Michael Allison faces 75 years in prison for recording law enforcement officials without their consent in Robinson, Illinois.
Illinois is one of the states applying old eavesdropping and wiretapping statutes to new technologies like cell phones or anything else that records audio.
Those laws technically make it illegal to record on-duty law enforcement officials without their consent. The penalty for that crime here in Illinois, is a class 1 felony.
Click on the video to watch our investigation into the state law and this particular case in Crawford County.
I can see the case with off-duty, or while in private - but - while on-duty & and in public areas - fair game.
The law states:
quote
The Illinois Eavesdropping Act has been on the books for years. It makes it a criminal offense to audio-record either private or public conversations without the consent of all parties, Mr. Schwartz said. Audio-recording a civilian without consent is a Class 4 felony, punishable by up to three years in prison for a first-time offense. A second offense is a Class 3 felony with a possible prison term of five years.
The Illinois Eavesdropping Act has been on the books for years. It makes it a criminal offense to audio-record either private or public conversations without the consent of all parties, Mr. Schwartz said. Audio-recording a civilian without consent is a Class 4 felony, punishable by up to three years in prison for a first-time offense. A second offense is a Class 3 felony with a possible prison term of five years.
So if you disable the microphone on your camera and only record video, you're good to go?
Cops should be accountable to those who are paying their salary... namely us, the general public. Recording them in action should not be an issue. If they're playing by the rules, then the cops should have nothing to worry about. Works both ways.
The real kicker is cops are allowed to record you with out your consent. I'm sure the law was written so the GOV does not abuse there power not for civs.
IP: Logged
03:39 PM
PFF
System Bot
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
what about a shirt or hat one could wear which states on it that everyone around them is being recorded. whether true or not is irrelevant. this way, anyone approaching, point to the warning - and - at that point forward - there is implied consent. much like that shiney badge "they" wear. because consent is the issue - not the actual recording.
IP: Logged
03:47 PM
htexans1 Member
Posts: 9110 From: Clear Lake City/Houston TX Registered: Sep 2001
Old laws? Many states are putting New laws on book to stop taping cops.
------------------ Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. (Jurassic Park)
That quote specifies you cannot record CIVILIANS without permission. I dont consider police civilians. I think Id be tempted to fight that one in court. Civilians are persons not in any kind of military or enforcement positions the way I see it.
IP: Logged
07:40 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
This is unconstitutional and completely wrong. Illinois has a long history of corrupt power abusing police. Some things never change.
It's a well known problem, but nothing is ever done to fix it. Is there no recourse against a corrupt police department, or do we just recognize they're crooked and hope we never end up in their crosshairs?
I don't mean to be argumentative. Is there really nothing that can be done?
IP: Logged
08:01 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
That quote specifies you cannot record CIVILIANS without permission. I dont consider police civilians. I think Id be tempted to fight that one in court. Civilians are persons not in any kind of military or enforcement positions the way I see it.
It's been fought many times in many jurisdictions. Who do you think the courts side with? The police, or the public?
It's a well known problem, but nothing is ever done to fix it. Is there no recourse against a corrupt police department, or do we just recognize they're crooked and hope we never end up in their crosshairs?
I don't mean to be argumentative. Is there really nothing that can be done?
It's been fought many times in many jurisdictions. Who do you think the courts side with? The police, or the public?
I see a public win for this. Police have no expectation of privacy in public. To say that citizens cannot record in public is a violation of constructional rights...period.
Can be see with normal hearing, average vision, in public, it should be ok to be recorded. I do not see how there could be any argument otherwise. There was already a witness of unreliable facts. I just want to get my facts straight sometimes, I like the option of recording.
[This message has been edited by FriendGregory (edited 06-03-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:43 AM
blackrams Member
Posts: 31841 From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA Registered: Feb 2003
So, how does this law apply to police officer car cameras? Seems like the law ought to work both ways or is there a special exemption for police to record from their cars?
