75 years for recording

[DaddyFixSemi]

I thought you all would like to see this

75 Years in Prison For Videotaping Police Video

 

[Lucas156]

so and so was arrested for selling art without a permit. What a bunch of ****. Our government is corrupt making more and more laws every day to imprison as many people as possible for crimes that are not actually crimes. The only thing criminal here is the governments overstepping of its bounds

 

[XMil]

That guy should go to Canada and apply for political asylum.

 

[John Galt]

Stuff like this answers the question of not if, but when does this country erupt. This is Tyranny 101.

 

[Benny]

LOL

I happen to be a cop, and a good one at that.
If you can't handle a good whack upside the
head to straighten up, then pull your head out
of your ass and stop breaking the law! That
man deserves ALL 75 years for trying to make
us look like the "bad guy."

 

[dingodog]

Another stupid law that makes an otherwise law abiding citizen a criminal.

 

[level.eleven]

Its interesting that both stories told in the video started over licensing enforcement.

 

[goinggreyfast]

Just insane...

 

[rambone]

 

[Bunnykid68]

I think that guy from Illinois won his initial court battle for the 5 charges but the prosecutor is appealing the decision. There was another thread about this very case.

 

[rambone]

75 years for video taping a LEO.

75 years in prison for video taping police in public

 

[Kutnupe14]

What's the theory behind the law?

 

[Bunnykid68]

What's the theory behind the law?

I think they are using outdated wiretapping laws.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I believe when the laws were made, recorders were not common, and not the aim of the law... It is being applied years later in a manner outside the spirit of the law.

I think the better question is what is the motive behind the arrests/prosecutions.

It sure seems like he was charged as a punishment for reporting harassment.

 

[MinuteManMike]

I am still at a loss to understand why recording anyone should be illegal in the first place.

Did the recording represent what actually happened? Then who the hell should care if it was recorded with or without consent?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I am still at a loss to understand why recording anyone should be illegal in the first place.

Did the recording represent what actually happened? Then who the hell should care if it was recorded with or without consent?

Well, wiretapping a phone conversation of individuals when neither party consents I believe is considered a form of search - or something in that ballpark. This, ofcourse, should only be applied in situations where people have an expectation of privacy....

Even the old phone booths gave some reasonable expectation of privacy... who remembers the old sliding glass doors that were meant to keep your conversation private in the middle of the street? So you see, in some instances people expect their conversations to be private, even when in a public space...

Where the benefit of this type of law breaks down is when it is used to prosecute individuals for videotaping/recording when a reasonable expectation of privacy does not exist. Public servants do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy while carrying out their duty...

In Indiana we do not have the same problem - the knowledge and consent of the individual making the recording is a party, and makes it legal from my understanding.

 

[thebishopp]

UPDATE to this story:

Judge Rejects Eavesdropping Charges for Recording Police - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine


"caught a break last week when a state judge declared the charges unconstitutional. "A statute intended to prevent unwarranted intrusions into a citizen’s privacy cannot be used as a shield for public officials who cannot assert a comparable right of privacy in their public duties," wrote Circuit Court Judge David Frankland. "Such action impedes the free flow of information concerning public officials and violates the First Amendment right to gather such information."

"Judge Frankland ruled that Allison had a First Amendment right to record the police officers and court employees."

"A few days before Frankland's ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit heard a First Amendment challenge to the eavesdropping statute, one of the country's strictest. Last month a Chicago jury acquitted a woman who was charged with eavesdropping after she recorded a conversation with internal affairs officers to document that they were encouraging her to drop a sexual harassment complaint. Also last month, in a case involving a Boston man charged with eavesdropping for capturing an arrest on his cell phone, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit said such recording is a "basic and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment."

----

IL has been one of the last states that had been getting away with charging people with felony eavesdropping for recording police. Other states (even two party ones like MA and PA) have already had state court rulings saying recording public officials (LEOS) while they are performing their duties was a constitutionally protected activity. FINALLY it looks like IL is getting their hands smacked. Hopefully lawsuits will follow.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Great update... I agree with the Judge's decision regarding public servants, however I am still confused how recording is protected under the first amendment?

Recording is freedom of speech?

 

[thebishopp]

In Indiana we do not have the same problem - the knowledge and consent of the individual making the recording is a party, and makes it legal from my understanding.

True but that has not stopped some officers from trying to find ways to circumvent the law.

Advance Indiana: Arrest For Contempt Of Police: It Happened In Indianapolis

 

[thebishopp]

Great update... I agree with the Judge's decision regarding public servants, however I am still confused how recording is protected under the first amendment?

Recording is freedom of speech?

Freedom of the press. Everyone is the "press" not just government recognized entities (for obvious reasons).