It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

75-Year Sentence for Taping the Police? The Absurd Laws That Criminalize Audio and Video Recording

page: 2
71
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


That is messed up. What ever happened to the issues? I am glad to be in Australia, we still have some legal issues but I have not come across anything that retarded. How you can clean up your house eventually.




posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


What do you think about this one though, Xcath?

A JUDGE using this to throw someone in the slammer?

Something stinks to high heavens on multiple layers in this particular case, and I think Illinoise is in need of some major overhauls with this crap.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Thank you state that gave us Ohitler. I feel appalled for any one there and have complete sympathy.

S&F DD as usual. I'm sending you my carpal bill.

There is no way in hell an honest (not of Illinois) appeals court will uphold that. That so-called "judge" needs to go back to the McDonalds she worked at.

Same thing in a few other states for other judges and entire legislatures. Good God.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by coffeesniffer
reply to post by Klassified
 


I guess it just go's to show how blaytent (insert any powerful figure/body here) are now with their public exibition of human corruption. Nothing will come of this, the show will continue. I guess what im really saying is the fire has always been burning, it continues to get hotter over time but we can't put it out without a much greater percentage of humans wanting to live a different way.

Just a stoned man's view of this


Or, just realizing they don't have to keep living this way. They can and should expect more from their public servants.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Ok so you can tape me without my consent everywhere I go all the time. And thats cool.

But if I tape you I'm a bad guy?

Yeah right.

They should be thankful we take "shots" with cameras and not guns.

(I am aware the story is about an audio recording-but my little witty comment still wins.)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


What do you think about this one though, Xcath?

A JUDGE using this to throw someone in the slammer?

Something stinks to high heavens on multiple layers in this particular case, and I think Illinoise is in need of some major overhauls with this crap.



Well, here is the kicker but let me completely explain. The Judge was correct in what he did. A State that requires 2 party consent in order to audio / video record cannot be done by proxy (another person giving consent to record another person). The article stated he talked to the county clerk, which is where the issue starts.

When he went to court with the recorder, he should have asked everyone present if it was ok for him to record. If one person objects, and that person is part of the court proceedings, then technically he just violated the Illinois wiretap law.

While Court proceedings are open to the public, a judge can bar any recording devices (recorder / phones/ etc) up to and including media (provided its done in the intrest of justice (adverse effect on the victim or defendant that can jeopradize a fair trial) and not a personal reason (long court proceeding for say murder etc etc).

In this instance, because he failed to obtain permission to record prior to turning the recorder on, he broke the law.

Now, technicallities aside, I think its BS. There is something called letter of the law and spirit of the law. This wiretap law was intended to protect individuals against an invasion of privacy. At no point was this law, or any wiretap laws, ever intended to be applied to an area where their is no expectation of privacy.

The charges need to be thrown out...
The Prosecuting attorney should be looked at for prosecutorial misconduct for entertaing the charges (wiretap)
The Police should be looked at by another agency to determine if any laws / civil rights were violated by their actions towards the victim
The Judge should be censured / warned for making a dumbass decision when it is clearly obvious the victim made an effort to understand the wiretap law and made an effort to notify people he wanted to record in court.

The victim here had absolutely no intentions of purposely violating the wiretap law and the court should have taken notice of that and explained to him how the law works.

When citizens want to take part in government, to challenge laws, protect their rights, hold the police acountible, stand up for themselves and make an attempt to understand all of that on their own, is comendable, not criminal.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
I'd hardly call the videotaping or audiotaping "wiretapping" as it's done in plain sight most of the time and involves no illegal access to communications lines or equipment.
Also, isn't the courthouse a public area and the judge too a public employee? If so then as public servants they should have no need to privacy in a public building, and everything they say or do in the capacity of their profession should be a matter of public record.

The judge needs reminding that he/she is there to serve the public, not the other way around, which also applies to the police and any other taxpayer funded individual or organisation. It's called accountability!


Different sections of laws apply for: "intercepting "electronic communications" ( what most folks think of when they think "wiretap") and "audio eavesdropping" (microphones or technical methods to record audio).

Its been 20 years since I worked "in the field" So I can't explain it any more without a book of legal decisions in front of me that I no longer have access to. Suffice to say the laws intermingle and are different for each state.From what I remember: Some states are "one party"states ( Only one party of a conversation has to consent to recording
Some are "two party";everybody involved needs to consent or a warrant is necessary to perform what is essentially a search and"seizure".

