Question of the day
Tuesday, Aug 24, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller
* This happened last week, and even though I posted it in a roundup, we never really discussed it…
It’s not unusual or illegal for police officers to flip on a camera as they get out of their squad car to talk to a driver they’ve pulled over.
But in Illinois, a civilian trying to make an audio recording of police in action is breaking the law. […]
“It’s a stretch to apply surveillance laws to a situation on the street with an encounter between the police and the public,” said Maryland defense attorney Steven Silverman. “An officer has no expectation of privacy when he makes a traffic stop or arrest in the course of his workday.” […]
Mark Donahue, president of the Fraternal Order of Police in Chicago, said he believes the state’s eavesdropping law is a good one. Allowing people to make audio recordings of arrests “could potentially inhibit an officer from proactively doing his job,” Donahue said.
According to the ACLU, six people have been arrested in Illinois and faced felony charges for making audio recordings of police officers (usually in conjunction with video).
* The Question: Should the state law which makes it a felony to make audio recordings of police be repealed? Explain.
- How Ironic - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 10:21 am:
Yes. While I abhor the ‘gotcha’ videos that have flooded youtube etc, I see ZERO reason to outlaw it. Police are not above the law. If they are on public property doing public work…it (IMHO) is no different than filming anyone else out in public.
- Vote Quimby! - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 10:25 am:
It should be repealed, but politicians would never touch it. Instead the courts will strike it down. With the prevalence of security cameras in all workplaces, it would be hard to justify why police officers should be exempt.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 10:27 am:
Absolutely. Why should the police have a right of privacy on the street? No one else does.
Record a cop, it’s a felony. Lie to an FBI agent (about anything, any time), and it’s a felony. What’s the public purpose of those laws?
- Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 10:28 am:
There is no expectation of privacy for any act in public. As such, any recording is allowed. Illinois should join the tow-thirds of the other states that allow one party consent in recordings, and this type of case needs litigation all the way to SCOTUS.
- Segatari - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 10:29 am:
When did this law get enacted? Who pushed for this law to get enacted? Was the motive to prevent an Illinois “Rodney King” incident?
- MikeMacD - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 10:33 am:
“could potentially inhibit an officer from proactively doing his job,”
How so?
It could also inspire an officer to do their job in a professional manner.
I favor repeal although I’d be interested in knowing what the original intent of the law was.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 10:38 am:
Big difference between recording a police officer in a public place and telling a deliberate lie to impede an investigation.
- Phlegm - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 10:39 am:
I agree with Vote Quimby.
Cops are sacred cows, and no pol is going to risk incurring the wrath of the police unions by taking on this issue. Instead, we will have to hope that the courts do the right thing, by striking down this terrible law.
If cops are obeying the law, why are they afraid of a recording? In many communities, cops are rightly distrusted by the very residents they purportedly protect. A recording would quickly resolve questions about whether a cop acted appropriately or not.
- Conservative Republican - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 10:47 am:
This is completely off topic.
Given what he wrote yesterday, RM is to be greatly commended for his professionalism and his dedication in providing us with substantive news and commentary today. (And this coming from a regular RM critic and comment section “purgee”.)
Mucho kudos.
- Greg B. - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 10:52 am:
I wonder if that state law would survive a Federal challenge on 14th Amendment grounds given the ubiquitous of video and audio — blogging and twittering — in the new age of journalism. But, yeah, stupid law.
- Phil - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 10:58 am:
I’d be in favor of repealing the law. While the police exist to protect the communities they serve and to enforce the law, there are times when police officers abuse the public’s trust and the responsibility they are vested with. Perhaps if police officers were aware that any encounter with the public could be - legally - recorded, we would have a greater assurance that they would perform their duties professionally and properly.
- BigTwich - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 10:59 am:
The law applies to all of us. it ts a felony to record anybody’s conservation without their consent. 720 ILCS 5/14‑2, not just police officers. There is an exemption for recordings, in conjunction with video, made of stops under the vehicle code 720 ILCS 5/14‑3(h)but that exemption does not seen to apply only to recordings made by police officers.
- JustaJoe - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 11:04 am:
Absolutely.
Police can do their jobs properly with no problem.
“Transparency” is a watchword these days.
- Aldyth - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 11:08 am:
Learn from the Burge conviction. The vast majority of cops who are just out there doing their jobs have nothing to fear from having their actions videotaped. Maybe the abusive few will rethink their actions beforehand.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 11:09 am:
It’s kind of odd that as Chicago and other cities install more and more police surveillance cameras to watch us, citizens who videotape police are subject to felony charges for doing pretty much the same thing. Yes, repeal the law. If having more video available is a good thing, under that logic, then having citizens free to tape them can’t be a bad thing.
But just the same, I’d advise my fellow citizens to exercise caution and restraint when taping Chicago’s finest in action. Those cameras can be expensive to repair or replace.
