Is Chicago really planning on detaining anyone who records arrests at the G-8/NATO summit?

[Earth_First]

In three months, thousands of reporters from around the globe will descend on Chicago for the G-8 summit. Part of what they will chronicle is the protests and police crackdowns that have made each annual meeting so newsworthy. Sadly for all these reporters, and for all the American journalists with plans to film the protestors and cops, any effort to audiotape police activity on public streets or in parks is a crime in Illinois—a crime punishable by 15 years in prison.

Illinois, like Massachusetts and Oregon, is famous for having one of the most draconian eavesdropping laws in the country. The New York Times recently profiled two Illinois citizens who ran afoul of the law that makes it a Class 1 felony to audio record a law-enforcement officer, state’s attorney, assistant state’s attorney, attorney general, assistant attorney general or judge in the performance of his or her duties. It is a crime to use any device “for the purpose of hearing or recording all or any part of any conversation … unless [done] with the consent of all of the parties to such conversation or electronic communication. …”

A bill now pending in the Illinois General Assembly would amend the state law to preclude criminal prosecution for the “[r]ecording of a peace officer who is performing a public duty in a public place and speaking at a volume audible to the unassisted human ear.” That’s a start. And last August, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Constitution protects citizens who film police carrying out their duties in public. Last week a civil jury in Eugene, Ore. even found that a police officer violated an environmental activist's Fourth Amendment rights by seizing and searching his video camera without a warrant.

While all this presents an enormous constitutional problem for ordinary citizens, the issue is even more fraught for journalists, who at least implicitly perform a vital newsgathering function under the First Amendment. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (disclosure: I serve on their Steering Committee) has been struggling to keep up with the slew of journalist arrests following various Occupy Wall Street protests. Often, arrests of journalists are used to interrupt the recording, and all charges are dropped once the reporters are transported to police stations. That means the First Amendment isn’t technically violated, but reporters are unable to file their stories and may be held for hours before being released. The fact that cities and police departments virtually never win these suits and may even be on the hook for money damages doesn’t mean that there isn’t a serious problem for journalists. It simply means that, in a pinch, the police have a cumbersome but effective mechanism to shut down contemporaneous recordings of police misconduct as it happens. That’s the part that has to change

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/01/recording_police_making_arrests_the_outrageous_illinois_law_that_makes_it_a_felony_.html

Then most recently, there is this...

The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011.

Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.

The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene.

It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.

Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.

http://rt.com/usa/news/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/

[annabanana]

1. This should not be possible. The Constitution is no longer even

"inconvenient".

Like one of my fave DU stickers says:

"Freedom isn't Free. You Have to Pay ATTENTION."

[G_j]

2. welcome to the future nt

[snappyturtle]

3. Time to crawl back under my rock. nt

[Earth_First]

4. Please don't...

If anything this should encourage folks to hit the streets with their phones, cameras and video recording equipment.

As someone who is known locally for showing up to direct actions for the specific reason of documenting situations that have the potential to get out of control; please don't allow them to win...

[frazzled]

5. This law actually dates back to 1895 (codified in present form in 1961)

And it's pretty insane. We learned about it shortly after we moved to the state 7 years ago. My husband was advised by lawyers for his school that he had to warn a student that her film project could put her in jeopardy of a class 1 felony. (I can't remember the student's project, but it had something to do with filming in a department store. It was quite harmless and innocuous. Unless she obtained prior consent from anyone filmed, she was in violation of the law. Unfortunately, the project depended on the people not knowing their interactions were being filmed. I think she changed it.)

A committee in the Illinois House voted earlier this month to change this law. Hopefully it will go through. On this recent vote see:

http://chicagoist.com/2012/02/09/bill_that_makes_changes_to_illinois.php

An interesting report on the law from the Illinois Bar Association is here:

http://www.sdflaw.com/RA322S10/assets/files/lawarticles/Overheard.pdf

[Earth_First]

6. Thanks for your perspective and the links...

I'll check them out.

[G_j]

7. I imagine though, that Chicago, like other American cities

has cameras everywhere monitoring the streets.

[Earth_First]

8. +1

However, I'm sure that somewhere, somehow "reasonable expectation of privacy" is shape shifted to suit it's needs...

[G_j]

9. for ordinary citizens, that expectation is unreasonable.

they can watch us, we can't watch them.

[frazzled]

10. I've got a story about that, too!

About four years ago, my husband (same one who had to tell the poor student she might be a felon if she shot her film project) got a "red light" ticket in the mail. $100 violation. Knowing his New York cabbie type driving methods, I immediately assumed he was guilty. The violation letter contained three pictures of him making a right turn (on red) at an intersection on the north side of the city, on a date a month or six weeks earlier. He couldn't even remember why he would have been there. But there was our license plate showing.

He looked at the pictures and said he couldn't understand what he'd done wrong. Well, I sez, it says there's a video on line you can view. You'll see you probably didn't stop before making that turn when we watch it. So we punch in his violation number at the web site, watch the video, and ... I was gobsmacked. It showed him at a dead stop (you can see other cars approaching the light while his does not move) and then after the cross traffic has totally passed, he makes the turn. Well, he decided to go to court to protest the ticket. He got a court date a month or six weeks hence, and when he told the judge he didn't think he had done anything wrong, she responded, "well, we shall see," and turned towards a computer at her desk.

