Cook County Judge Says Law Banning Recording Police Is Unconstitutional 152
schwit1 writes "A Cook County judge Friday ruled the state's controversial eavesdropping law unconstitutional. The law makes it a felony offense to make audio recordings of police officers without their consent even when they're performing their public duties. Judge Stanley Sacks, who is assigned to the Criminal Courts Building, found the eavesdropping law unconstitutional because it potentially criminalizes 'wholly innocent conduct.' The decision came in the case of Christopher Drew, an artist who was arrested in December 2009 for selling art on a Loop street without a permit. Drew was charged with a felony violation of the eavesdropping law after he used an audio recorder in his pocket to capture his conversations with police during his arrest."
Re:Link to Article Please (Score:5, Informative)
Ars is covering it...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/illinois-judge-law-barring-recording-police-is-unconstitutional.ars [arstechnica.com] ...with lots of nice links.
Police are PUBLIC SERVANTS (Score:5, Informative)
By virtue of their PUBLIC presence they pretty much surrender any expectation of privacy while they wear the uniform. EVERYTHING they do and say is and should be subject to public scrutiny; if this requires the midstep of recording them for use later, then so be it.
In the UK the Data Protection Act 1998 [legislation.gov.uk] reflects this in section 36, thus:
"Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual’s personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles and the provisions of Parts II and III."
This has been used to (successfully) argue that audio recording anywhere outside a situation where Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 [legislation.gov.uk] comes into play (ie anywhere outside a military installation) for personal purposes, including legal (which falls within the definition in section 36) is *legally* permitted. Police officers walking on a public right of way does not fall into the category of military installation, therefore does not fall into the purview of OSA, therefore in this respect recording (audio or video) of police officers is legal.
Of course, that doesn't prevent them from threatening you with arrest under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 [legislation.gov.uk] (been there), which funnily enough only grants an authority to stop and search for terrorism-related paraphernalia. Which last time I looked, didn't extend to camera equipment.
IAAL.
Re:You can't have it both ways (Score:5, Informative)
Lawyers for McCarren say she was investigating possible misuse of government resources and following a county official when she and her cameraman were pulled over by seven police cars. The official had called police about a suspicious vehicle.
McCarren says police dislocated her shoulder and tore her rotator cuff in the incident. Neither she nor her cameraman, Peter Hakel, was ever charged with any violations.
[...]
Questions still remain unanswered as to why police were unable to produce video of the incident from their cameras.
Prince George's County Police vehicles are required to have dashboard video cameras operating as part of an understanding with the U.S. Department of Justice reached in 2004.
Police have denied repeated media outlet requests to review the video.
At the time of the incident county officials, including County Executive Jack Johnson, said none of the cameras in the seven police cars was working.
Re:deal with it (Score:5, Informative)
There are too many cases when something goes wrong the police tape unexpectally cuts out.
Or this one where seven independent police tapes unexpectedly cut out!! [wtop.com]
And police wonder why people are automatically defensive and nervous around them...
Re:It's sad this was required... (Score:4, Informative)
Its a law designed to prevent me from recording you without your permission. Its written to prevent citizens from recording other citizens without permission, what happened however is that the cops tried to claim that it was illegal to record them because they are also citizens. While this is true, when operating in the capacity of a public servant, some exceptions must be made to protect the public from abuse.
This is simply a case of the police manipulating a law intended to protect you, that was poorly written (well, they found an obvious loophole at the least) and taken advantage of by corrupt police.
If you actually look at the court case, the judge also really doesn't have a problem with the spirit of the law, its just implemented and used in a way that he feels isn't allowed for.
Re:Interesting grounds... (Score:4, Informative)
What law wouldn't be stuck down by this reasoning?
Anything that is a malum in se offense, for starters. Murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary... these are not innocent conduct.
Re:deal with it (Score:5, Informative)
Half there: http://www.ustream.tv/everywhere/android [ustream.tv]
Just need to add in encryption and keycode for application of the "stop" button.
Re:Miranda warning (Score:4, Informative)
It's not a courtesy for the ignorant. It's a requirement. Before the cops conduct a custodial interrogation, they are required to inform you of your rights. If they do not, any information gained from that interrogation, and any information following from it, will likely be excluded.