- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Politics
Cook County Can't Prosecute People for Recording Cops
Today the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review an appeals court decision that blocked enforcement of the Illinois Eavesdropping Act against people who record police on the job in Chicago and other parts of Cook County. Under the law, the strictest of its kind in the country, recording cops without their permission is a Class 1 felony, punishable by four to 15 years in prison.
Last May the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, responding to a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, ruled that the statute "restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests" and "likely violates the First Amendment's free-speech and free-press guarantees" when applied to "people who openly record police officers performing their official duties in public." (State judges in Cook and Crawford counties also have deemed the Illinois Eavesdropping Act unconstitutional.)
The 7th Circuit ordered the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to enjoin enforcement of the law against the ACLU's police monitors until the case is resolved. Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez asked the Supreme Court to override the 7th Circuit.
Even when the law is not on their side, of course, cops may still hassle you for daring to record them on the job. Photography Is Not a Crime provides yet another example:
Daniel J. Saulmon was charged with resisting, delaying and obstructing an officer, but the video shows he was standing well out the way of a traffic stop and was only arrested when he failed to produce identification to an approaching officer....
There is no law in California that requires citizens to produce identification....
Prosecutors have already dropped the charge against Saulmon as well as a few other minor citations relating to his bicycle such as not have proper reflectors on the pedals.
California's wiretap law makes it a crime to record "confidential communications" without the consent of all parties. Communications are considered confidential when there is an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which includes California, has recognized a First Amendment right to record police in public.
Radley Balko chronicled "The War on Cameras" in the January 2011 issue of Reason. Last spring Steve Silverman suggested "7 Rules for Recording Police." More from Reason TV:
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter























Comments
A police officer that is
A police officer that is behaving as the professional that he is supposed to be, should not have a problem with being photographed or recorded. I hope that every police officer will assume that he is being recorded any time he deals with the public and behave accordingly.
One evening I watched a police officer engaging in official oppression. I'm sure that it would have ceased once he saw a little red light on a video camera. Without a video, an unethical officer can simply deny what happened. It would be his word against that of his victim. Without a video, there is little that bystanders can do to stop it.
I find that it is not the
I find that it is not the government that is the problem, but the officers that have something to hide that is the problem.
They fail to realize that those videos can be used to keep dishonest cops honest as well as to clear falsely accused cops.
Honest cops should welcome this.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
Three cheers for sanity. The
Three cheers for sanity. The police are not supposed to be the gestapo or any other secret police. If they don't want their actions on the front page then they shouldn't be doing what they are doing. If the News Media were doing their job, this kind of suppression wouldn't have ever even gotten off the drawing boards.