
Illinois judge: law barring recording police is unconstitutional - timwiseman
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/illinois-judge-law-barring-recording-police-is-unconstitutional.ars
======
pessimizer
Very related case: [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-08-25/news/ct-met-
ea...](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-08-25/news/ct-met-
eavesdropping-trial-0825-20110825_1_eavesdropping-law-police-officers-law-
enforcement)

"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
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
>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).

~~~
CWuestefeld
_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.

~~~
tincholio
Ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse, ever. What's your point?

~~~
CWuestefeld
_Ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse, ever. What's your point?_

No, and that _is_ my point. Government agents enjoy qualified immunity. They
aren't personally responsible for their actions if they can show that they
were ignorant of the law.

(and since you weren't aware of this, I think that demonstrates that it's an
important point to make)

------
aswanson
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.

~~~
wisty
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.

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

------
afterburner
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.

~~~
dsr_
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.

~~~
pyre

      > 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.

~~~
shabble
On occasion I've idly wondered about what would happen if you started
enforcing a relatively strict '1 in, 1 out' policy.

There must be plenty of crap on the books that either is completely outdated,
subsumed by other more recent statutes, or could be implemented as an
amendment to another item.

Extreme refactoring! (also potentially life imprisonment if you fail a test-
case)

------
AJ007
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.

------
joezydeco
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.

------
ww520
There's no expectation of privacy in public area. I thought that has been
pretty well established.

~~~
steve-howard
There's no expectation of sanity in Illinois. I hate living here.

~~~
ww520
Haha, but Illinois will set a precedent to lead the rest of the country in
this case. Kudos to the judge.

~~~
steve-howard
I wish I could agree, but I doubt it. It's a matter of state law for one, and
for another,

" In this particular case, however, Judge Sacks seemed to declare Illinois'
law unconstitutional not because it's a citizen's right to record interactions
between the police and the public, but because the law was too far-reaching. "

i.e. the judge is saying the law is unconstitutional not because the cops
should be held accountable, but because it has the potential to criminalize
almost any recording made in a public place. The article in the Sun-Times
linked says the legislature is trying to fix the root problem, which is good.
Pisses me off to see the police unions pushing back, even though it's to be
expected.

------
MartinCron
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
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.

------
wavephorm
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.

