "All-Party Consent" AND out of those same 12 states, only 2 states, Illinois and Maryland, allow prosecution of same when no real damages were incurred and there was reasonable expectation of privacy.


ETA: Can We Tape?
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:25:22 PM EDT
Hypothetically, if you were to get pulled over and asked a LEO if you were being taped. Then proceed to tell LEO you will not give them permission to tape you. Someone try that and get back to me let's see how that works out.

IMO if a LEO can tape me and use that tape as admissible evidence against me. I by rights should have the same right to tape and record a LEO. One way streets how do they work?
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:33:47 PM EDT
The article states that "Mark Donahue, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said his organization cheered the decision, stating that he "absolutely supports" throwing those who tape police officers behind bars. He complains that citizens monitoring police activities for wrongdoing might "affect how an officer does his job on the street."

So my question is: How would this law affect how an officer "does his job on the street"? In what way? A positive way? I would love to hear Mark Donahue's explanation as to how keeping an officer of the peace accountable for his/her actions is a bad thing?
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:39:40 PM EDT
To be fair to the CPD, they have had issues with their Officers beating up female bartenders then getting popped when the video comes out.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:43:15 PM EDT
What is it that they always ask?

What's wrong? You got something to hide?
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 2:53:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By paris-dakar:
To be fair to the CPD, they have had issues with their Officers beating up female bartenders then getting popped when the video comes out.


then don't beat up female bartenders or anyone else for that matter. all this allows is the cops to break the law and have no witnesses.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:03:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2011 3:08:12 PM EDT by frick]
Got two Pittsburgh Po Po fleecing a drug dealer on surveilance tape.

After the guy complained that he was stopped and 700 dollars just taken, the business owner released the tape, and the cops have been arrested.

No tape, no case.

I don't care who you are, its not for the police to decide you are guilty, and then pocket your money.

Yet it happens every day legally, because of the seizure laws.

Even the Mob wasn't that good in their day.

And there have been people in PA prosecuted for taping police, one, a passenger inside the car told the cop he was going to film the stop, the cop walked away, and called in backup, he was jailed, and charged, AFAIK, the case was dropped before court.

Another guy was on private property, taping two state troopers, they told him to stop, he refused, and was arrested, charged, and tried, thrown out in court mainly because he was on private property, with permission from the owner to be there.

They po po claim nothing they do is "In the public eye" so taping them should never be allowed.

What it tells me, Is that a great percentage of them are worse criminals than the people they arrest, or they would have NOTHING to fear.

You cannot place one class of citizen, above all others, because they wear a badge, or what results is exactly what we have now.

You are guilty until proven innocent,by a jury of sheep, who don't listen well enough to the prosecutor, to do as they are told.

And thats what your DA's, and Cops, actually think about YOU!
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:05:09 PM EDT
Let's see...


Some animals are more equal than others.

If you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide.

Video doesn't tell the whole story.

You have to take into account the totality of the circumstances.

Exigent circumstance.

What did I leave out?
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:26:08 PM EDT
One loophole I see is: what about video - but no audio taping. These wiretapping laws AFAIK all involve the SOUND. I have one of those Go-Pro cameras that while delivering great video, does horrible on audio, I mean like gunshots are barely audible, and regular conversation isn't auduible at all. Example here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bof83OpzwY

So, TECHNICALLY it would seem that iif that was a video of a police interaction rather than a shooting match, I would be good to go - not that I would want to be the guinea pig court case..
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:28:21 PM EDT
Don't live in Illinois / Maryland : check
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:39:08 PM EDT
so, 7-11s and gas stations are all breaking the law by taping me on their propery?
how do i go about suing them, and the cops with the dash cam?

can i videotape apolice officer if I tell him it's "for his own safety"?

any cop who objects to taping him while performing his taxpayer-funded duties is trying to hide shady to illegal act.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:40:25 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:46:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2011 3:49:32 PM EDT by mcantu]
Originally Posted By 1911greg:
uh most states have laws against taping without the other party knowing.

The cops don't make the laws.


these laws were written regarding wiretapping telephone conversions, not recording face-to-face encounters...
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 3:55:43 PM EDT
try hear.
link
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 4:09:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 1911greg:
uh most states have laws against taping without the other party knowing.

The cops don't make the laws.