- dupage dan - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 11:16 am:
Police taping traffic stops has had a beneficial effect since it helps prove that there was no “brutality” as some allege. Makes drunk driving convictions easier. As long as we can make sure that the personal taping includes enough footage that it shows the event, rather than just the juicy parts. The acts are occuring in public - where is any expectation of privacy?
Repeal it, overturn it.
- Louis Howe - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 11:21 am:
I can’t believe banning videotaping police with sound withstands a court challenge. It’s another step down the road to a fascist police state.
- MrJM - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 11:24 am:
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
In a democracy the answer must be the people. And electronic recordings are a legitimate 21st century tool for the people to guard the guardians.
– MrJM
- Ghost - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 11:26 am:
yes it should be repealed.
Look at the history of it. IL law was passed by a nervous legislature who were afraid they were being recorded. IL law requires two party consent. Fed law only requires one party to the conversation consent to recording it.
The idea that a party to a conversation cannot record it is bad. There is no provacy concern in the convesation since the comments are directed at the party involved. it encourages people to lie by having everyone rely on imperfect recall etc.
IL should require only one party consent to record.
- fedup dem - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 11:43 am:
We should try to repeal this piece of garbage before a judge throws it out. If the legislators refuse to repeal it, the judge should assess a fine of one month’s pay to every legislator who voted against repeal. Of course, that will never happen, but it would be highly appropriate and would result in the legislators suddenly developing some political courage when similar measures come before them for a vote.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 11:56 am:
Repeal this stupid law now. I actually just saw a program on TV about this same law in Maryland. It’s not even being enforced equally in the state. Some prosecutors are gung ho about nailing people for it, while other prosectors have not charged anyone b/c they believe it is absurd for a police officer to have an expectation of privacy when doing his/her job in public. Police officers should welcome taping and recordings of any kind as they would show that an officer is doing his/her job by the book. If they aren’t and are caught b/c of public recording, then good. They shouln’t be on the streets anyway.
- grand old partisan - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 12:25 pm:
On principal, I agree with what most people here have said. However, think about it from the police officer’s prospective for a moment. In most cities cops are stretched to the breaking point by severe understaffing; and in Chicago they legitimately fear for their own lives on a daily basis. Now imagine going through your shift – overworked and worried about getting shot - with the possibility that you could end up being secretly taped.
I understand the idea is that the possibility of being taped would serve as a check on ‘unprofessional’ behavior. But as political animals, we here have all seen first hand how out-of-context recordings can ruin a career. That is what the cops are legitimately afraid of. And right now, it’s not fair to add more stress to their lives.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 12:34 pm:
We embrace the future by mastering it, not by turning it off.
- DRB - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 12:34 pm:
As it is legal for the police to videotape their actions, it should be just as legal for citizens to videotape police.
- Gregor - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 12:38 pm:
Repeal. Cops should conduct themselves on duty as if they ARE under surveillance. The “discretion” that was used for an excuse is all about CYA when a cop decides to play judge out in the field, and give a warning where the law calls for something stiffer.
Rich Whitney or Scott Cohen could make a lot of hay by making the repeal back to single-party recording into an election issue.
Even Quinn could use it, with the excuse that the public has a right to see the law enforced correctly in all cases.
- Donalbain - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 12:42 pm:
In a public place, why not audio along with video?
It would show when an arrestee is resisting too much or why force escalated. That said, it’s incumbent on the videographer to stay far enough back that they’re not interfering with operations. I cannot see why recording in a public place should violate wiretapping laws.
- Leave a Light on George - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 12:43 pm:
A history lesson is in order. This law was originally written to hinder the police not protect them.
First off in our state it is the audio not the video that was the original source of controversy. Long before today’s tiny video cameras and cell phones with the ability to record video and audio the police along with a few other government agencies were the only ones with access to decent, concealable equipment that could reliably record video/audio. Our legislators were afraid, literally, of the possibility of themselves being caught on tape taking bribes and doing other dirty deeds. So they wrote a law.
The law said no one could audio record another without the consent of all parties. Included in the law was the unusual wording that said we mean even (especially) you the police. Needless to say this greatly hampered state law enforcement officers in drug and conspiracy investigations which is why in Illinois the really spectacular cases were made by the fed’s who were not similarly constrained.
Slowly, over time the camel began to get in the tent and Illinois law enforcement why still very constrained compared to other states gained some ability to record the subjects of a few crimes(contract murder, some serious drug crimes etc.)
As time moved forward and small recording devices became generally available, some criminals started recording the police without their (the police’s) knowledge. On rare occasion the police would then charge the person with recording without consent of all the parties involved.
So the point of this long ramble is that the law we are complaining about was not put in place to protect the cops but rather to hinder them.
- Todd - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 1:14 pm:
there was a federal case about this a couple of years ago.