------------------ Ron
IP: Logged
07:55 AM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
They can afford good lawyers. Reality is, most people have to mortgage their home and sell their assets to raise the money to sue in a case like this. Reality is, most people choose not to fight because to do so leads to bankruptcy.
Illinois Wiretapping Laws Upheld – Recording Police Still Illegal January 24, 2011 By Daniel Quitschau Recently, a Federal District Court Judge, Suzanne Conlon, dismissed a challenge by the ACLU in Illinois that questioned the Illinois law that makes recording someone with their consent, on public property, a felony. Doing so can be punishable by up to fifteen years in prison. While this law applies to all recording without consent, it has been specifically used against citizens who record police officers.
Three US states make recording police activity illegal June 7, 2010 "“[In three states] it is now illegal to record an on-duty police officer even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.” http://www.thefreemanonline...ameras-the-new-guns/
In one example case, motorcyclist Anthony John Graber III was stopped for reckless driving. A plain-clothes police officer stopped him, jumped out of his car waving a gun and screaming, and issued a ticket. Graber had a video camera mounted in his motorcycle helmet; he posted video of the encounter to youtube. Ten days after the police encounter, after police found the video on youtube, Graber was arrested and charged under felony wiretapping laws, which could result in up to 5 years jail time. In December 2009, street artist Christopher Drew found himself in a similar situation in Chicago. Drew was arrested while selling art on the streets of Chicago as a test of the cities anti-peddler law. During the arrest, police officers found a small audio recorder that was recording and charged Drew under felony wiretapping laws; Drew faces 4-15 years in prison.
It sounds like there needs to be a Federal level determination or SCOTUS ruling that recording police in public on duty is NOT a crime.
Illinois Wiretapping Laws Upheld – Recording Police Still Illegal January 24, 2011 By Daniel Quitschau Recently, a Federal District Court Judge, Suzanne Conlon, dismissed a challenge by the ACLU in Illinois that questioned the Illinois law that makes recording someone with their consent, on public property, a felony. Doing so can be punishable by up to fifteen years in prison. While this law applies to all recording without consent, it has been specifically used against citizens who record police officers.
The Judge in this case was nominated by Ronald Reagan. Here's what Judgepedia.org has to say about her judicial style:
Conlon has been rated by lawyers as a judge that has the lowest amount of pending cases in the entire Northern District of Illinois court, but has been criticized by other lawyers over her temperament. Lawyers have said to accomplish her goal of a small docket, Conlon makes inappropriate demands on attorneys. Attorneys have been critical on Conlon's scheduling, claiming it can be unrealistic, but is nonetheless enforced inflexibly. The Chicago Bar Association and many judicial rating websites have claimed she has unacceptable behavior for a federal judge. It has been suggested that she has the tendency to use the jury or others to call out attorneys that are late.
Conlon's temperament has been noted in a couple of notable controversies during her tenure as a federal judge. First, she fired a law clerk for refusing to carry her lunch up a flight of stairs when the elevator was not working. Second, she fired a law clerk on September 11, 2001 for complying with a evacuation order on the Senator Everett Dirksen Federal Building in Downtown Chicago.
[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 06-03-2011).]
Do you expect anything less from Chicago? Police are over powered and let there shinney little badges go to there ego inflated heads (NOT ALL COPS...just most) and think they are above the law. After all it's where our worthless pres. came from. And as long as he is in power welcome to Socailist states of America
IP: Logged
06:27 PM
Chris Hodson Member
Posts: 3066 From: Carpentersville Registered: Aug 2006
Do you expect anything less from Chicago? Police are over powered and let there shinney little badges go to there ego inflated heads (NOT ALL COPS...just most) and think they are above the law. After all it's where our worthless pres. came from. And as long as he is in power welcome to Socailist states of America
It's not unique to Illinois.
IP: Logged
10:16 PM
Jun 5th, 2011
madcurl Member
Posts: 21401 From: In a Van down by the Kern River Registered: Jul 2003
How about this one. City police raid a fraternity party on OSU campus. Ohio State University Police Dept officers also arrive and take video. Does one out rank the other ? Do the city police arrest or jail the university police. Both have juristiction at the location . Whats to stop the OSU cops from releasing the video to press or Youtube.
