FELONY FOR RECORDING A POLICE OFFICER! (Maryland)

[OAK]

I find this absolutely absurd!!!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK3u-C__4T8"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK3u-C__4T8[/ame]



[ame="http://video.foxnews.com/v/1502594714001/tape-a-cop-face-a-felony-charge/?playlist_id=87937"]http://video.foxnews.com/v/1502594714001/tape-a-cop-face-a-felony-charge/?playlist_id=87937[/ame]

It is firmly established that the First Amendment's aegis extends further than the text's proscription on laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, "the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw." ...

Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of governmental affairs."


Whats everyone's thought on this?

 

[jbombelli]

I think I agree with your position 100%

 

[J_Wales]

If an officer is going to approach somebody with a drawn weapon, would it not be wise to announce that they are an officer BEFORE they begin barking commands with a weapon in hand?

 

[Colt556]

As citizens we are being recorded more and more frequently as we go about our daily routine. If we can be recorded so freely without our knowledge or consent why can't the police? The only reason I can see for them not wanting to be taped is to avoid them being caught in any wrong doing.

 

[CarmelHP]

As citizens we are being recorded more and more frequently as we go about our daily routine. If we can be recorded so freely without our knowledge or consent why can't the police? The only reason I can see for them not wanting to be taped is to avoid them being caught in any wrong doing.

Nahhhhhhhhhhhh, couldn't be, could it?

 

[easy]

Motorcycle guy won his case, but pled to speeding/exhibition. Cop was 'reprimanded' and 're-trained'. Bill submitted to change law.

 

[Caldad]

Whatcha afraid of? Gettin caught???

 

[Ericpwp]

How long before Chicago changes their law that makes it a felony to record the police?

So let me ask this. If I see a Chicago police officer driving his squad car to an Indiana gas station to buy his smokes, I take a picture, is it a felony? If we are in Indiana? Cause you know he is on "official police business".

 

[J_Wales]

How long before Chicago changes their law that makes it a felony to record the police?

So let me ask this. If I see a Chicago police officer driving his squad car to an Indiana gas station to buy his smokes, I take a picture, is it a felony? If we are in Indiana? Cause you know he is on "official police business".

Why is your statement in purple?

 

[Ericpwp]

Why is your statement in purple?

Because, I don't believe it will happen in our lifetimes.

 

[IndyDave1776]

They dearly love telling us that we should not be concerned about invasion of our privacy in clear defiance of the fourth and fifth amendments if we have no wrongdoing to hide. This law seems to be a veritable admission of wrongdoing by public servants whose official behavior is supposed to be transparent. Further, it clearly indicates that those establishing the relevant laws and/or ordinances are willfully complicit in police misconduct.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I didn't realize that font was so large!

 

[thebishopp]

Motorcycle guy won his case, but pled to speeding/exhibition. Cop was 'reprimanded' and 're-trained'. Bill submitted to change law.

Yup - judge issued a pretty clear statement regarding his opinion on the matter as well +1 for the judge.

Several cases in IL regarding this - problem up to this point is every has plead to avoid possible felony convictions but looks like there is at least one case going up the chain.

Illinois' eavesdropping law under attack - Chicago Tribune


So far out of the few "Two party consent" states out there, IL is the only one that is desperately trying to hang on (anyone surprised?). So far all of the others (as I recall) have had state court rulings that say their eavesdropping or wiretaping laws do NOT apply to public officials in the performance of their duties.

Of course the Illinois FOP as well as various state officials are against allowing the videoing of public officials, again not surprising considering who actually favors the law as it is being applied. This is Illinois after all, and the city of Chicago.