Pixiq

Correction Carlos, Galesburg is in Illinois, close to the quad-cities of which davenport is part of. Remember that IL made it illegal to tape cops, and that is being challenged already. IL is a two-party consent state and one of the single most corrupt to boot. Given Galesburg's proximity to Iowa this is an easy mistake to make.

With all that said, the law is flat out unconstitutional and will fall in court, until then cops will try to enforce it.

To bad there doesn't seem to be any way to comment on the article at the TV station site. I'd sure like to tell them they need to get their facts straight before reporting.

Yes they need to fight this all they way to the supreme court and crush it.

This happened in NH last year and last week
in Illinois. The NH charges predictably were changed then dropped.

"One of them, Adam Whitman, 20, of New Castle, was also charged with a count of wiretapping for taking a video with his phone -- one of two phones confiscated by police. The wiretapping charge will likely be dismissed and replaced with a count of obstructing governmental administration, Capt. Mike Schwartz previously told the Herald."

The only way this law will get repealed is with a high profile arrest and appeal through the legal system to the top. Any other small case, and the police will likely not seek to appeal to a higher court in the event that you win your appeal at any of the lower courts. Why would they risk losing this invaluable police tool by putting it up for public scrutiny?

After all, most cases end with a plea deal. They need this charge not to convict you with, but to be the large hammer hovering over your head.

"I always tell my officers, if you're doing the right thing, there is no problem with being recorded."

So why did you arrest the kid you asshat?

I would ask for a jury trial to beat the "obstructing" charge and then file a criminal complaint for false arrest/kidnapping against the cops.

"I always tell my officers, if you're doing the right thing, there is no problem with being recorded."

So why did you arrest the kid you asshat?

I would ask for a jury trial to beat the "obstructing" charge and then file a criminal complaint for false arrest/kidnapping against the cops.

What happened, did the ACLU go out of business? I thought they were all wound up about constitutional rights violations?

As per usual, the Cops think..

"They Can Do NO Wrong!"

And they wonder why the general public hold them in such low esteem.

Rail Car Fan

Illinois laws are the most fuck up in the nation. There is a rule in the Illinois constitution when a case is appealed to the appellate court. It called "A RULE 23 Decision". They were only allowed to write a 150 of them a year per district. Now there are hundreds. What it is a Rule 23 decision is a case "THAT IS NON PREDIDENTIAL AND NOT TO BE PUBLISHED" and those cases cannot be quoted or used. Basically it says you are not guilty but since it is a grey area of the law your convicted any way. This why class 4 felony cases increased 185 per cent since the early 80's.
By the way where was the ACLU when the US supreme court ok'ed and allowed soberity check points?????

According to the LAW,there is NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY REGARDING VIDEOTAPING OF INDIVIDUALS,NO WARRANT IS NEEDED IN PUBLIC AREAS.POLICE USE THIS POLICY DAILY.ALTHOUGH AN EXCEPTION COULD BE IF YOU INTERFERE WITH AN OFFICER IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES.

Carlos,

I don't see an email for you so I'm posting this here. There's an update on the open carry guy in Philly who taped the cops. He's been charged with endangerment and disorderly conduct.

http://m.philly.com/phillycom/db_/contentdetail.htm;jsessionid=E19932C05...

Maybe I'm just stupid.

I've tried to find an answer to this for a long time: Hypothetically, a videographer is videotaping and recording sound of a police action from a distance not considered at odds with prevalent law.

The police discover that they are being recorded both visually and via audio and approach the videographer.

Again, let's assume that the video/audio parameters are beyond normal sound recording range.

When the police approach and become within range of both audio and video, is the video/audio recording thereby illegal?

In other words, does the approach by the police set in motion the laws regarding recording by virtue of the approach?

Sorry if I'm a little dim here.