Chicago PD

[mechanicx]

This is an interesting article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/08...ml?ncid=webmail . Here is a good excerpt from the news story:
Quote:
This Robinson, Ill., man is facing four counts of violating the eavesdropping law for the recordings he made of police officers and a judge. Allison was suing the city to challenge a local zoning ordinance that prevented him from enjoying his hobby fixing up old cars: The municipal government was seizing his cars from his property and forcing him to pay to have them returned. Allison believed the local police were harassing him in retaliation for his lawsuit, so he began to record his conversations with them.

When Allison was eventually charged with violating the zoning ordinance, he asked for a court reporter to ensure there would be a record of his trial. He was told that misdemeanor charges didn't entitle him to a court reporter. So Allison told court officials he'd be recording his trial with a digital recorder.

When Allison walked into the courtroom the day of his trial, the judge had him arrested for allegedly violating her right to privacy. Police then confiscated Allison's digital recorder, where they also found the recordings he'd made of his conversations with cops.

Allison has no prior criminal record. If convicted, he faces up to 75 years in prison.



Pretty scary

.

 

[chubbs1]

WOW! That is scary. Police State type stuff.

 

[Lead Shoes]

[censored] its almost getting as bad as it is in Russia ^.^

 

[mechanicx]

Well the article seems to says that only Illinois and Chicago PD are doing these particular things and to this extreme. Most states you are free to record the police as it should be.

 

[JHZR2]

Since when is there a right to privacy executing an official function in a public office with peers around.

Sounds excessive. Cant imagine the situation will stand.

 

[MonumentOiler]

In most places you are free to record but sometimes the law requires that you notify the other party.

Rules that ban recordings inside a court room are common but usually there is a stenographer or clerk recording the proceedings but not recording things like bench conferences ect ....

An abuse like this guy facing 75 years could result in a change in the law.

 

[javacontour]

Seems this was in a court room, I wonder if that makes a difference?

I can't see preventing someone from recording in the court room. But they may be able to issue a gag order to prevent the trial from being taken public?

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
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.

Regardless of the state, it is almost always illegal to record a conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent to tape, and could not naturally overhear.

Federal law and most state laws also make it illegal to disclose the contents of an illegally intercepted call or communication.

At least 24 states have laws outlawing certain uses of hidden cameras in private places, although many of the laws are specifically limited to attempts to record nudity. Also, many of the statutes concern unattended hidden cameras, not cameras hidden on a person engaged in a conversation. Journalists should be aware, however, that the audio portion of a videotape will be treated under the regular wiretapping laws in any state. And regardless of whether a state has a criminal law regarding cameras, undercover recording in a private place can prompt civil lawsuits for invasion of privacy.

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

If the judge does not consent, then he is in fact breaking the law. These laws are specifically to protect public officials from the prying eyes of the public.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.

Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.

The legal justification for arresting the "shooter" rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where "no expectation of privacy exists" (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.

http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

This is the respect that police and judges have for the citizens they "protect".

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
Seems this was in a court room, I wonder if that makes a difference?

I can't see preventing someone from recording in the court room. But they may be able to issue a gag order to prevent the trial from being taken public?


The article is quite long and points out basically a corrupt PD and laws and legal system that protects it by preventing and punishing anyone from recording their actions. IMO public officials especially have no right to privacy when carrying out their duty. I agree maybe that in a court room the judge should be able to not allow a video recording of them personally, but I don't think they should be able to stop video recording of the court proceeding in general. And to claim it is a felony wire tapping offense is ridiculous.

 

[OriginalRocket]

Agreed. I had night classes with 12 other CPD officers. The way they view the public is everyone is a criminal, they just have not been caught yet. They have a unwritten rule. Follow a car, or person for two blocks, and you will have something to arrest/Terry Stop them.

As for the recordings. The judge is following the law, to the max, but is legal.

If you have a recording of any kind with police, or public officials, get a lawyer, do not let anyone else know.

 

[dparm]

I swear, Chicago will never break free of that image....