IP: Logged
11:19 AM
madcurl Member
Posts: 21401 From: In a Van down by the Kern River Registered: Jul 2003
Systematic corruption throughout IL law enforcement. Notice that none of those on the force are complaining about the law.
How many officers involved in on this cover-up?
A West Palm Beach couple who filmed Monday morning’s deadly officer-involved shooting on South Beach has accused officers of intimidation, destroying evidence and twisting the facts in the chaos surrounding the Memorial Day shootings – a charge that police officials say they know nothing about.
Meanwhile, a South Carolina man charged with DUI in a second officer-involved shooting that morning says he is innocent.
On Thursday, The Miami Herald spoke to the couple that saw the end of the 4 a.m. police chase on Collins Avenue, then watched and filmed from just a few feet away as a dozen officers fired their guns repeatedly into Raymond Herisse’s blue Hyundai. They say the only reason they were able to show the video to a reporter is because they hid a memory card after police allegedly pointed guns at their heads, threw them to the ground and smashed the cell phone that took the video.
The three-minute video captured on Narces Benoit’s HTC EVO phone begins as officers crowd around the east side of Herisse’s car with guns drawn. Roughly 15 seconds into the video, officers open fire.
Benoit filmed the incident from the sidewalk on the northeast corner of 13th Street and Collins Avenue, close enough to see some officers’ faces and individual muzzle flashes.
Shortly after the gunfire ends, an officer points at Benoit and police can be heard yelling for him to turn off the camera. The voices are muffled at times. The 35-year-old car stereo technician drops his hand with the camera and hurries back to his Ford Expedition parked further east on 13th Street.
The video shows Benoit get into the car, where his girlfriend, Ericka Davis, sat in the driver’s seat. He raises his camera and an officer is seen appearing on the driver’s side with his gun drawn, pointed at them.
The video ends as more officers are heard yelling expletives, telling the couple to turn the video off and get out of the car.
“They put guns to our heads and threw us on the ground,” Davis said.
Benoit said a Miami Beach officer grabbed his cell phone, said “You want to be [expletive] Paparazzi?” and stomped on his phone before placing him in handcuffs and shoving the crunched phone in Benoit’s back pocket. He said the couple joined other witnesses already in cuffs and being watched by officers, who were on the lookout for two passengers who, police believe at the time, had bailed out of Herisse’s car. It is still not known whether any passengers were in the car.
Four bystanders were shot in the gunfire and three officers suffered minor injuries.
Benoit and Davis said officers smashed several other cell phones in the ensuing chaos.
Benoit said the officers eventually uncuffed him after gunshots rang out elsewhere and he discreetly removed the SIM card and placed it in his mouth.
Officers again took his phone, demanding his video. He said they took him to a nearby mobile command center, snapped a picture of him, then took him to police headquarters and conducted a recorded interview while he kept the SIM card in his mouth. He insisted his phone was broken.
He was given a copy of a police property record receipt dated May 30. The couple has hired an attorney.
“We just want the right thing to be done,” Davis said. “That was just too much.”
Police Chief Carlos Noriega said the couple’s allegations were the first he’d heard of officers allegedly threatening people or destroying cameras or cell phones. If Benoit made a complaint, Internal Affairs would investigate, the chief said.
The scenes from the couple’s video that a reporter described to Noriega reflect the tension officers went through early Monday morning as they tried to get a handle on the pandemonium..
“I was there during the second shooting and it was quite a chaotic scene,” he said. “We were trying to figure out who was who and it was a difficult process. Not once did I see cameras being taken or smashed.”
He also said “a lot of our officers had their guns drawn, including myself.”
Noriega also noted that Benoit’s video is evidence and that it could help investigators.
But, Benoit said he is considering an offer from a website to sell the video.
