Pixiq

Whether you are secretly video taping or openly video taping, it doesn’t matter. When in public, you have no expectation of privacy and wiretapping laws do not apply.

The FBI needs to start arresting these cops for violating people’s civil rights. Perhaps then, this stupidity will cease.

This is our county, not the police. They are public servants, and I say that with no disrespect. Part of my paycheck every week pays for them to walk around with guns, so I have every right to film them as long as I am not interfering or harassing while they are doing their job.
Rob recently posted..More FIJA activism from Liberty On Tour

Rob #3,

Sorry, but you are behind, they are public employees not servants, thus only responsible to their employers. Unions are a wonderful thing.

When Unions are on the street marching for things like the WEEKEND its always the police who show up with tear gas. Please if you have a problem with unions GO to work on your days off.

I dont know the proper term for police union but they are not exactly in solidarity with anything other then themselves.

I have to agree with Ariel on this. However you feel about unions the police should not be part of them, it’s just another layer to protect terrible cops from justice.
Josh Saint Jacque recently posted..Sunset in the Pacific Northwest

Rich #5,

My only problem with Unions is that they all go corrupt over time, especially when they have immense political power. Almost all the solid improvements in working conditions were made over a half century ago, with diminishing returns for the last half century. Both public and private goons routinely beat or killed union workers on strike or at protest. And yes, police unions feel no solidarity with other Unions. They have only one Brotherhood. Why does this remind me of Pogo?

I was in management/sales for 20 years. No Union possible, but I did belong to one previously.

Unions are nothing but organized crime, it’s an easy way to steal money from working people and give to the goddamn dems.

Not to mention they kill business.

JSJ #6,

The problem is in the Union and the mediator process. Little attention is paid to whether a particular cop should be a cop, just the technicalities of the contract. This is why six, or was it eight, cops in the Seattle area got their jobs back even though they were caught falsifying police reports and other official documents, and the PD wanted them gone. Mediator thought otherwise, because the PD failed to cross t’s or dot i’s by the contract.

Substantial falsification of a police report should cause their certification to be pulled permanently. The particular LEO should find a new career.

You can’t get a fair hearing in a court if the police report is falsified (without clear video and/or a great number of witnesses).

Apparently Illinois is still causing problems:

http://gawker.com/5741489/recording-a-police-officer-could-get-you-15-ye...

Just out of curiosity, in those three states mentioned, do they have News shows?

If so, how do they get releases from everyone walking around and talking where they are filming?

Or is it just private citizens that have to give up their rights, not the media?

If anything the law should lean over backwards the opposite way. Everything public employees do and say as part of their paid work for we citizens should be recorded. It should be illegal to conduct any public business “off the record”. What are they afraid of??? So my next question is how do you go about getting a police cheif fired? Lets not take this crap sitting down. If you are a policeman in my town and doing your job in secret I want you GONE!! And don’t forget who will be sitting on the juries when you bring these bogus charges. Stand up folks! Don’t let city hall push you around.

Ariel, not to be confrontational, but I thought on the “police” cars it says to “protect and serve’ Now to be a cop you just need to high score on a test, and if you are a minority you get extra point’s for some reason..I really say that in the most non racist way I can,, I just know if the color of my skin was different I would have recieved 5 extra pointsnow any idiot can become a police officer, But the places that are lucky enough get to elect their Sheriff
Rob recently posted..More FIJA activism from Liberty On Tour

I wasn’t able to type everything on one post and was caught off halfway, so Ariel am I behind on? Filming a public servant while they are doing their job. They are working on MY streets, that I pay for with tax dollars, They are working off of my money that I am forced to pay tax dollars towards.

So yes they are MY Servant ,
Rob recently posted..More FIJA activism from Liberty On Tour

@Hazy, That’s what is different with the Illinois Laws. They are not stretching or misapplying the WireTapping Law, They are using a completely different law, The Eavesdropping Law. And the law clearly states it doesn’t matter if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy or not. It also defines an eavesdropping device as any device able to record audio. In Illinois, it is not the wiretapping law, it is The Eavesdropping Law. None the less, it needs to be overturned.

@genewitch

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+...
Under the exceptions

c) Any broadcast by radio, television or otherwise whether it be a broadcast or recorded for the purpose of later broadcasts of any function where the public is in attendance and the conversations are overheard incidental to the main purpose for which such broadcasts are then being made;

@Freedom_Fighter

Obviously since it’s against the 1st amendment. What do you expect from a state that was notorious for allowing organized crime to run rampant?

Rob #12 and #13,

Actually that was teasing but with a point. Many police do not actually view themselves as public servants, but public employees. They are only responsible to their employer.

As for “protect and serve”, the SCOTUS has really said they are not responsible to “protect”. How can they “when seconds count, police are minutes away” (to use one slogan against another)? As for serve, back to my first paragraph.

