I can't stand cops who abuse their power!!!

[JohnPaul]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: JohnPaul

Look, I never called him a racist pig, I only stated that it is possible, since there was no other reason for his douchebaggery, that it could have been color related. Hell, if I were black, i would be a bit angry over my situation and what happened in the past to their people, but I wouldn't let it spill over into my job.

I'm quoting this gem just in case you decide to edit it out.

Quote all you like, I never post anything I am unsure of.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: dxkj

Originally posted by: BigJ
So cops are supposed to trust every Joe Blow that quotes legal doctrine?

How about the cop knowing the law that they are charging you for? We have no excuse not to know laws, and neither do they. Ignorance is not a valid excuse..


Plus the OP is probably full of one sided sh!t and it was the guys fault.

Once again, read the thread. I've repeatedly said the cop fvcked up. And I've also repeatedly said that the cop probably didn't abuse his power and probably wasn't racist.

 

[simms]

Cue bradruth..

 

[thehstrybean]

Cops suck unless you get a good one, and they're like finding a diamond in a pile of elephant sh!t (the diamond is our ATOT cop...can't think of his username)
I got pulled over, and the cop was a complete ass. I just smiled, took the ticket, and LoLd when he didn't show up in court and I got to walk.
Tell your bro to fight it. Cops are citizens enforcing the law. They have no right to break it, and they SHOULD know it if they are to write tickets for it.

 

[josepavento]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: josepavento

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: her209
Its times like this that I want to install a video camera in my car.

Is that legal? It seems like a good idea to be used for more than just abusive police officers.

I don't see how it could be illegal.

Usually videotaping or recording on private property (your home, or it may even apply to your car) requires consent depending on your state/local laws. In some cases, like in your home, it may require only 1 party consent (yourself), or it may require both parties consenting.

Huh? You're on a public road.

Yes. When you are in public, you have a much lower reasonable expectation of privacy. There is nothing illegal about putting a video camera in your car. There is nothing illegal about video taping a traffic stop.

Not true. In certain states, there are laws such as eavesdropping laws which require you to get the consent of a person before recording their voice.

I didn't know that we were talking about wiretapping or anything like that. I'm only talking about putting a video camera in your personal vehicle. We are talking about a police officer standing on the side of a public road, talking about a traffic ticket. His reasonable expectation to privacy is about zero. Anyone walking by could hear his conversation. We aren't talking about picking up cell phone conversations, or wire tapping phone booths, etc..

 

[JohnPaul]

Originally posted by: dxkj

Originally posted by: BigJ
So cops are supposed to trust every Joe Blow that quotes legal doctrine?

How about the cop knowing the law that they are charging you for? We have no excuse not to know laws, and neither do they. Ignorance is not a valid excuse..


Plus the OP is probably full of one sided sh!t and it was the guys fault.

One sided sh$t? Like I said in my previous post, I never post anything I am not positively sure of for fear of being proven wrong. Trust me, I know for a fact that my brother was legal, and i'm sure either the cop will lie or not show up at court, as he likely knows what he's done. Like I stated before, it really isn't even possible for him not to know this law, as it is such a common thing, especially for a state trooper, who has likely served on other city forces before becoming a statey. Yes, my brother sped, but there was no legal basis or reason to tow his car and ticket it as unregistered, as it legally was registered.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: josepavento

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: josepavento

Yes. When you are in public, you have a much lower reasonable expectation of privacy. There is nothing illegal about putting a video camera in your car. There is nothing illegal about video taping a traffic stop.

Not true. In certain states, there are laws such as eavesdropping laws which require you to get the consent of a person before recording their voice.

I didn't know that we were talking about wiretapping or anything like that. I'm only talking about putting a video camera in your personal vehicle. We are talking about a police officer standing on the side of a public road, talking about a traffic ticket. His reasonable expectation to privacy is about zero. Anyone walking by could hear his conversation. We aren't talking about picking up cell phone conversations, or wire tapping phone booths, etc..

