45 Comments - Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 10:26 am: Like State Rep. Derrick Smith, officers of the law should always behave as though the whole world is watching and listening. Ask Rodney King. - OneMan - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 10:28 am: “Why should (the police) have to go get a court order to record these people when these people can record them?” What? So if I am be interegated and they record me they have to have a court order? Don’t think so? Using that argument dude mean that every dashboard camera requires a court order before it is turned on… If you are going to complain about a proposed law at least get your facts sort of right.. - JN - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 10:41 am: ==We should not be creating an atmosphere where people [try] to catch them (doing things)== Someone needs to start recording this guy. ==the bill opens the possibility for citizens to alter audio recordings of interactions with police to make them look bad== Bad behavior and poor judgement make the police look bad, not audio recordings. ==Why should (the police) have to go get a court order to record these people when these people can record them== We are talking about either a public setting, where the police already record altercations, and private settings, where the police are already require either a warrant or probable cause. - siriusly - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 10:41 am: I think the law prohibiting recording by citizens is a total infringement on our individual rights. Sure someone could edit or manipulate a recording. You could also punch yourself in the face and say that the policeman did it, but that doesn’t make it so. - Plutocrat03 - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 10:54 am: So the the fact that the courts have said that it is unconstitutional has no weight? And you wonder why these lightweights a) have a job and b) can ever come to grips with doing something that is hard….. - Todd - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 10:56 am: The fact that the bill failed, mneans the chance that we will get a much bvetter statute than the limited change the bill offered. the law as written is much worse then just the issue with cops. - Solomon - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 10:56 am: It’s also miraculously easy to edit down video to portray police encounters from a remarkably misleading perspective. Police are held to a high level of scrutiny already, and I can’t quite see how people sticking cameras accusingly in cops’ faces improves their ability to do their jobs. - Small Town Liberal - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 10:58 am: Wow, I thought this was a no brainer. Reboletti’s comment doesn’t even make sense, ask Randy Ramey. - Colossus - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 11:04 am: There aren’t many issues that, on their own, throw me into a full on spittle-flecked rampage, but this is one of them. It is beyond my comprehension how someone is able to say that, in an interaction between a private citizen and a police officer, only the agent of the government gets the benefit of recording the encounter. Yeah, sure, it’s easy to edit things to make people look bad, but it’s virtually impossible for someone to do it and not get caught. It’s also easy to prove that edits were made. I have much more experience than the average person editing audio files, and I know I couldn’t whip up something to pass muster with a lazy reporter, much less one actually trying to do her job. I’ve said it here before and will again: Interactions with the police are the very reason we have the Bill of Rights, because the police are the enforcement arm of the government and it is the police that are far more likely to violate your rights than the legislature. Not beceause they are bad people, or the enemy, but because of the very nature of what they do. The more methods we have to keep everyone, citizens AND police, on their toes and following the rules, the better off we will be. - wordslinger - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 11:04 am: “Why should (the police) have to go get a court order to record these people when these people can record them?” said Rep. Dennis Reboletti, R-Elmhurst. Rep. Reboletti, who are “these people,” you refer to? Citizens? Some serious conservative libertarians at work there the in the House GOP. These GOP lawmakers think any citizen can pack a concealed weapon, but can’t record their interaction with the police? Where in the Constitution does the state derive the power to keep you from hitting the “record” button? The dirty little secret is that these lawmakers don’t won’t the possibility that warrantless, admissible-to-court recordings could be made of them without their knowledge. Ask them why. I’m sure Rep. Smith would approve. - Anonymous - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 11:06 am: “…the bill opens the possibility for citizens to alter audio recordings of interactions with police to make them look bad.” Really? Let’s create a scenario that may never happen and use it as an excuse to not do the right thing! Wouldn’t it be better to make it a crime to alter a recording for the purpose of making a police officer look like they did something they didn’t? - Ron Burgundy - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 11:10 am: – “Why should (the police) have to go get a court order to record these people when these people can record them?” – Because “these people” are in jeopardy of losing their liberty, while the police officer is at most in danger of losing