Illegal To Photograph/Video/Audio Record the Police (1 Viewer)

[Joe Summer]

That letter provoked the police department into issuing a 7-page General Order to its officers February stating that citizens have the “absolute right” to record cops in public as long as they did not "violate any section of any law, ordinance, code or criminal article."

"Sir, your lawn is clearly violating the city code for acceptable grass height. I'm gonna need you to turn off that video camera."

 

[Guest]

Did I ever tell you about the time a uniformed officer confronted me on the street for non-legal reasons? I kept trying to walk around to the front of his vehicle to get the incident recorded. He kept blocking my way. Fortunately I knew better than to lay a hand on a uniformed officer.

 

[Sarnoff]

Texas Man Faces 10 Years in Prison for Recording Cops

June 26, 2012

An Iraq War veteran faces ten years in prison after snapping photos of police making an arrest.

Antonio Buehler was pumping gas last New Year’s Eve when he caught sight of two Austin, TX cops “manhandling a woman” during a DUI investigation. Buehler, a resident of Austin, pulled out his cell phone and began taking pictures of the arrest. This is where the trouble began.

According to a Pixiq.com article by Carlos Miller, a veteran cops and cameras journalist, police then stormed over to Buehler and accused him of interfering with the investigation. When Buehler stood his ground, the cops argued that the Texan was “getting in [their] faces”. In the police report, Officer Pat Oborski claims Buehler proceeded to “spit in [his] face”. This, of course, gave officers the right to put Buehler under arrest for harassment of a public servant—a third degree felony charge.

What Officer Oborski didn’t realize, however, is that other cameras were rolling during the altercation with Buehler. And video shot by a witness standing across the street show a different scene than what was painted in the police reports. In the report, Oborski claimed Buehler shoved the officer, and then proceeded to spit on the officer. While the low quality of the cell phone video makes it difficult to detect any loogies hawked, what we can see is Oborski pinning Buehler against his car, followed by wrestling him down as he straps handcuffs on his wrists. Furthermore, Austin Police Department’s spokesperson Anthony Hipolito admitted that dash videos show no evidence of Buehler’s alleged expectorations, meaning Buehler was unlawfully arrested. So should Buehler be a free man?

Not according to the cops. Though the spokesman Hipolito said he saw no spit, the police department refuse to release any of the arrest videos to Buehler, or even let him watch them. According to Buehler, this policy comes from a police union contract, where the investigations into his arrests will only be made public if allegations against the officer were verified.

On July 2, Buehler will plead his case before the Austin Citizen Review Panel. And despite all of the idiocy he’s put up with, Buehler remains optimistic. While waiting to go to trial, Buehler created Peaceful Streets, a program that teaches Austinites about their rights in police encounters. He hopes to get enough support to hand out more than 100 video cameras to Austin residents so they can keep an eye on cops.

“We want to encourage people to take their liberty and security in their own hands,” Buehler told Miller in his interview.

Check out Carlos Miller's tips on how to photograph cops here.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Did I ever tell you about the time a uniformed officer confronted me on the street for non-legal reasons? I kept trying to walk around to the front of his vehicle to get the incident recorded. He kept blocking my way. Fortunately I knew better than to lay a hand on a uniformed officer.

go on..

 

[The_Burning_Bush]

Texas Man Faces 10 Years in Prison for Recording Cops

June 26, 2012

An Iraq War veteran faces ten years in prison after snapping photos of police making an arrest.

Antonio Buehler was pumping gas last New Year’s Eve when he caught sight of two Austin, TX cops “manhandling a woman” during a DUI investigation. Buehler, a resident of Austin, pulled out his cell phone and began taking pictures of the arrest. This is where the trouble began.

According to a Pixiq.com article by Carlos Miller, a veteran cops and cameras journalist, police then stormed over to Buehler and accused him of interfering with the investigation. When Buehler stood his ground, the cops argued that the Texan was “getting in [their] faces”. In the police report, Officer Pat Oborski claims Buehler proceeded to “spit in [his] face”. This, of course, gave officers the right to put Buehler under arrest for harassment of a public servant—a third degree felony charge.