I'm not talking about wiretapping. I'm talking about using a camcorder or equivalent to record something. Even in a public setting, in some states, it is illegal to record a person's voice using any type of recording device without their consent. Their was a case I read about where people were charged with eavesdropping because they video taped a traffic stop. The video footage was fine, but they were not allowed to record the person's voice without their consent, hence why charges were brought against them.

EDIT: And this is a clear example of some Joe Blow quoting incorrect information about laws.

 

Eh, not gonna try to defend this one. The bad ones give the good ones a bad name, like most professions...however, because cops negativily affect you much of the time, the effect is multiplied. 🙁 Good luck in court.

 

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: josepavento

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: josepavento

Yes. When you are in public, you have a much lower reasonable expectation of privacy. There is nothing illegal about putting a video camera in your car. There is nothing illegal about video taping a traffic stop.

Not true. In certain states, there are laws such as eavesdropping laws which require you to get the consent of a person before recording their voice.

I didn't know that we were talking about wiretapping or anything like that. I'm only talking about putting a video camera in your personal vehicle. We are talking about a police officer standing on the side of a public road, talking about a traffic ticket. His reasonable expectation to privacy is about zero. Anyone walking by could hear his conversation. We aren't talking about picking up cell phone conversations, or wire tapping phone booths, etc..

I'm not talking about wiretapping. I'm talking about using a camcorder or equivalent to record something. Even in a public setting, in some states, it is illegal to record a person's voice using any type of recording device without their consent. Their was a case I read about where people were charged with eavesdropping because they video taped a traffic stop. The video footage was fine, but they were not allowed to record the person's voice without their consent, hence why charges were brought against them.

EDIT: And this is a clear example of some Joe Blow quoting incorrect information about laws.

True. In some states, recording a police officer without his or her permission is actually a felony.

 

[JohnPaul]

Originally posted by: FallenHero
Eh, not gonna try to defend this one. The bad ones give the good ones a bad name, like most professions...however, because cops negativily affect you much of the time, the effect is multiplied. 🙁 Good luck in court.

Believe me FallenHero, I have nothing but the utmost respect for the good cops who are there to uphold the law and for the good of the community, but as you stated, when you deal with jerks like this even just once, it can leave a bad taste in your mouth for the profession as a whole.

Yes, my bro may have been speeding, and he isn't even likely going to contest that, and will just pay it by mail, but the other two charges he has to take a day out of work and go to court for, costing him at least another $200 just isn't right.

Something needs to be done about rogue cops who take their personal feelings out on citizens, whatever those feelings may be, right or wrong. If he doesn't like my brother's personality, or doesn't like the fact that he doesn't drop and suck s@ck for the almighty trooper, that is his problem, as long as my brother is being civil.

Even if he had reason to dislike my brother(my brother says he pretty much kissed his ass the whole time), that is no reason to trump up a charge just to stick it to my brother and make him go to court and tow his new car. The more I think about it the more certain I am that he must have known that particular law and just felt like being a dick.

 

[josepavento]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: josepavento

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: josepavento

Yes. When you are in public, you have a much lower reasonable expectation of privacy. There is nothing illegal about putting a video camera in your car. There is nothing illegal about video taping a traffic stop.

Not true. In certain states, there are laws such as eavesdropping laws which require you to get the consent of a person before recording their voice.

I didn't know that we were talking about wiretapping or anything like that. I'm only talking about putting a video camera in your personal vehicle. We are talking about a police officer standing on the side of a public road, talking about a traffic ticket. His reasonable expectation to privacy is about zero. Anyone walking by could hear his conversation. We aren't talking about picking up cell phone conversations, or wire tapping phone booths, etc..

I'm not talking about wiretapping. I'm talking about using a camcorder or equivalent to record something. Even in a public setting, in some states, it is illegal to record a person's voice using any type of recording device without their consent. Their was a case I read about where people were charged with eavesdropping because they video taped a traffic stop. The video footage was fine, but they were not allowed to record the person's voice without their consent, hence why charges were brought against them.

EDIT: And this is a clear example of some Joe Blow quoting incorrect information about laws.