Guy even won damages.
here is the link:
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0847P.pdf
- Todd - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 1:19 pm:
I know that this case covers somehting a bit different, but if you have the right to video tape cops in a public place, I don’t se how the eavesdropping law survives
from the decision:
No reasonable trooper could have believed that
Robinson’s videotaping on October 23, 2002 constituted harassment
under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 2709. That statute provides, in
relevant part: “[a] person commits the crime of harassment when,
with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another, the person: …
(2) follows the other person in or about a public place or
places; [or] (3) engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly
commits acts which serve no legitimate purpose.” Id. at
§ 2709(a)(2) & (3). Significantly, the statute continues:
“[t]his section shall not apply … to any constitutionally
protected activity.” Id. at § 2709(e).
At the trial in this case, Fetterman, Rigney, and Riek
all admitted that Robinson’s videotaping of police activity is
not unlawful in itself. They posited, however, that they
arrested Robinson for doing so because of his prior harassment
-9-
conviction and because of the statement of the District Justice
that Robinson was “not to go near these troopers for any reasons
while they were performing their duties on Route 41.” The
reasons given for barring Robinson from filming the truck
inspections are totally lacking in merit…..
We recognize that the defendants maintain that they
were relying on what the District Justice had said at the 2000
court proceeding. We find this totally unconvincing. No state
trooper could have reasonably believed that the oral statement of
the District Justice, unaccompanied by anything in writing and
made over two years before the incident in question in this
lawsuit, constituted a formal restraining order to be enforced by
arresting Robinson under the facts as presented here.
- fed up - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 1:36 pm:
It is only legal for police to record a stop that is for an IL. state traffic violation. That is all that can be recorded. It is illegal for anyone to record anyone’s conversation in IL without consent. Hmm I wonder if politicians will really change that. P.S. Wordslinger it is only Illegal to lie to the feds if it obstructs or hinders their investigation.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 1:41 pm:
===It is illegal for anyone to record anyone’s conversation in IL without consent.===
Not true. There’s an exemption for situations where privacy is not expected.
- Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 1:43 pm:
fed up,
“P.S. Wordslinger it is only Illegal to lie to the feds if it obstructs or hinders their investigation.”
This is an interesting statement. Does that mean that Rod’s statement to the Feds saying there was a “firewall” inhibited their investigation? Those Feds are even stupider than I thought!
- Fed up - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 1:58 pm:
Rich please clarify when you believe their is no expectation of privacy. You and your intern outside the state capital cannot be recorded. Unless it’s public event the expectation of privacy is pretty wide here in il. I agree it’s a silly law but I don’t think it’s for the benefit of the police I believe a certain group that makes the laws in Il. Doesn’t care for the idea of being recorded.
- Leave a Light on George - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 2:19 pm:
===It is illegal for anyone to record anyone’s conversation in IL without consent.===
Illinois law enforcement officers with permission from a judge while investigating some very specific crimes may audio record a criminal suspect without his knowledge. However, there are some ridiculous (IMO) caveats attached. Like, after a short period of a few days even if you haven’t charged the person and it will blow the case you have to inform them that they were recorded!
- jake - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 2:53 pm:
It should be permitted to make recordings of police when the police are in the act of stopping, arresting, or interrogating people. I can’t see how that can inhibit an officer from doing what he or she should do, but can certainly see how it could inhibit improper behavior. It should also work the other way; i.e., police should also be free to make such recordings. All the records should be made available to all parties in the incident. It can only help justice to have as accurate a record as possible of such incidents.
- Jaxxe - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 4:55 pm:
Yes! As a police officer many of the conversations between myself and the subject on the street are confidential. How are we supposed to gain intelligence if people are allowed to record us at anytime?
It’s hard enough in a rough neighborhood to determine if the onlookers are friendsly or foe, let alone have to deal with people recording you so that they can put it up on youtube or start a law suit.
Be a police officer for a day and see if your opinion changes????
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 6:02 pm:
My recollection is that the statute was amended in the mid 90s and whether the subject has an expectation of privacy is no longer relevant. Thus even if you say something in the workplace or a store in earshot of others you cannot be recorded without your consent.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 6:34 pm:
Mark Donahue. What a piece of …… That’s the nicest thing I can say about him.
Defended John Ardelean (who drank shots of “water” for 3 hours, defended Officers Emma Diaz, Gary Ohlson, and Michael Glynn who lied under oath in a DUI crash that killed two kids.
One set of laws for the CPD, another set of laws for us.
- Little Egypt - Tuesday, Aug 24, 10 @ 7:14 pm:
The horse cannot be put back into the barn. There are too many mini cams, camera phones, etc. that people can/will use to videotape a policeman. And as we have seen with top secret military memos released recently, there will always be someone willing to place their neck on the chopping block to publish a video which could out a cop who has crossed the line.