What Officer Oborski didn’t realize, however, is that other cameras were rolling during the altercation with Buehler. And video shot by a witness standing across the street show a different scene than what was painted in the police reports. In the report, Oborski claimed Buehler shoved the officer, and then proceeded to spit on the officer. While the low quality of the cell phone video makes it difficult to detect any loogies hawked, what we can see is Oborski pinning Buehler against his car, followed by wrestling him down as he straps handcuffs on his wrists. Furthermore, Austin Police Department’s spokesperson Anthony Hipolito admitted that dash videos show no evidence of Buehler’s alleged expectorations, meaning Buehler was unlawfully arrested. So should Buehler be a free man?

Not according to the cops. Though the spokesman Hipolito said he saw no spit, the police department refuse to release any of the arrest videos to Buehler, or even let him watch them. According to Buehler, this policy comes from a police union contract, where the investigations into his arrests will only be made public if allegations against the officer were verified.

On July 2, Buehler will plead his case before the Austin Citizen Review Panel. And despite all of the idiocy he’s put up with, Buehler remains optimistic. While waiting to go to trial, Buehler created Peaceful Streets, a program that teaches Austinites about their rights in police encounters. He hopes to get enough support to hand out more than 100 video cameras to Austin residents so they can keep an eye on cops.

“We want to encourage people to take their liberty and security in their own hands,” Buehler told Miller in his interview.

Check out Carlos Miller's tips on how to photograph cops here.

Good for this guy standing his ground

 

[PIK95]

Wow, unreal.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I have to admit I hate the police.

 

[Ketamine Dreams]

I have to admit I hate the police.

I like them when they're on my side...

 

[pittstownkiller]

I have to admit I hate the police.

I like them when they're on my side...

Unfortunately they are always on their side, sometimes you just happen to share their viewpoint.

 

[goonsquad]

Score a big win for the good guys.

Supreme Court rejects plea to ban taping of police in Illinois

11:41 a.m. CST, November 26, 2012

The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from the Cook County state's attorney to allow enforcement of a law prohibiting people from recording police officers on the job.

The justices on Monday left in place a lower court ruling that found that the state's anti-eavesdropping law violates free speech rights when used against people who tape law enforcement officers.

The law set out a maximum prison term of 15 years.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in 2010 against Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez to block prosecution of ACLU staff for recording police officers performing their duties in public places, one of the group's long-standing monitoring missions.

Opponents of the law say the right to record police is vital to guard against abuses.

Last May, a federal appeals court in Chicago ruled that the law “likely violates” the First Amendment and ordered that authorities be banned from enforcing it.

The appeals court agreed with the ACLU that the "Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests.”

The appeals court ruling came weeks before the NATO summit when thousands of people armed with smart phones and video cameras demonstrated in the city. Officials had already announced that they would not enforce the law against summit protesters.

Public debate over the law had been simmering since last summer.

In August of 2011, a Cook County jury acquitted a woman who had been charged with recording Chicago police internal affairs investigators she believed were trying to dissuade her from filing a sexual harassment complaint against a patrol officer.

Judges in Cook and Crawford counties later declared the law unconstitutional, and the McLean County state's attorney cited flaws in the law when he dropped charges this past February against a man accused of recording an officer during a traffic stop.

Harvey Grossman, legal director of the ACLU of Illinois, said the organization was "pleased that the Supreme Court has refused to take this appeal. . .The ACLU of Illinois continues to believe that in order to make the rights of free expression and petition effective, individuals and organizations must be able to freely gather and record information about the conduct of government and their agents – especially the police. The advent and widespread accessibility of new technologies make the recording and dissemination of pictures and sound inexpensive, efficient and easy to accomplish."

The Associated Press contributed

 

[Mello]

Score a big win for the good guys.

Still scary wording. IMO, officers on duty have little to no legitimate privacy concerns. They are employees of the state that have been given power above and beyond normal citizens under the law. Part of the responsibility that comes with that part should be the loss of almost any expectation of privacy. At least about what they are doing on the clock.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Score a big win for the good guys.

Supreme Court rejects plea to ban taping of police in Illinois

11:41 a.m. CST, November 26, 2012

The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from the Cook County state's attorney to allow enforcement of a law prohibiting people from recording police officers on the job.