Could you please back up this Joe Blow comment? Show me case law, that you are not allowed to video tape police officers in a public setting. Show me case law that they have a reasonable expectation to privacy on public streets.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: josepavento

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: josepavento

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: josepavento

Yes. When you are in public, you have a much lower reasonable expectation of privacy. There is nothing illegal about putting a video camera in your car. There is nothing illegal about video taping a traffic stop.

Not true. In certain states, there are laws such as eavesdropping laws which require you to get the consent of a person before recording their voice.

I didn't know that we were talking about wiretapping or anything like that. I'm only talking about putting a video camera in your personal vehicle. We are talking about a police officer standing on the side of a public road, talking about a traffic ticket. His reasonable expectation to privacy is about zero. Anyone walking by could hear his conversation. We aren't talking about picking up cell phone conversations, or wire tapping phone booths, etc..

I'm not talking about wiretapping. I'm talking about using a camcorder or equivalent to record something. Even in a public setting, in some states, it is illegal to record a person's voice using any type of recording device without their consent. Their was a case I read about where people were charged with eavesdropping because they video taped a traffic stop. The video footage was fine, but they were not allowed to record the person's voice without their consent, hence why charges were brought against them.

EDIT: And this is a clear example of some Joe Blow quoting incorrect information about laws.

Could you please back up this Joe Blow comment? Show me case law, that you are not allowed to video tape police officers in a public setting. Show me case law that they have a reasonable expectation to privacy on public streets.

One such example:

http://www.dailyillini.com/media/paper7...esidents.React.To.Charges-717873.shtml

The Champaign County State's Attorney's office charged Miller, 43, and Thompson, 35, with eavesdropping for the audio content in video recordings they made of on-duty Champaign and University police officers, said Police Chief R.T. Finney.

He said the issue is the audio content, not the videotape. People are allowed to videotape, but it is a violation of the Illinois eavesdropping statute to record someone's voice without permission.

 

[josepavento]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: josepavento

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: josepavento

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: josepavento

Yes. When you are in public, you have a much lower reasonable expectation of privacy. There is nothing illegal about putting a video camera in your car. There is nothing illegal about video taping a traffic stop.

Not true. In certain states, there are laws such as eavesdropping laws which require you to get the consent of a person before recording their voice.

I didn't know that we were talking about wiretapping or anything like that. I'm only talking about putting a video camera in your personal vehicle. We are talking about a police officer standing on the side of a public road, talking about a traffic ticket. His reasonable expectation to privacy is about zero. Anyone walking by could hear his conversation. We aren't talking about picking up cell phone conversations, or wire tapping phone booths, etc..

I'm not talking about wiretapping. I'm talking about using a camcorder or equivalent to record something. Even in a public setting, in some states, it is illegal to record a person's voice using any type of recording device without their consent. Their was a case I read about where people were charged with eavesdropping because they video taped a traffic stop. The video footage was fine, but they were not allowed to record the person's voice without their consent, hence why charges were brought against them.

EDIT: And this is a clear example of some Joe Blow quoting incorrect information about laws.

Could you please back up this Joe Blow comment? Show me case law, that you are not allowed to video tape police officers in a public setting. Show me case law that they have a reasonable expectation to privacy on public streets.

One such example:

http://www.dailyillini.com/media/paper7...esidents.React.To.Charges-717873.shtml

The Champaign County State's Attorney's office charged Miller, 43, and Thompson, 35, with eavesdropping for the audio content in video recordings they made of on-duty Champaign and University police officers, said Police Chief R.T. Finney.

He said the issue is the audio content, not the videotape. People are allowed to videotape, but it is a violation of the Illinois eavesdropping statute to record someone's voice without permission.

That is not case law. That case has not even been to court yet.

Lets see a state appeals court, state supreme court, federal appeals court, or federal supreme court ruling. Lets see some actual precedence.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: josepavento

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: josepavento

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: josepavento

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: josepavento

Yes. When you are in public, you have a much lower reasonable expectation of privacy. There is nothing illegal about putting a video camera in your car. There is nothing illegal about video taping a traffic stop.