SURE THEY DO! They record you after pulling you over without your consent. So how is that legal? Illinois the COCKSUCKER STATE.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 4:11:02 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 4:24:10 PM EDT


I wonder how long it's going to take him to walk this off:

"...Because Trooper Estwick’s testimony at the hearing is so clearly and affirmatively contradicted by his own statement at the time of the events, in the absence of any explanation for this contradiction that is supported by the record, we conclude that Trooper Estwick’s after-the-fact testimony at the suppression hearing is "implausible on its face,” Anderson, 470 U.S. at 575, and we are left with the "firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made,” United States v. Pickar, 616 F.3d 821, 827 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Hines, 387 F.3d 690, 694 (8th Cir. 2004)). We therefore hold that the district court’s finding that Prokupek failed to signal the turn on to the county road is clearly erroneous."
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 5:04:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1911greg:
uh most states have laws against taping without the other party knowing.

The cops don't make the laws.

Those laws refer to making sound recordings in a "private" two person or similar conversation (such as a telephone call or a conversation on a home of office) not a video recording of public actions.

What expectation of privacy does a person have in the street (in public)?

If I walk down the street and you are video recording the general street scene, you think that is or should be a criminal act because I didn't agree to being video recorded?

Law enforcement use dash cams to record events both for internal affairs-type purposes and as a source of additional evidence. "We" (the general public) don't give those agencies permission to video record "us" but "we" have no expectation of privacy in public.

And law that makes it illegal for law-abiding (i.e., without criminal intent) Americans to video public events (to include LEO acting in public) are injurious to freedom. The only possible purpose would be to shield potential criminal behavior or behavior that might result in a tort action.

At all levels, in our system of government (a representational democratic federal republic with a written Constitution that limits government powers), government personnel are accountable to the general citizenry for their actions. Of course, it is the constant trend of government to seek more power, which accountability tends to work against.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 5:28:18 PM EDT
15 years for this seems a little excessive.

they must have something to hide in order to be happy that such a law is put on the books. I am sure this will not foster much trust in the police



Link Posted: 1/24/2011 6:09:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 1911greg:
uh most states have laws against taping without the other party knowing.

The cops don't make the laws.


Most states have found that the laws do not apply to situations in which there is no expectation of privacy. What expectation of privacy does an officer have in statements he makes in the performance of duty?

Do you seriously believe that police officers exercise no discretion in enforcement of the law, however it is interpreted in Illinois?
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 6:11:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:
All these so-called wiretapping laws need a serious update. They were written for a different era and are being used very inappropriately now.

I have to wonder how the people who record sporting events aren't violating this law. After all, they didn't notify or get permission of the fans that they would be recorded.


How about chanting protesters?
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 6:14:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LightningII:
so, 7-11s and gas stations are all breaking the law by taping me on their propery?
how do i go about suing them, and the cops with the dash cam?

can i videotape apolice officer if I tell him it's "for his own safety"?

any cop who objects to taping him while performing his taxpayer-funded duties is trying to hide shady to illegal act should be fired and imprisoned, merely for voicing the objection.


Link Posted: 1/24/2011 6:15:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mcantu:
Originally Posted By 1911greg:
uh most states have laws against taping without the other party knowing.

The cops don't make the laws.


these laws were written regarding wiretapping telephone conversions, not recording face-to-face encounters...


Not exactly.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 6:30:14 PM EDT
Its real easy, Fuck Chicago. And add NYC to that. No plans on ever going. They will go broke if everyone else did the same. They are already broke, bu tthey can go broker.. Fuck'em
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 7:04:39 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 7:27:46 PM EDT
Carlos Miller and his band of merry protesting photographers must be going ape now.
Photgraphy is not a Crime Blog
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 7:53:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sixnine:
15 years?! For recording them? You would get less time for assaulting an officer. Which I am certainly not condoning, I'm just pointing out how fucking insane 15 years is. Assuming a class 1 felony is the same as Indiana's class A (highest felony), that would put it on the same level as owning a meth lab, absolutely ridiculous. Not to mention most squad cars have video camera systems now, what difference does it make?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile


Yeah, seriously. A kid i went to HS with is a multiple felon, he got in a fight with the cops, punched one, and only got 3 years.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 7:58:07 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 8:44:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2011 8:44:30 PM EDT by CyberSEAL]

Originally Posted By LightningII:
so, 7-11s and gas stations are all breaking the law by taping me on their property?


