How To Deal With Unwanted Cops, page 2

a reply to: Spider879

no its not every time the supreme court has taken up this issue they have always ruled that yes it is legal to film police and no they cant do a damn legal thing about it and the illinois law will be struck down under the old supreme court ruling

revolutionradio.org...

www.prisonplanet.com...

A federal appeals court in Chicago concurred with the ACLU’s argument that, “Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests.” That decision came last May ahead of the NATO summit in Chicago, and prompted a policy not to target protesters and citizens in the streets with iPhones and digital cameras during the events. The Supreme Court thus refused to review that decision, despite an appeal by the Cook County attorney general to do so, upholding the principle in alignment with rather clear cut freedom of speech issues. This precedent may impact the eleven other states with similar all-party consent provisions in their recording laws, including California, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana (requires notification only), Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. The Illinois House attempted to pass legislation allowing audio recordings of police in public places, but the bill failed 45-59. Critics, including the ACLU, have argued that upholding the right to film public figures, and especially police, is vital to preventing abuse and encouraging accountability. The ACLU’s action followed a 2011 acquittal in Cook County on the basis that the statutes are unconstitutional. The Chicago Tribune reports: In August of 2011, a Cook County jury acquitted a woman who had been charged with recording Chicago police internal affairs investigators she believed were trying to dissuade her from filing a sexual harassment complaint against a patrol officer. Judges in Cook and Crawford counties later declared the law unconstitutional, and the McLean County state’s attorney cited flaws in the law when he dropped charges this past February against a man accused of recording an officer during a traffic stop.

rt.com...

Smile for the camera, coppers — the US Supreme Court has decided to let stand a lesser ruling that allows citizens in the state of Illinois to record police officers performing their official duties. Up until just last year, an anti-eavesdropping legislation on the books across Illinois meant any person within the state could be imprisoned for as much as 15 years for recording a police officer without expressed consent. In August 2011, a federal appeals court struck down the law, but an Illinois prosecutor has asked the Supreme Court — unsuccessfully — to challenge that ruling. On Monday, the top justices in the US said that they would not hear the case and will instead rely on last year’s ruling where a federal appeals court in Chicago agreed that the eavesdropping law, as written, “likely violates” the First Amendment. “The Illinois eavesdropping statue restricts a medium of expression commonly used for the preservation and communication of information and ideas, thus triggering First Amendment scrutiny” and that the “statute restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests,” the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals opined previously.