Not true. In certain states, there are laws such as eavesdropping laws which require you to get the consent of a person before recording their voice.

I didn't know that we were talking about wiretapping or anything like that. I'm only talking about putting a video camera in your personal vehicle. We are talking about a police officer standing on the side of a public road, talking about a traffic ticket. His reasonable expectation to privacy is about zero. Anyone walking by could hear his conversation. We aren't talking about picking up cell phone conversations, or wire tapping phone booths, etc..

I'm not talking about wiretapping. I'm talking about using a camcorder or equivalent to record something. Even in a public setting, in some states, it is illegal to record a person's voice using any type of recording device without their consent. Their was a case I read about where people were charged with eavesdropping because they video taped a traffic stop. The video footage was fine, but they were not allowed to record the person's voice without their consent, hence why charges were brought against them.

EDIT: And this is a clear example of some Joe Blow quoting incorrect information about laws.

Could you please back up this Joe Blow comment? Show me case law, that you are not allowed to video tape police officers in a public setting. Show me case law that they have a reasonable expectation to privacy on public streets.

One such example:

http://www.dailyillini.com/media/paper7...esidents.React.To.Charges-717873.shtml

The Champaign County State's Attorney's office charged Miller, 43, and Thompson, 35, with eavesdropping for the audio content in video recordings they made of on-duty Champaign and University police officers, said Police Chief R.T. Finney.

He said the issue is the audio content, not the videotape. People are allowed to videotape, but it is a violation of the Illinois eavesdropping statute to record someone's voice without permission.

That is not case law. That case has not even been to court yet.

Lets see a state appeals court, state supreme court, federal appeals court, or federal supreme court ruling. Lets see some actual precedence.

I challenge you with the same. The fact is, there is an eavesdropping law in at least a few states. You can be arrested and charged with a crime. Show me a situation that contradicts the law.

In Illinois, a conversation does NOT have to be private for it to be protected.

Here's some information on that, with references to the cases you would find the information you need:

http://www.rtnda.org/resources/hiddencamera/illinois.html

 

[josepavento]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: josepavento

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: josepavento

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: josepavento

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: josepavento

Yes. When you are in public, you have a much lower reasonable expectation of privacy. There is nothing illegal about putting a video camera in your car. There is nothing illegal about video taping a traffic stop.

Not true. In certain states, there are laws such as eavesdropping laws which require you to get the consent of a person before recording their voice.

I didn't know that we were talking about wiretapping or anything like that. I'm only talking about putting a video camera in your personal vehicle. We are talking about a police officer standing on the side of a public road, talking about a traffic ticket. His reasonable expectation to privacy is about zero. Anyone walking by could hear his conversation. We aren't talking about picking up cell phone conversations, or wire tapping phone booths, etc..

I'm not talking about wiretapping. I'm talking about using a camcorder or equivalent to record something. Even in a public setting, in some states, it is illegal to record a person's voice using any type of recording device without their consent. Their was a case I read about where people were charged with eavesdropping because they video taped a traffic stop. The video footage was fine, but they were not allowed to record the person's voice without their consent, hence why charges were brought against them.

EDIT: And this is a clear example of some Joe Blow quoting incorrect information about laws.

Could you please back up this Joe Blow comment? Show me case law, that you are not allowed to video tape police officers in a public setting. Show me case law that they have a reasonable expectation to privacy on public streets.

One such example:

http://www.dailyillini.com/media/paper7...esidents.React.To.Charges-717873.shtml

The Champaign County State's Attorney's office charged Miller, 43, and Thompson, 35, with eavesdropping for the audio content in video recordings they made of on-duty Champaign and University police officers, said Police Chief R.T. Finney.

He said the issue is the audio content, not the videotape. People are allowed to videotape, but it is a violation of the Illinois eavesdropping statute to record someone's voice without permission.

That is not case law. That case has not even been to court yet.

Lets see a state appeals court, state supreme court, federal appeals court, or federal supreme court ruling. Lets see some actual precedence.

I challenge you with the same. The fact is, there is an eavesdropping law in at least a few states. You can be arrested and charged with a crime. Show me a situation that contradicts the law.