The justices on Monday left in place a lower court ruling that found that the state's anti-eavesdropping law violates free speech rights when used against people who tape law enforcement officers.

The law set out a maximum prison term of 15 years.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in 2010 against Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez to block prosecution of ACLU staff for recording police officers performing their duties in public places, one of the group's long-standing monitoring missions.

Opponents of the law say the right to record police is vital to guard against abuses.

Last May, a federal appeals court in Chicago ruled that the law “likely violates” the First Amendment and ordered that authorities be banned from enforcing it.

The appeals court agreed with the ACLU that the "Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests.”

The appeals court ruling came weeks before the NATO summit when thousands of people armed with smart phones and video cameras demonstrated in the city. Officials had already announced that they would not enforce the law against summit protesters.

Public debate over the law had been simmering since last summer.

In August of 2011, a Cook County jury acquitted a woman who had been charged with recording Chicago police internal affairs investigators she believed were trying to dissuade her from filing a sexual harassment complaint against a patrol officer.

Judges in Cook and Crawford counties later declared the law unconstitutional, and the McLean County state's attorney cited flaws in the law when he dropped charges this past February against a man accused of recording an officer during a traffic stop.

Harvey Grossman, legal director of the ACLU of Illinois, said the organization was "pleased that the Supreme Court has refused to take this appeal. . .The ACLU of Illinois continues to believe that in order to make the rights of free expression and petition effective, individuals and organizations must be able to freely gather and record information about the conduct of government and their agents – especially the police. The advent and widespread accessibility of new technologies make the recording and dissemination of pictures and sound inexpensive, efficient and easy to accomplish."

The Associated Press contributed

Excellent. The Patriot Act has done a lot of damage to our freedom in this country, so it's good to see a victory for the people.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Liberal Dem DA got owned by the Supreme Court.

 

[Sarnoff]

Illinois Supreme Court Overturns Insane Recording Laws

When it comes to insane bans on recording police and public officials, the granddaddy of them all has always been Illinois' eavesdropping law, which made it a federal crime to surreptitiously record any public official, even if they were amongst the public while performing their duties. The law was abused with such disregard for the Bill of Rights that court after court ruled the law unconstitutional. Those cases primarily dealt with the recording of law enforcement while performing their duties, something which ought to be a national right, given the ubiquity of cameras that are recording public citizens.

But now the Illinois Supreme Court has gone further, extending the overturning of the law such that it's no longer just law enforcement that is free to be recorded.

Today's
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2014/114852.pdfdecision
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2014/114852.pdf(PDF) extends that analysis to other public officials as well as private citizens when they do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The justices note that the eavesdropping ban "criminalizes a wide range of innocent conduct," including "the recording of conversations that cannot be deemed private: a loud argument on the street, a political debate on a college quad, yelling fans at an athletic event, or any conversation loud enough that the speakers should expect to be heard by others. None of these examples implicate privacy interests, yet the statute makes it a felony to audio record each one. Judged in terms of the legislative purpose of protecting conversational privacy, the statute's scope is simply too broad."

It's an immensely satisfying decision that turns the country's most draconian anti-recording law on its head. Illinois politics being what they are, there may be no place in the country that needs recordings of public officials more than this state I call home. Attempts to criminalize such recordings in a way that went so far beyond privacy concerns were clearly an attempt to keep the local population at bay while corruption and illegality raged on. More impressively, the court specifically weighed the public's free speech rights against any concerns by public officials and found for the common citizen.

Because the eavesdropping ban "burdens substantially more speech than is necessary to serve a legitimate state interest in protecting conversational privacy," the court concludes, "it does not survive intermediate scrutiny. We hold that the recording provision is unconstitutional on its face because a substantial number of its applications violate the first amendment."

And so you can now record interactions with the folks whose salary you pay via taxes in the Land of Lincoln. Frankly, for a state known for corrupt public "servants", this has been a long time coming.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Illinois Supreme Court Overturns Insane Recording Laws

When it comes to insane bans on recording police and public officials, the granddaddy of them all has always been Illinois' eavesdropping law, which made it a federal crime to surreptitiously record any public official, even if they were amongst the public while performing their duties. The law was abused with such disregard for the Bill of Rights that court after court ruled the law unconstitutional. Those cases primarily dealt with the recording of law enforcement while performing their duties, something which ought to be a national right, given the ubiquity of cameras that are recording public citizens.

