Man faces 75 years for recording police

[Bonobo]

http://boingboing.net/2011/08/31/man-faces-75-years-for-recording-police.html?dlvrit=36761

42-year-old Michael Allison of Illinois could spend the rest of his life in prison for recording police in public. He faces five counts of eavesdropping, a class one felony. Of course, the police are allowed to video people in public with impunity.

The Illinois Assistant Attorney General has joined the case and told the judge that citizens do not have the constitutional right to record police.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. is it fascism yet?

[ixion]

2. yep, it is...

[FiveGoodMen]

18. LONG PAST!

There should be riots over things like this.

[Bluebear]

3. USA! USA!

[FLAprogressive]

4. un.fucking.believable

[ZombieHorde]

5. We would be better off without police than with these types of police officers.

[Drale]

6. I'm guessing this has more to do with the fact that he recorded sound

then that he recorded the police. It's illegal to record sound without getting the persons permission first.

EDIT: Also anyone know where in Illinois this guy was from, but the Southern part of the state might as well join the South.

[virgogal]

8. That's correct. eom

[Bluebear]

9. So sound video recorders at any public place are illegal?

[The Doctor.]

10. Not in public it isn't.

No expectation of privacy while in public.

This is insanity.

[KansDem]

11. What about the "one-party consent" rule? Apparently doesn't hold up in Illinois.

Consent of Parties

Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as “two-party consent” laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping. The more accurate term is "all-party consent."

The situation can get hairy when a person in a one-party consent state calls and records a conversation with a person in an all-party consent state, but does not get that person’s permission. There are several factors that go into which consent law applies. It is generally safer to assume that the stricter, all-party consent law will apply where either the caller or receiver is in an all-party state.

Often, notice will be considered sufficient to find consent. For example, when you call tech support for the laptop you just cannot figure out, the first thing you might hear is "this conversation may be recorded for quality assurance." Most courts hold that, if you speak after hearing this notice, you have given implied consent to the recording and cannot later maintain a civil suit.

There are a host of other exceptions based on legitimate business recordings, crime-tort exceptions, and exceptions for telephone companies. Those will have to wait for another episode.

http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/the-legality-of-recording-conversations.aspx

[KansDem]

12. What if he yelled out "I'm recording you!" Then began recording...

The police would then be aware they were being recorded. I wonder if this strategy would have helped keep him out of prison...

[dog_lovin_dem]

16. He is from Bridgeport,

IL in Lawrence County, which is located on the Indiana border just across the Wabash River from Vincennes, IN. It isn't in the southernmost part of the state, but is a red area for sure. There were reportedly protesters in the neighboring town of Robinson, in Crawford County.

[Booster]

7. Maybe I should take a break from politics for awhile. I just find

myself getting angrier and angrier at our government lately. On YouTube I watched the police arrest a woman who was standing in her own yard video taping the police arresting a guy. The charges were later dropped but that's not really the point. How did this country get so screwed up? Democracy - not hardly.

[Shagbark Hickory]

19. Bad cops making up laws as they go along is nothing new though.

[sfpcjock]

13. If the police can't tell their mace from their gun they should be filmed doing it.

[Maine_Nurse]

14. Wasn't there just a federal court ruling that recording...

public officials in performance of their duties is a legal act? Am I having a twilight zone moment?

[Maine_Nurse]

17. Oops, my bad, that was 1st Circuit, civil rights only apply in New England.nt

[derby378]

15. Welcome to the People's Republic of Illinois

Where guns are restricted, but police are not. Guys, I know you had problems with organized crime last century, but damn.

[lpbk2713]

20. Such irony

In effect they maintain that it is against the law to record those who
are supposed to uphold the law while they are breaking the law.

This sounds like Abbott & Costello's "who's on first" routine.

[Shagbark Hickory]

21. So this means if I get pulled over and and covertly videotape the encounter from the car, then ...

this is legal or illegal??? :shrug: