Illinois judge: law barring recording police is unconstitutional

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/illinois-judge-law-barring-recording-police-is-unconstitutional.ars

by timwiseman • 14 years ago

257 37 14 years ago

joezydeco• 14 years ago

Couldn't have come at a better time, with the G8 and NATO summits taking place in Chicago this summer. Should be a fun time.

afterburner• 14 years ago

Class 1 felony charge? Something's wrong with law enforcement in Illinois... or I guess slightly less wrong now. But how does this kind of BS pass muster in the first place.

click170• 14 years ago

The same way Bush was elected. Apathy.

ktizo3• 14 years ago

surely apathy would result in nobody being elected?

dsr_• 14 years ago

Two reasons:

1. The proponent of the new law wants the support of the police union, appear to be tough on crime, and point to his support for law and order in the next election. 'Protecting people' -- with a subtext of 'people like you, my campaign donors'.

2. The rest of the legislators are either in on party lines, want to show law-and-order support, or just didn't pay attention. Yes, I'm serious about that last bit.

When was the last time you heard of laws being repealed voluntarily rather than being found unconstitutional? Massachusetts' knife laws read as though the person who wrote them had just been watched a 1970s martial-arts film marathon and called it research. In New York you can sell slingshots that you can't legally possess.

Look at the incentives for legislators: they're not well-aligned with the goals of having a good government, no matter what you think that means. All the incentives are to pass more legislation or to score political points that bear little resemblance to what ordinary rational citizens want.

It's not just Illinois.

ww5203• 14 years ago

'Protecting people' include protecting people from people abuse. I don't know why the politicians think it's a one-way treatment.

pyre• 14 years ago

  > When was the last time you heard of laws being repealed

For the most part, laws aren't 'repealed' anymore. They just pass a new law that says the old law doesn't count anymore, making the legal code even more obtuse.

robomartin• 14 years ago

To be expected with a political system that rewards pandering.

tvon• 14 years ago

"Everyone has a video camera on them these days, and the last thing we need is honest cops being taken off of the street because some lawsuit happy ambulance chaser thinks they can make a quick buck off of the police department."

pessimizer• 14 years ago

"In the recording, which the one juror said was replayed several times in the jury room, Alejo was heard explaining to Moore that she might be wasting her time because it was basically her word against that of the patrol officer. Alejo also said they could 'almost guarantee' that the officer would never bother her again if she dropped the complaint.

"'When we heard that, everyone (on the jury) just shook their head,' juror Adams said in a telephone interview. 'If what those two investigators were doing wasn't criminal, we felt it bordered on criminal, and she had the right to record it.'"

ck2• 14 years ago

Of course it is.

Now try filing a complaint about the police, but you have to go through the police to do it - good luck with that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8v7lF5ttlQ

No online form, no independent civilian agency, no state or federal oversight - they make you go through them, and you most certainly do not want to do that (warning that video is going to make your blood boil halfway though).

nokcha• 14 years ago

>Now try filing a complaint about the police, but you have to go through the police to do it - good luck with that.

If city police officers intentionally violated one's rights, one can sue the offending officers (and the municipality [1]) in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (However, under Supreme Court case law, officers have qualified immunity for honest mistakes.)

>No ... federal oversight - they make you go through them

You can file a complaint with the US Department of Justice. http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/polmis.php

It is true that police officers get away with too much misconduct, but it's not true that there is no independent oversight whatsoever.

[1] Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Svcs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978).

CWuestefeld2• 14 years ago

under Supreme Court case law, officers have qualified immunity for honest mistakes

And thus, police agencies have incentive to keep their officers ignorant about the rights of the people. If the police are never taught the law, then any "mistake" they make is clearly the result of ignorance rather malicious intent. But if they're properly educated, then they'll be responsible for their own actions.

MartinCron• 14 years ago

This sort of story helps restore my confidence in the justice system. Even when stupid (well-meaning, whatever) legislation like this gets passed, it eventually gets challenged and thrown out.

ChuckMcM• 14 years ago

Agreed. However you'll notice the reasoning for the lack of constitutionality was the reach (and the example of capturing side conversations at the soccer game was good) not the intent.

Some original legal theory behind the 'one of the participants is ok with it.' was based on the notion that this person could also testify to it (being a participant). I would really like that reasoning to be re-asserted more widely but that has yet to happen.

ww5203• 14 years ago

There's no expectation of privacy in public area. I thought that has been pretty well established.

steve-howard2• 14 years ago

There's no expectation of sanity in Illinois. I hate living here.

ww5203• 14 years ago

Haha, but Illinois will set a precedent to lead the rest of the country in this case. Kudos to the judge.

Lockyy• 14 years ago

Didn't the recent ruling on the FBI using gps trackers in cars disagree with that? I'm pretty sure the entire ruling was that despite being in public a person has a reasonable expectation of the privacy of where they are traveling and so to track them would require a warrant.

rprasad• 14 years ago

There is a difference between being in public and being followed. You have no expectation of not being seen while in public, but you do have a reasonable expectation not to be followed everywhere you go, including into presumably non-public (i.e,. privately-owned) properties.

In the GPS case, the use of GPS trackers could include (and frequently did include) "following" a person into private property where the follower would not otherwise have permission to be, i.e.., the doctor's office, lawyer's office, etc.

aswanson2• 14 years ago

Continuously stunned by the general acceptance of the public to the right of secrecy of those entrusted with the power of life and death over them. Police should be continuously monitored from the moment they pick up their pistol in the public service until they are off duty.

meatsock• 14 years ago

i have never heard of a better use of crowdsourcing. [ed: grammar]

wisty• 14 years ago

I'm not too keen on that. They should have some privacy when they aren't interacting with the public. Nobody wants to be taped while they are eating, or discussing things with a colleague. And the more unpleasant it is to be a police officer, the worse officers you'll get.

However, they should monitor themselves (with video) whenever they are interacting with the public. This helps them gather solid evidence. If they "forgot" to turn on the camera, or "lost" the disk, the judge and jury should be asking why.

aswanson2• 14 years ago

Absolutely agree. I meant for 'on duty' to imply public interaction. Public servant labor should be as transparent to the public as humanly possible.

krambs• 14 years ago

And think about it the other way too: A police officer should want to be recorded while on duty and interacting with citizens. No more false accusations of police brutality, etc. The recording doesn't even have to be public - just available at a moment's notice by court order at least.

wavephorm• 14 years ago

Doesn't matter. Given the authoritarian manner the US federal government has been acting lately pretty much guarantees some sort of ban on recording authorities at "international events" will be in effect for Chicago G8 meeting in May. And when the shit inevitably hits the fan they'll just use the revolt as an excuse to implement similar nation-wide bans.

AJ007• 14 years ago

I reviewed the Illinois law a while back -- if you even had a security system on private property you were breaking the law. I imagine that a large percentage of Illinois' business were being run by non-convicted felons.

Illinois judge: law barring recording police is unconstitutional

Related Stories