But now the Illinois Supreme Court has gone further, extending the overturning of the law such that it's no longer just law enforcement that is free to be recorded.

Today's
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2014/114852.pdfdecision
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2014/114852.pdf(PDF) extends that analysis to other public officials as well as private citizens when they do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The justices note that the eavesdropping ban "criminalizes a wide range of innocent conduct," including "the recording of conversations that cannot be deemed private: a loud argument on the street, a political debate on a college quad, yelling fans at an athletic event, or any conversation loud enough that the speakers should expect to be heard by others. None of these examples implicate privacy interests, yet the statute makes it a felony to audio record each one. Judged in terms of the legislative purpose of protecting conversational privacy, the statute's scope is simply too broad."

It's an immensely satisfying decision that turns the country's most draconian anti-recording law on its head. Illinois politics being what they are, there may be no place in the country that needs recordings of public officials more than this state I call home. Attempts to criminalize such recordings in a way that went so far beyond privacy concerns were clearly an attempt to keep the local population at bay while corruption and illegality raged on. More impressively, the court specifically weighed the public's free speech rights against any concerns by public officials and found for the common citizen.

Because the eavesdropping ban "burdens substantially more speech than is necessary to serve a legitimate state interest in protecting conversational privacy," the court concludes, "it does not survive intermediate scrutiny. We hold that the recording provision is unconstitutional on its face because a substantial number of its applications violate the first amendment."

And so you can now record interactions with the folks whose salary you pay via taxes in the Land of Lincoln. Frankly, for a state known for corrupt public "servants", this has been a long time coming.

Bravo.

 

[Dragons]

Illinois Supreme Court Overturns Insane Recording Laws

When it comes to insane bans on recording police and public officials, the granddaddy of them all has always been Illinois' eavesdropping law, which made it a federal crime to surreptitiously record any public official, even if they were amongst the public while performing their duties. The law was abused with such disregard for the Bill of Rights that court after court ruled the law unconstitutional. Those cases primarily dealt with the recording of law enforcement while performing their duties, something which ought to be a national right, given the ubiquity of cameras that are recording public citizens.

But now the Illinois Supreme Court has gone further, extending the overturning of the law such that it's no longer just law enforcement that is free to be recorded.

Today's
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2014/114852.pdfdecision
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2014/114852.pdf(PDF) extends that analysis to other public officials as well as private citizens when they do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The justices note that the eavesdropping ban "criminalizes a wide range of innocent conduct," including "the recording of conversations that cannot be deemed private: a loud argument on the street, a political debate on a college quad, yelling fans at an athletic event, or any conversation loud enough that the speakers should expect to be heard by others. None of these examples implicate privacy interests, yet the statute makes it a felony to audio record each one. Judged in terms of the legislative purpose of protecting conversational privacy, the statute's scope is simply too broad."

It's an immensely satisfying decision that turns the country's most draconian anti-recording law on its head. Illinois politics being what they are, there may be no place in the country that needs recordings of public officials more than this state I call home. Attempts to criminalize such recordings in a way that went so far beyond privacy concerns were clearly an attempt to keep the local population at bay while corruption and illegality raged on. More impressively, the court specifically weighed the public's free speech rights against any concerns by public officials and found for the common citizen.

Because the eavesdropping ban "burdens substantially more speech than is necessary to serve a legitimate state interest in protecting conversational privacy," the court concludes, "it does not survive intermediate scrutiny. We hold that the recording provision is unconstitutional on its face because a substantial number of its applications violate the first amendment."

And so you can now record interactions with the folks whose salary you pay via taxes in the Land of Lincoln. Frankly, for a state known for corrupt public "servants", this has been a long time coming.

Bravo.

 

[johnnycakes]

Does that mean upskirting is ok in Illinois, now?

 

[Christo]

Does that mean upskirting is ok in Illinois, now?

Only if its a government employee.

 

[Riversco]

Does that mean upskirting is ok in Illinois, now?

Only if its a government employee.

So Kagan is fair game!