By the way, confrontational is OK. While I’m not perfect at it, avoiding ad hominem, avoiding silly curse labels (scum, cockroach, pig, etc.), and, you know, acting with courtesy and politeness go a long way with me. Unlike Johnny Law, who thinks such things are for concierges, I understand they reduce violence, verbal or physical. Guess he didn’t have a mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, and avoided reading. (Yeah, JL, I’m still snarky on that one because it takes someone really obtuse to miss the reason why the courtesies exist. Ah, the sanctity of absolute control through escalating violence with overwhelming numbers and punishing tools.)

@Ariel

Well, if someone never faces any real sanction for any level of thuggish/boorish behavior, they’re likely to simply become more thuggish/boorish.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

@rob

Stick an understood “ourselves” on the end of that “to protect and serve” and I suspect it will make perfect sense in many cases.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

Michael42 #18,

Granted and agreed.

I’m really amazed when LEOs think acting like a decent, courteous human being puts them at risk, unless we are all violent criminals, but then that would include them, their wives, their children, and all their blood, wouldn’t it? If not, then they are all of a virgin born.

Constantly escalating violence puts them at risk, physically and politically.

So the police record citizens for ‘our safety’ but we can’t record them for ‘our safety’? Also, aren’t they also citizens in this country? Don’t police have to follow the same laws we do?
ViralViralVideos.com recently posted..Harihar Das – Amazing Robot Break Dance – India’s Got Talent

“Don’t police have to follow the same laws we do?”

In a word, no.

Current law and legal precedent has turned the police badge into a patent of nobility de facto. What (didn’t) happen to the NYPD officer who body-slammed that bicycle rider is a perfect case in point.

“Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny”

Frank #22,

Exactly. Pogue was guilty of assault. I found it odd he was only charged with falsification of a report, granted it would have resulted in an innocent citizen suffering loss of freedom as well major financial harm but then that is no big deal in police culture. He should have been punished for both, but the police discount got in the way. Can I apply for that discount?

@Ariel

(Pogan)

“The officer, Patrick Pogan, 24, who has since resigned from the Police Department, was found guilty of one count of offering a false instrument for filing; he was acquitted of assault.”

Honestly, Christopher Long wasn’t the best “sympathetic victim” and I suspect that had something to do with the jury not finding Pogan guilty on the assault charge.

The police discount, Union Assist and a judge not eager to go against the police was probably what got him off actually doing any time for the crime he was convicted of.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

Michael42 #25.

In a perfect world, the conviction would only be based on the egregious nature of the acts committed by the offender.

The sentencing on the other hand should be based on the past and character of the offender.

Carlos, I back you 100% on this one. You nailed it. I don’t think that this is said enough on your behalf Carlos:

“Thank you for fighting for our God given rights patriot. You are truly a knight of the old code. I bow humbly in your presence.”

Keep up the good work,
TwoSocks

I do not know much about the law, but did read a little at the law library (does not make me an expert). The base of the Illinios statute on recording conversations has not changed much since 1990. The base being you need all parties consent. They added exemptions to allow police to record without a judge’s order and other matters. Maybe I am wrong.
But I also see some prior cases which stated that as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is not illegal to record audio. People v. Beardsley, 115 Ill.2d 47 and People v. Jansen, 203 Ill.App.3d 985. Beardsley was decided by the Illinois Supreme Court (highest state court). Thus the law only applied to third parties and law enforcement.
Amyone know what happened?

The police are no longer our friends. They may have been friends at one time, but no longer. I now regard them as I would regard a dangerous predatory animal. Keep your distance and avoid their notice.

It is vitally important that the public not be prevented from recording public employees who, after all, we pay. They work for us.

As a Family Advocate working with families who have been falsely accused of child abuse, I have a policy of ALWAYS recording CPS (Child Protective Services) agents. I live and work in Georgia, where secretly recording is allowed. If I had a dollar for every time a CPS agent threatened a family or crossed the line into other illegal behavior, I would be a wealthy woman.

Considering IL is about the most corrupt s**t-hole of a state I’ve ever seen this absolutely needs to be challenged. I don’t see how it can stand against a Constitutional challenge. There are so many violations inherent insuch a law AND that the state needs to have some compelling state interest in restricting it. If I lived any closer to IL I’d have to live with the stench coming over the border.. Thank God for small favors.

Chicago’s Mayor Daley is still waving both middle fingers at the citizens of Chicago even after the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment, so, considering his stance on that, he probably thinks that this recording law is just fine the way that it is. I’m glad that I don’t live in Illinois.

I agree that with the law as written, cops can decline to be recorded. I also agree that they will, in all likelihood, routinely choose to do so. The net effect will be that cops cannot be legally recorded.

But nowhere does the law explicitly prohibit the recording of cops, which is what your title incorrectly asserts.