his/her job. - dupage dan - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 11:12 am: As a right leaning person I am embarassed at the comments by these GOP fools. No cop needs a court order to record me if I call the PD or am questionned by them. It is false logic. In addition the technology exists that can determine if a recording (auditory and/or visual) has been tampered with. Re the whole “gotcha” thing - really? You gonna stick by that? Frankly, the idea of police dash cams ware problemmatic until the cops saw that it also protected them from creeps making false accusations. Goes both ways. Sheesh. - Kerfuffle - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 11:12 am: “We should not be creating an atmosphere where people enter this ‘got you’ mode and try to tape law enforcement, trying to catch them (doing things),” Watson said. If the officers aren’t doing anything wrong then there shouldn’t be any worry on their part. - Solomon - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 11:18 am: “If the officers aren’t doing anything wrong then there shouldn’t be any worry on their part.” Really? I’ve seen cops break up fights and resolve dangerous situations in ways that, taken out of context, could make them look abusive and awful. Put in context, their use of force was measured and justified. - wordslinger - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 11:22 am: –Really? I’ve seen cops break up fights and resolve dangerous situations in ways that, taken out of context, could make them look abusive and awful. Put in context, their use of force was measured and justified.– Are you for real? Are you saying that the police can’t do their jobs except in secret? You don’t have a lot of respect for the good work that they do. Or for citizens, either. - SAP - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 11:24 am: The police have to get a warrant for a recording to be admissable in court, not to make the recording. The police will not be guilty of a felony if they fail to get a warrant. John Q. Public’s warrantless recording of the police should not make him guilty of a felony. - Solomon - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 11:29 am: “You don’t have a lot of respect for the good work that they do. Or for citizens, either.” Right, by expressing concerns about the likely negative outcomes of this bill, I am clearly disrespecting both police officers and citizens. Astonishing theory, professor. - wordslinger - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 11:33 am: –Right, by expressing concerns about the likely negative outcomes of this bill, I am clearly disrespecting both police officers and citizens. Astonishing theory, professor.– The only outcome, wise man, is that there would be a record of what occurred. By the way, if you’re going to adopt the handle “Solomon,” you better bring some game. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 11:38 am: @Wordslinger - You can’t solely blame the GOP. I count atleast 9 members of the Black or Latino caucuses among the votes against. - mark walker - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 11:39 am: The current law is an outrageous attack on individual liberty, completely out of proportion relative to the needs of the police to do their jobs. The courts should get rid of this quickly. A felony for a citizen to record a public official doing their job in public? Why not throw the press in jail, if they try to record a crowd of demonstrators being addressed by cops? Are you kidding me? - Solomon - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 11:40 am: Yes, a record that is easily manipulated. - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 11:40 am: ===how people sticking cameras accusingly in cops’ faces=== The bill requires a non-interference zone. Try not to get all hysterical on us here. It really makes you look out of place. - Solomon - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 11:41 am: That was @Wordslinger’s comment, btw - Small Town Liberal - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 11:41 am: - “…the bill opens the possibility for citizens to alter audio recordings of interactions with police to make them look bad.” - Reminds me of the Bill Hicks line about the Rodney King trial: “Well, if you play the tape in reverse, you see us help King up and send him on his way.” - wordslinger - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 11:48 am: –Yes, a record that is easily manipulated.– I think you’re pulling our legs. I understand the lawmakers concerns — they don’t want anyone recording them. Still, I think someone should pull the plug on that “Cops” show. “Bad boys, bad boys, what you going to do….” - Chicago Cynic - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 11:59 am: When I first heard about this, I was astonished that we had this outrageous infringement of citizen first amendment rights. I figured that once Elaine took this on it would be quickly and easily disposed of. Astonishing. Even for someone as cynical as me, this strikes me as a new low for legislative idiocy. Read your history people. The first amendment is there for a reason. This law will soon be history thanks to the courts. But in the meantime, watch for some absurd prosecutions under it during the NATO events. - Colossus - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 12:00 pm: Solomon - Please, aside from the possiblity of manipulation (which exists for both sides, not just citizens), what makes this bill unacceptable to you? - Colossus - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 12:00 pm: Word, I don’t know that I’ve ever seen that written