In Illinois, a conversation does NOT have to be private for it to be protected.

Yes, there are eavesdropping laws in most states as well as federal eavesdropping laws. Eavesdropping implies that an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. When I make a phone call, I expect it to be private. When I talk to my roomate, inside our condo, I expect it to be private. When I go to a publice place like a theme park, my reasonable expectation to privacy is almost zero. Under your logic, a mother and father aren't allowed to video tape their kids soccer game? They might get video and audio recordings involving everyone at the game. Are the parents doing something illegal? What if a police officer walks by, and his voice is on the video tape? Is it illegal now? Everyone is in public, talking in public, at a level audible enough for everyone around to hear them, yet they have a right to privacy?

I'm sure that we have all seen video clips on CNN or Fox News. Cases where police officers are video taped abusing people comes to mind. There is audio too. If this is illegal, how can they show them on national television and not get in any trouble?

I'll go look for some case law.

I would like to see where that case goes, and if the Illinois law holds up through the appeals process. Lets see some cases that have made it all the way through.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: josepavento

Yes, there are eavesdropping laws in most states as well as federal eavesdropping laws. Eavesdropping implies that an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. When I make a phone call, I expect it to be private. When I talk to my roomate, inside our condo, I expect it to be private. When I go to a publice place like a theme park, my reasonable expectation to privacy is almost zero. Under your logic, a mother and father aren't allowed to video tape their kids soccer game? They might get video and audio recordings involving everyone at the game. Are the parents doing something illegal? What if a police officer walks by, and his voice is on the video tape? Is it illegal now? Everyone is in public, talking in public, at a level audible enough for everyone around to hear them, yet they have a right to privacy?

I'm sure that we have all seen video clips on CNN or Fox News. Cases where police officers are video taped abusing people comes to mind. There is audio too. If this is illegal, how can they show them on national television and not get in any trouble?

I'll go look for some case law.

See edit. Illinois is one such state in which a conversation does not need to be private to be protected.

Making a blanket statement that it is legal to video tape police officers was, in fact, incorrect. In Illinois it can and will get you arrested. In other states, it depends on their law. Which is why I said you should consult your state laws, instead of making a blanket statement like you did.

 

[josepavento]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: josepavento

Yes, there are eavesdropping laws in most states as well as federal eavesdropping laws. Eavesdropping implies that an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. When I make a phone call, I expect it to be private. When I talk to my roomate, inside our condo, I expect it to be private. When I go to a publice place like a theme park, my reasonable expectation to privacy is almost zero. Under your logic, a mother and father aren't allowed to video tape their kids soccer game? They might get video and audio recordings involving everyone at the game. Are the parents doing something illegal? What if a police officer walks by, and his voice is on the video tape? Is it illegal now? Everyone is in public, talking in public, at a level audible enough for everyone around to hear them, yet they have a right to privacy?

I'm sure that we have all seen video clips on CNN or Fox News. Cases where police officers are video taped abusing people comes to mind. There is audio too. If this is illegal, how can they show them on national television and not get in any trouble?

I'll go look for some case law.

See edit. Illinois is one such state in which a conversation does not need to be private to be protected.

Making a blanket statement that it is legal to video tape police officers was, in fact, incorrect. In Illinois it can and will get you arrested. In other states, it depends on their law. Which is why I said you should consult your state laws, instead of making a blanket statement like you did.

Show me case law, that has gone through the appeals process that backs up your claim. Don't link a case, that hasn't even gone to trial yet. Just because a state has a statute, doesn't mean it would stand up in the appeals courts. That is one reason we have appeals courts after all...

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: josepavento

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: josepavento

Yes, there are eavesdropping laws in most states as well as federal eavesdropping laws. Eavesdropping implies that an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. When I make a phone call, I expect it to be private. When I talk to my roomate, inside our condo, I expect it to be private. When I go to a publice place like a theme park, my reasonable expectation to privacy is almost zero. Under your logic, a mother and father aren't allowed to video tape their kids soccer game? They might get video and audio recordings involving everyone at the game. Are the parents doing something illegal? What if a police officer walks by, and his voice is on the video tape? Is it illegal now? Everyone is in public, talking in public, at a level audible enough for everyone around to hear them, yet they have a right to privacy?