Police say the chase Benoit and Davis saw began around 16th Street after Herisse hit a Hialeah officer with his car during a traffic stop and then peeled off down Collins Avenue, hitting or nearly hitting four other officers before skidding to a stop amid gunfire near 13th Street.
Police say they received reports that Herisse was shooting from his car, and on Wednesday they found a black Berretta 92-F semiautomatic pistol in his Hyundai.
Police also learned Thursday that he is believed to be the gunman in a November armed robbery at a BP gas station in which a clerk was shot in the face. Police say the clerk identified Herisse in a photo lineup after detectives recognized the slain 22-year-old in The Miami Herald.
Ballistics tests will be needed to prove that Herisse indeed shot the gun, and could take weeks.
But Benoit and Davis said that while they saw “bullets flying everywhere” as Herisse drove south for two blocks, the only ones they saw doing any shooting were police.
The couple was able to film the shooting because they were slowly driving north on Collins Avenue near 13th Street when gunshots rang out. They reversed east down 13th Street to get away from Herisse’s oncoming Hyundai.
“They were shooting at him the whole time,” Benoit said.
Also on Thursday, police released an arrest affidavit for Carlos King, 45, who allegedly drove his 2007 Mercedes Benz in a drunken stupor into a police perimeter on Washington Avenue, leading an officer to shoot at him before crashing into an empty squad car.
No one was injured.
Police say King, a 17-year-veteran and fire captain with the North Charleston Fire Department, smelled like alcohol and admitted to drinking and crashing after swerving around a car he thought was travelling too slow.
King’s lawyer, Saam Zangeneh, said his client wasn’t guilty of charges of driving under the influence and refusing to take a breathalyzer. He said he expected further probing by himself and others would portray “a more accurate depiction of what transpired that night.”
Originally posted by madcurl: Four bystanders were shot in the gunfire
What the hell? I watched the videos. The police were just unloading, firing everything they had. They obviously didn't give a damn about bystanders. From the story it sounds like the cops just threw all rules, laws and rights out the door and were acting out of control.
It takes a lot of discipline and a strong chain of command to keep a military unit under control during combat. IMO, a lot of law enforcement agencies are lacking either or both.
IP: Logged
09:29 PM
Chris Hodson Member
Posts: 3066 From: Carpentersville Registered: Aug 2006
What the hell? I watched the videos. The police were just unloading, firing everything they had. They obviously didn't give a damn about bystanders. From the story it sounds like the cops just threw all rules, laws and rights out the door and were acting out of control.
It takes a lot of discipline and a strong chain of command to keep a military unit under control during combat. IMO, a lot of law enforcement agencies are lacking either or both.
Add to that, that some--maybe a lot--of LEAs are armed and outfitted just like the military (I've heard some openly claim "We're just like the military") and it's a recipe for trouble when they lack both the individual self discipline and the upper command structure to implement and reinforce unit discipline.
IP: Logged
09:57 PM
Jun 7th, 2011
faaaaq Member
Posts: 3856 From: Madison WI, USA Registered: Sep 2009
Can be see with normal hearing, average vision, in public, it should be ok to be recorded.
i just watched a special on Netflix that talked about using special technology to record what your eyes would have seen (or do see, if you arent blind) and sending that to your brain so you can see. similar work is being done for hearing. you those be illegal as well? If simply RECORDING gets you in trouble, even without actually doign anything with the recording, shouldnt remembering the events also be illegal? and, while we are at it, why not just make witnessing the event illegal?
IP: Logged
05:05 AM
Rallaster Member
Posts: 9105 From: Indy southside, IN Registered: Jul 2009
i just watched a special on Netflix that talked about using special technology to record what your eyes would have seen (or do see, if you arent blind) and sending that to your brain so you can see. similar work is being done for hearing. you those be illegal as well? If simply RECORDING gets you in trouble, even without actually doign anything with the recording, shouldnt remembering the events also be illegal? and, while we are at it, why not just make witnessing the event illegal?