out as “what you going to do.” I believe “whatcha gonna do” will suffice. - JN - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 12:10 pm: == A record that is easily manipulated. == I think this position neglects a unwritten but guaranteed consequence of this (or similar) legislation. As it is, a police officer is already recorded for the vast majority of his shift. It is virtually guaranteed that the situation will occur where a nefarious individual will attempt to falsify a audio record of an officer’s actions. The simplest way to counter this situation is for both parties to separately record the incident. Within a few months of this legislation’s enactment, I’d expect that all police officers will recorded (and more importantly, archived) 100% of the time they are on duty. With this procedure in place, the risk of manipulation is very low, and the need for the public to actually record a police encounter will be very low as well. - Kerfuffle - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 12:26 pm: I’m not seeing prosecutors rushing to appeal the decisions to higher courts when lower courts toss arrests for this type of citizen behavior out. Will it ever make it to the Supremes? - Leave a Light on George - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 12:37 pm: Just make Illinois a one party consent state and we can all audio record one another as much as we want. to. - Newsclown - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 12:49 pm: This week, two things have changed me from a lifetime fan of Mike Madigan into someone who wants to see the Speakership given to someone else, anybody else. Not doing the manly and right thing in the Smith affair, and killing this bill. it show to me the party and their partisanship have finally crossed a line into despotism, and I don’t care how overly-dramatic that sounds. The cops have us all living in the Panopticon already. There is no logical excuse for why citizens can’t record public servants in public without needing a warrant. To prevent despotism, we must demand equal rights to record the facts and then let a judge and jury weigh them. To quote law enforcement;s favorite line: “If you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.” - buck - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 12:59 pm: They must be afraid of getting caught. Cops like to enter gotcha mode and catch you speeding. Maybe they should put up signs when they are running radar. - Allen Skillicorn - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 1:08 pm: What’s worse an atmosphere of ‘got you’ or the appearance that legislators are preventing accountability? I am a firm believer in accountability and transparency and find this role call unacceptable. Nothing like living in a state that ranks very high in any corruption survey and our law makers living in denial. - reformer - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 1:23 pm: Can some defender of the status quo explain why it should be a felony to record a cop making an arrest? It seems to me that felonies ought to be reserved for serious offenses that cause proven harm. - reformer - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 1:32 pm: This is another case where the courts will do what the legislature refuses to do. It’s shameful that someone who makes an audio recording of, say, police beating a suspect, will be charged as felons. - reformer - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 1:34 pm: Mark W I agree with your statement, though I note all the Democratic targets voted NO. If you were still in the House, would you have ignored staff to vote your conscience? - Oz - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 1:36 pm: The link says it all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzII3kwgg58 - Just Observing - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 1:47 pm: === Can some defender of the status quo explain why it should be a felony to record a cop making an arrest? === I can explain… the police unions don’t won’t their members caught acting inappropriately so they convinced the legislature to make it a felony. This is a sickening abuse of citizen rights, and shame on the legislators for not passing this. Recording police officers has and will continue to both exonerate and convict both citizens and police officers who act unlawfully — the legislators that have voted no on this have chosen politics over people. - wishbone - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 1:52 pm: Yet another stain on Illinois. - William - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 1:58 pm: Just FYI, the state police are already required to record all their interactions with the public. - reformer - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 2:24 pm: JO Thanks for your persuasive answer! Even notice how everyone is for transparency — for someone else. - lincoln's beard - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 3:30 pm: This is a big setback for the new television show I’ve been pitching — a hybrid of COPS, Candid Camera, and the Bachelor(ette), wherein we’d stage disabled vehicles on Illinois highways, accompanied by beautiful, scantily-clad reality-show contestants posing as motorists in trouble. Sparks would fly, and maybe we’d make a love connection for a lonely state trooper. Your loss, Illinois cops. - Squideshi - Friday, Mar 23, 12 @ 4:00 pm: So, according to Illinois law, it was illegal to take this video and AUDIO recording of a Chicago Police officer saying, “Your first amendment right can be terminated if you cause a scene… or whatever.” Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.