 

[CATERHAM]

Clearly excessive police and judical power and control.
But as has been mentioned she should have gotten a lawyer and I'm sure she has one now.

But excessive police power is not restricted to Chicago.
It's a virtual Police State in my province of Ontario on the roads. There is a whole list of offences that technically qualify as "racing" including speeding 93 mph on the freeway.
The penalty is an immediate one week licence suspension and empoundment of your car all without due process. In the past four years there have been something like 20,000 racing charges 99% which are for speeding. They are often withdrawn before even going to trial or reduced to a minor speeding offence.
The police don't care because they have already gotten their pound of flesh on the side of the highway. Part of the problem is that there is a culture of lying with the police since they cannot be charged with perjury.

 

[oilboy123]

Yes I had my own run in with the Everett, Wa legal system 20yrs ago. Changed the way I viewed the leagal system that's the best in the world.
If ours is the best Have Mercy on people in other countries. There are many law enforcent, procecutors etc etc that think you are automatically guilty. I thought you were presumed innocent as well, ha ha that's a fairy tail.......

They are really slamming that guy, I hope he comes out in one piece. Seattl Police Dept has had guys getting busted for kicking, beating suspects etc in recent years. An American Indian guy was gunned down in downtown Seattle and the guy resigned because they found he went over the line. If it had been a citizen that shot him that citizen would be in prison. I think it's getting to the point that all law enforcement is going to be wearing webcams showing everything that is going on out in the field.

I thought I saw that some Seattle bike, or beat walking cops were doing a trial with web cams. I have respect for the law, but everybody should be held accountable.

 

[river_rat]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
These laws are specifically to protect public officials from the prying eyes of the public.

That's the problem. We should know what they are doing.
However, you can videotape employees in the office if you are the boss, in most places.

 

[Bladecutter]

The guy should have shown up with a fresh tape in his recorder.
You NEVER carry around your only copy of your evidence.

In this instance, he lost all his evidence, and gave the people he was trying to expose plenty of evidence to use against him.

I hope one of those groups that protect people from over-zealous government and police actions takes pity on him, and provides legal assistance for him, otherwise he's really buggered himself, but good.

BC.

 

[volvos_rock]

This article is from the Huffington Post, an outstanding news orginization

If he was taping without the consent of the judge, or the Police, at other times as the article seems to suggest, then in most states (listed in others replies) what he did was in fact illegal. And in keeping with the outsatnding reporting from the Huff, you can not be arrested for violating someones right to privacy (sued yes, held in contempt yes,he had to violate the wire tap laws, or some other specific law or ordinance). He should have hired his own stenographer.

 

[mechanicx]

I don't care what news organization wrote the article. What they're doing in Illinios and the Chicago PD is indefensible.

What you are saying is not true. In most states no one including public officials have an expectation of privacy in public. Court proceedings are supposed to be a matter of public record. No one was ever wire tapping any public officials. It is just opressive and corrupt officials abusing an already over reaching law to harasses the public and keep it cover it up. Only the corrupt need to hide their actions from the light of day.

 

[eljefino]

The judge has latitude to decide what sort of record keeping goes on in his courtroom. However it is public court and the defendant in this case could have brought his own lawyer, stenographer or other witnesses.

This is why we have courtroom sketch artists; photography is sometimes banned.

Judge Ito caught flack for allowing all sorts of video cameras in the OJ trial. He could legally have been tighter.

As for cops working in public or on the defendant's property, he has every right to tape what they're doing.

 

[nazareth]

Originally Posted By: volvos_rock
This article is from the Huffington Post, an outstanding news orginization

If he was taping without the consent of the judge, or the Police, at other times as the article seems to suggest, then in most states (listed in others replies) what he did was in fact illegal. And in keeping with the outsatnding reporting from the Huff, you can not be arrested for violating someones right to privacy (sued yes, held in contempt yes,he had to violate the wire tap laws, or some other specific law or ordinance). He should have hired his own stenographer.


and people like you are the problem