Now, this is your blog, and you’re welcome to be as misleading as you want. But perhaps you should strive to be more accurate and less sensationalist. You may also want to consider whether insulting the intelligence of those who read your blog with such blatant misstatements is a good idea.

Just sayin’…

“I agree that with the law as written, cops can decline to be recorded.” Not really.
When foregoing any constitutional issue or court opinions, there are two exemptions to the law.
First during a traffic stop, the motorist can record audio and visual.
Second depends on how you define a party to the conversation. If you are a party or asked by a party to record an act that is probably criminal, or very close thereto, the act of a police officer or anyone can be recorded. The question is if you are a witness to the act, does tht make you a party.
A party to an act must be anyone involved and those people who witness the event or conversation because it happened right in front of them. It may be morally correct to mind you own business, but legally?
– You are standing around and several cops or gang members start beating someone up. It happens right in front of you. -
– Someone starts yelling ten feet away trying to get some child into a car when the child does not belong in the car, an abduction. –
– A cop pulls you over and you start recording, as allowed under the law. However, the cop claims you are committing eavesdropping and demands the recording be stopped. Now the traffic stop is tied to a non-traffic offense by a fraudulent statement. –
Are you not a party?

@confused, I believe the traffic stop exception was loosely worded to bring about convictions. The police can audio/video tape us during traffic stops. Also, what changed with those court decisions is the law, adding that it does not matter if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy or not, you can’t do it. That was done after someone won in court in regards to recording the police in public. They specifcally changed it on that premise.

Carlos,
You should know better – Charles? Drew – ha-ha… Chris Drew. I’m the artist who is going to help make the Federal case law that makes audio-recording police legal in all 50 states or go to prison trying. I’ve written comments on your site before and the Tribune got my name right.

They were wrong about Oregon, true-enough.

I’m also the person who has been dogging the Illinois ACLU since I was arrested last December 2nd while testing the Chicago peddlers license for its constitutionality by selling art for $1 in public without a peddlers license.

I was dangerous to their power. They are using the audio-recording issue to attempt to make a political prisoner of me. My case is significant.

I was ready to test any First Amendment law when I stepped out on State Street. I am ready to face the piper.

I did my homework. I spent three years writing on my blog and photographing my street art activity with the goal of demonstrating that there is ample space for artists to sell their art in Chicago’s Loop without interfering with foot traffic. I wrote extensively and persuasively about the First Amendment rights of artists. The City of Chicago considered me a creditable threat. I searched for three years for a great First Amendment lawyer, Mark Weinberg. I prepared a community art concept called the Art Patch Project in which local artists contribute art for us to screen print on cotton patches with the artists contact info and the website of our Free Speech Artists’ Movement to give away to the public to educate citizens to our First Amendment rights. We built the Art Patch Project for a year before I stepped out.

When the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office decided to charge me with a 1st class felony, one step below murder, for audio-recording my arrest for selling art for $1 on State Street they gave me a microphone for the cause. I have not stopped from that time on to speak out. Most people charged with this serious offense do not dare speak out for fear of hurting their case in court.

I feel it is my duty to raise this important issue because, as you know, this is only one aspect of the tide of oppressive behavior artists, writers, bloggers and citizen journalists are facing today. We need to fight for our very freedom to express ourselves and to document our world. We need the right to gather information on our police and other public officials. We must fight for the right to publish our documentations.

You can follow my case on facebook.com/FreeSAM or at
http://www.art-teez.org/free-speech.htm or my blog at
http://www.c-drew.com/blog

The fight is real and it is here – not in some foreign land. Freedom starts at home. Thank you for fighting the fight in your own way.
Chris Drew recently posted..Oral Arguments form May 18th

“People v. Beardsley, 115 Ill.2d 47 and People v. Jansen, 203 Ill.App.3d 985. Beardsley was decided by the Illinois Supreme Court (highest state court). Thus the law only applied to third parties and law enforcement.
Amyone know what happened?”

I can answer that. Illinois is a corrupt State. In 1994 the State Legislature changed the law to make the definition of “conversation” to not consider whether privacy exists or not. Although the “eavesdropping law” claims to be concerned with “privacy” they eliminated the consideration of privacy as important. They did so in reaction to Beardsley. Then they also added “The eavesdropping of an oral conversation or an electronic communication between any law enforcement officer, State’s Attorney, Assistant State’s Attorney, the Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General, or a judge, while in the performance of his or her official duties, if not authorized by this Article or proper court order, is a Class 1 felony.” That is the part they are using to put me in prison for up to 15 years.
Chris Drew recently posted..Oral Arguments form May 18th

If anyone wants to follow my case as we make First Amendment case law history visit

http://www.art-teez.org/free-speech.htm
or facebook.com/FreeSAM

I am the reason the ACLU decided to sue Anita Alvarez.
Chris Drew recently posted..Oral Arguments form May 18th