I'm sure that we have all seen video clips on CNN or Fox News. Cases where police officers are video taped abusing people comes to mind. There is audio too. If this is illegal, how can they show them on national television and not get in any trouble?

I'll go look for some case law.

See edit. Illinois is one such state in which a conversation does not need to be private to be protected.

Making a blanket statement that it is legal to video tape police officers was, in fact, incorrect. In Illinois it can and will get you arrested. In other states, it depends on their law. Which is why I said you should consult your state laws, instead of making a blanket statement like you did.

Show me case law, that has gone through the appeals process that backs up your claim. Don't link a case, that hasn't even gone to trial yet. Just because a state has a statute, doesn't mean it would stand up in the appeals courts. That is one reason we have appeals courts after all...

See these cases from Sources under the 2nd link I provided:

Sources
720 Illinois Compiled Statutes Annotated Sections 5/14-1 to 5/14-3, 5/14-4, 5/14-6 (1997); Cassidy v. ABC, 377 N.E.2d 126 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978); People v. Wilson, 554 N.E.2d 545, (Ill. App. Ct. 1990); People v. Barrow, 549 N.E.2d 240 (Ill. 1989); People v. Britz, 541 N.E.2d 505 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989); People v. Gervasi, 434 N.E.2d 1112 (Ill. 1982); People v. Shinkle, 539 N.E.2d 1238 (Ill. 1989).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g...pl?court=il&vol=/sc/2003/93628&invol=3

Section 14-3(d) contains a number of exemptions to the activities prohibited under section 14-2. Section 14-3 exempts:

"(d) Recording or listening with the aid of any device to any emergency communication made in the normal course of operations by any federal, state or local law enforcement agency or institutions dealing in emergency services, including, but not limited to, hospitals, clinics, ambulance services, fire fighting agencies, any public utility, emergency repair facility, civilian defense establishment or military installation[.]" 720 ILCS 5/14-3(d) (West 1998).

The Illinois eavesdropping statute defines "conversation" as "any oral communication between 2 or more persons regardless of whether one or more of the parties intended their communication to be of a private nature under circumstances justifying that expectation." 720 ILCS 5/14-1(d) (West 1998).

 

[josepavento]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: josepavento

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: josepavento

Yes, there are eavesdropping laws in most states as well as federal eavesdropping laws. Eavesdropping implies that an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. When I make a phone call, I expect it to be private. When I talk to my roomate, inside our condo, I expect it to be private. When I go to a publice place like a theme park, my reasonable expectation to privacy is almost zero. Under your logic, a mother and father aren't allowed to video tape their kids soccer game? They might get video and audio recordings involving everyone at the game. Are the parents doing something illegal? What if a police officer walks by, and his voice is on the video tape? Is it illegal now? Everyone is in public, talking in public, at a level audible enough for everyone around to hear them, yet they have a right to privacy?

I'm sure that we have all seen video clips on CNN or Fox News. Cases where police officers are video taped abusing people comes to mind. There is audio too. If this is illegal, how can they show them on national television and not get in any trouble?

I'll go look for some case law.

See edit. Illinois is one such state in which a conversation does not need to be private to be protected.

Making a blanket statement that it is legal to video tape police officers was, in fact, incorrect. In Illinois it can and will get you arrested. In other states, it depends on their law. Which is why I said you should consult your state laws, instead of making a blanket statement like you did.

Show me case law, that has gone through the appeals process that backs up your claim. Don't link a case, that hasn't even gone to trial yet. Just because a state has a statute, doesn't mean it would stand up in the appeals courts. That is one reason we have appeals courts after all...