She silently watched and then cried out, "come here!," asking him to approach her desk to watch the video with her. She announced that it was incumbent on the state to bring evidence and that they had utterly failed to do so. She dismissed the charges.

We wondered how many people fail to study their pictures or video when they get these camera violations in the mail, and pay the $100 rather than take the time to watch and take half a day off to go to court. It's a real racket, imo. Someone without the knowledge of film editing that we had might just assume they're guilty and pay.

[Earth_First]

11. The biggest scam going...

Well, outside of leasing parking meters.

There are three new red light cameras being installed in Rochester, N.Y. ever other week.

There was a report on the local news just shortly after the first batch [or two] were installed that 30% of the tickets were dismissed in court. 30%?!?

To address your comment on 'taking half a day off to go to court' a lot of folks cannot spare that these days...I'm glad it worked out for you and your husband, however...

[mopinko]

12. everyone that i know that has gotten one of those tickets has watched the video

and my son and i have both been snapped and not gotten tickets.
i love the cameras. i love to see shitty drivers get caught.

[frazzled]

13. So you approve of false charges?

If you've been snapped and sent a ticket based on that, then you are essentially being falsely charged by the state. What's to like about that?

I am a thorough believer in safe driving. But I'm a bigger believer in due process.

[mopinko]

14. cops give bad tickets, too.

like i said, we were snapped but not ticketed, so there is some process for weeding out the "false charges". and when i cop wrote you a bad ticket, you were screwed. now there is evidence, and it is available to both parties. way more due process imho.
seen a lot fewer "bad left turn" accidents since they installed the cameras. i am a thorough believer in safe driving, too, but it is a faith with very few followers.

[frazzled]

18. The burden is on the state to prove guilt, not the accused to prove innocence

Due process is the issue here. The state can't just send out random bad tickets with the expectation that some people will protest their innocence. There has to be just cause.

On a practical level, there is a huge difference between a cop stopping you at the point in time of an infraction, where you are aware of the circumstances and know what has happened, and a mail violation that arrives sometimes several months after the fact. The cop giving a bad ticket happens, but with much less frequency than the hundreds or perhaps thousands (who knows?) of mail-violations that can be sent out, hoping to collect revenue.

And yes, you can succeed in protesting a ticket given you by a cop. We got a parking ticket and were easily able to prove by taking a picture of the sign showing the legitimate parking times, and the time the cop wrote on the ticket, that we should not have gotten it. That was dismissed, too.

[mopinko]

21. i fail to see, as does the supreme court,

the difference between a mechanical cop and a flesh and blood cop.

[mopinko]

15. The New York Times recently profiled two Illinois citizens

both those people are winning their cases. i think one was already dismissed and the second looks to be on it's way.

[mopinko]

16. short answer, from someone who is here, no.

changes to city ordinances made recently have a lot more to do with bringing them into compliance with the constitution than subverting it. a supreme court case over an anti-war march went against the city, and they brought ordinances into compliance with that case.

[ManiacJoe]

17. Just turn off the mics. The laws prohibit only audio recordings.

Still pictures and silent video are OK.

[AngryAmish]

19. This law exists to protect crooked cops and politicians

It puts a damper on newspapers and TV newsers running sting operations.

[Hosnon]

20. Ubiquitous recording devices will help restore balance to the system.

When it is only verbal testimony vs. verbal testimony, the police have the presumption of truth (and can therefore get away with just about anything).

[amorro]

22. Non Police Officials are being recorded too

In Cook County there were three Eavesdropp­ing Cases: People v. Moore, People v. Drew and People v. Melongo. In the first case, the jury acquitted the defendant. In the last two cases, there are pending motions to dismiss. Unlike Mr. Drew who recorded conversations with a Chicago police officer, Melongo recorded conversati­ons with Pamela Taylor for an allegedly altered court transcript­. Mrs. Taylor is a public official working at the cook county criminal court located at 2600th California Ave. Melongo has spent 18 months in jail and 4 months under house-arrest for this offense. This case has been wildly ignored yet it touches the core of a chilling issue, namely corruption within the court system.

1. Melongo's motion : http://tinyurl.com/6nqv2se
2. State's response: http://tinyurl.com/73fwecf


Melongo’s arguments on her motion to dismiss will be heard on March 15th, 2012. The presiding judge is Goebel.

[amorro]

23. RCFP's Article On Melongo's Eavesdropping Case

RCFP's Article On Melongo's Dismissing her Eavesdropping Case:

http://tinyurl.com/cx45d4b

[amorro]

25. NBC2 Investigative Report On Another Eavesdropping Case

This is a two-parts investigative reports on Melongo’s Eavesdropping Case:

http://mywabashvalley.com/fulltext?nxd_id=278052

http://mywabashvalley.com/fulltext?nxd_id=278082