Link Posted: 1/24/2011 9:04:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2011 9:06:55 PM EDT by ma96782]
YOU get to vote.

So?

Well.........in most cases, an elected Prosecutor decides if a procecution is to go forward.

And voting also happens........for the guy/gal who wrote and passed the law, which you may find so offending.

Aloha, Mark
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 9:04:52 PM EDT
Well, being that it is Chicago, if the cops are as corrupt as the politicians then I can understand their fear of being recorded.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 9:19:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Boecker351:
Originally Posted By paris-dakar:
To be fair to the CPD, they have had issues with their Officers beating up female bartenders then getting popped when the video comes out.


then don't beat up female bartenders or anyone else for that matter. all this allows is the cops to break the law and have no witnesses.


Was the cop that tried to beat up the female bartender on duty? Was he in uniform? Or was he a drunk dumbass that was off-duty?

Brian
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 3:53:48 AM EDT
We just had one case dismissed yesterday. Client states in court that he was roughly pulle dout of his car and that the cop scremaed obscenities at him. Cop denied everything. Roll the dash cam. Dash cam shows the cop yelling racist slurs, obscenities, etc, then reaching into the car and yanking the guy out by his neck. Jury says not guilty, cop goes home without even a statement from the judge for lying under oath.
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 4:22:41 AM EDT
I never understood cop's fear of being recorded. I love when people record me at work and think that it bothers me. They really hate it when you smile and wave to the camera.
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 4:42:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 1911greg:
uh most states have laws against taping without the other party knowing.

The cops don't make the laws.


Wrong. Most states don't have laws precluding citizens taping LEOs.

More important than which states have these laws is WHY they have them. Our legal system is loosely based upon the Roman legal system, which was based upon the principles of reason. If the cops are doing their jobs in a manner which is congruent with the laws which govern their behavior, they have absolutely nothing to fear from being videotaped. If they are overstepping these laws, then they should be held accountable. Anything else flies in the face of rational thought.
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 4:43:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By paris-dakar:
To be fair to the CPD, they have had issues with their Officers beating up female bartenders then getting popped when the video comes out.


I se what you did there.
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 4:46:55 AM EDT
This is bullshit. When I was in the police academy many years ago we were told "when in uniform there will always be eyes on you". If the popo is engaged in something that has to legally be secret then it has to be conducted accordingly. If Joe/Jane Citizen has no expectation of privacy in public places then neither should the popo.
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 4:48:01 AM EDT
Surreptitiously taping somebody is one thing... openly taking video in a public place is another.
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 4:52:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
Originally Posted By LightningII:
so, 7-11s and gas stations are all breaking the law by taping me on their propery?
how do i go about suing them, and the cops with the dash cam?

can i videotape apolice officer if I tell him it's "for his own safety"?

any cop who objects to taping him while performing his taxpayer-funded duties is trying to hide shady to illegal act should be fired and imprisoned, merely for voicing the objection.




Fined and Imprisoned for VOICING an Objection?????

Tape me all you want....of course you WILL probably be called to be a witness, so keep your recording safe.
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 4:59:10 AM EDT
You know who will help fight this in court?

The ACLU.

[ducks]
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 5:03:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2011 5:10:39 AM EDT by Bama-Shooter]
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 5:09:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 1911greg:
uh most states have laws against taping without the other party knowing.

The cops don't make the laws.


The courts ruled long ago (1965-ish, IIRC) that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.

You CAN and SHOULD be able to photograph cops in public.

As far as audio recording, that's another matter entirely and I don't think that's legal in many states. In Michigan I can record any conversation in which I'm a part, but can't record someone else's conversation (eavesdropping).
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 5:20:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By jtb33:
The article states that "Mark Donahue, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said his organizationcheered the decision, stating that he "absolutely supports" throwingthose who tape police officers behind bars. He complains that citizens monitoring police activities for wrongdoing might"affect how an officer does his job on the street."

So my question is: How would this law affect how an officer "does his job on the street"? In what way? A positive way? I would love to hear Mark Donahue's explanation as to how keeping an officer of the peace accountable for his/her actions is a bad thing?


Mark Donahue, president of the blue line association, can suck a freedom loving cock.

TXL
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top