See these cases from Sources under the 2nd link I provided:

Sources
720 Illinois Compiled Statutes Annotated Sections 5/14-1 to 5/14-3, 5/14-4, 5/14-6 (1997); Cassidy v. ABC, 377 N.E.2d 126 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978); People v. Wilson, 554 N.E.2d 545, (Ill. App. Ct. 1990); People v. Barrow, 549 N.E.2d 240 (Ill. 1989); People v. Britz, 541 N.E.2d 505 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989); People v. Gervasi, 434 N.E.2d 1112 (Ill. 1982); People v. Shinkle, 539 N.E.2d 1238 (Ill. 1989).

That is not case law. That is a state statute. Just because a state has a statute, does not mean its constitutional.

Case law means show me a court case.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g....pl?court=11th&navby=case&no=998199MAN

U.S. 11th Circuit of Appeals (which is a federal court, and federal law > state law)

James Smith and Barbara Smith video tape police activites in georgia. They sue the police department, claiming that the department prevented the Smith's from videotaping the police. The Court affirmed that the Smith's do have a right to video tape the police, but in this case they were not prevented from video taping them. The Smith's lost this case, but that is beside the point. This is a federal case showing that it is not illegal to video tape a police officer while on duty.

 

[josepavento]

"Nonetheless, under Section 1983, the Smiths must prove that the conduct complained of deprived them of "a right, privilege or immunity secured by the constitution or laws of the United States." Nail v. Community Action Agency of Calhoun County, 805 F.2d 1500, 1501 (11th Cir.1986). Although the Smiths have a right to videotape police activities, they have not shown that the Defendants' actions violated that right. We find no merit in the remaining arguments presented in this appeal. AFFIRMED."


Text from the link above.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: josepavento
Nonetheless, under Section 1983, the Smiths must prove that the conduct complained of deprived them of "a right, privilege or immunity secured by the constitution or laws of the United States." Nail v. Community Action Agency of Calhoun County, 805 F.2d 1500, 1501 (11th Cir.1986). Although the Smiths have a right to videotape police activities, they have not shown that the Defendants' actions violated that right. We find no merit in the remaining arguments presented in this appeal. AFFIRMED.


Text from the link.

Did you notice anything about silent videotapes in the sources I link? I said before, simply videotaping is OK, but videotaping with audio is not allowed. You didn't confirm anything as far as audio recording goes, which is what this is about.

 

[mugs]

This thread is like 5 times longer than it should be.

 

[daveshel]

Society only produces so many people who would be cops for the right reasons. We have way more than that now.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: BigJ
I'm not talking about wiretapping. I'm talking about using a camcorder or equivalent to record something. Even in a public setting, in some states, it is illegal to record a person's voice using any type of recording device without their consent. Their was a case I read about where people were charged with eavesdropping because they video taped a traffic stop. The video footage was fine, but they were not allowed to record the person's voice without their consent, hence why charges were brought against them.

EDIT: And this is a clear example of some Joe Blow quoting incorrect information about laws.

I think the case you specified has more to do with someone using a recording device to record a conversation that was occuring in a private vehicle, albeit, I think if you leave your windows up, then its you lose your right to privacy.

My reason for saying this is because if what you state is true, then I couldn't take a video camera to my kids' football game since I did not get the consent of everyone in the audience therefore I could pick up their "private" conversations.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: BigJ
I'm not talking about wiretapping. I'm talking about using a camcorder or equivalent to record something. Even in a public setting, in some states, it is illegal to record a person's voice using any type of recording device without their consent. Their was a case I read about where people were charged with eavesdropping because they video taped a traffic stop. The video footage was fine, but they were not allowed to record the person's voice without their consent, hence why charges were brought against them.

EDIT: And this is a clear example of some Joe Blow quoting incorrect information about laws.

I think the case you specified has more to do with someone using a recording device to record a conversation that was occuring in a private vehicle, albeit, I think if you leave your windows up, then its you lose your right to privacy.

My reason for saying this is because if what you state is true, then I couldn't take a video camera to my kids' football game since I did not get the consent of everyone in the audience therefore I could pick up their "private" conversations.

I'm no legal expert, which I was I told people to consult local and state laws on the subject (which would be necessary, especially in Illinois which has something on the books about it), as opposed to making a blanket statement about whether it's legal or illegal.