Laws also differ if the product is collected for criminal or counter intelligence purposes.
After the "patriot" act None of this probably applies anymore anyway.One of reasons my blood pressure became dangerous during the Bush years. I didn't appreciate that at all.

its complicated...and they got ya' by the "short hairs" if they want you.
edit on 28-1-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Picture this. All the lifers lined up and telling their name, age, and crime. You got each confessing to one or multiple accounts of: murder, rape, torture. The line comes to Allison: "Audio recording multiple sentences of judge."......If you don't see something wrong there, you're a complete and utter imbecile, and a pompous law-abuser with an evil "soul". Judge, cop, I don't give a fvck who you are; making this guy serve any prison time for something of this degree is a disgusting act of hate.
edit on 28-1-2011 by Raelsatu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I keep thinking about telephone calls where they tell you up front, "This call may be monitored for quality purposes ..." Obviously, if you don't want be recorded you don't have to talk to them.

I think you could make some money by selling Tshirts that read: "Warning, by communicating with this person you consent to being recorded. If you do not consent to being recorded, do not communicate with this person." That way, you're covered by a legal disclaimer.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


So the Police Force are committing number 1 felony if they record criminals without their consent?

It seems the further the US goes, the more it is exposed as a fascist dictatorship and a police state.

Funny isn't it, only a fascist dictatorship would want to make it hard for their people to obtain evidence, to convict the police force, or the government of any wrong doings.

The timing is very important, because Americans are only pursuing the truth recently, as 9/11 has awakened them.
edit on 28-1-2011 by reatarded because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
damN! all that over blighted property? herein CT, IF you have blighted proeprty ect..the city i live can take your home away form you AND make you pay the cost of cleanup, selling ect ect. this rule law, has been used for about the past 5 or 6 years now only. before that, an abandoned house was simply left standing thier till a developer bought the place and did what he/she wnated with it..beit a condo unit, new house, parking lot whatever..no matter how overgrown the grass weed n vine was. now, if your yard dosnt look eye appealing..the city can push you too do something about it..which is suposed to be none of their business, since your paying absurd propety taxes. here in my city, we had a sewer tax imposed, when recycling started in 1990. years went buy, and around the year 2,000 they imposed that tax into the propertytaxes. its aloophole. a guy i know, who works for a towing company, freinds in the local dump area, see where our recycables go.. household garbage and recycables are all dumped into one truck now...to save costs..and unloaded near dwntown where its supposed to be seperated. if any of the recycables are really recyceld, yuor guess is a good as mine. before, thier were 2 trucks one for recycables, another for gabage only. thiers no need to pay the sewer tax, if recyables arnt being 100% recyceld.
it goes to show, how corrupt and sneaky city leaders can be. for a 75 year prison sentence, for recording the truth goes to show how evil vile affraid nervous liars and not wnating to tell the truth really is, on Illinois's behalf



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
In Capitalist America, law breaks YOU!





posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Have we actually got an independent source for this ?

I'm not entirely sure that it's true, or, more than likely, it has been blown out of all proportions for some reason.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Harrell then informed the defendant that he was in violation of the Illinois wiretapping law, which makes it a Class 1 felony to record someone without his consent. “You violated my right to privacy,” the judge said.


OK this has to be BS otherwise their could be NO CCTV surveillance systems anywhere, even inside a shop or bank! Google would also have to be served and the CEO and others in prisoned for street maps! They would also have to ban the sale of all cameras and audio recording equipment, as anyone who did sell such equipment would be guilty of facilitating a crime!



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
When you type in the guy's name ( Michael Allison ) along with the town he lives in ( Bridgeport ), on a search engine, then all we get are the same two articles rehashed: ''The case of Michael Allison may have slipped past your radar'' and ''Michael Allison, a 41-year-old mechanic from Bridgeport''.

Have we got anything to actually validate this story ?


I mean, it's easy to say that a guy will potentially be sentenced to 75-years in prison for bringing a tape recorder in to court, but do we actually have any corroborating evidence for this ?


I'm absolutely certain that there's a lot more to this supposed story than people want to believe.


edit on 28-1-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Well, here is the kicker but let me completely explain. The Judge was correct in what he did. A State that requires 2 party consent in order to audio / video record cannot be done by proxy (another person giving consent to record another person). The article stated he talked to the county clerk, which is where the issue starts.

When he went to court with the recorder, he should have asked everyone present if it was ok for him to record. If one person objects, and that person is part of the court proceedings, then technically he just violated the Illinois wiretap law.


Yeah except this was done in public. There is no expectation of privacy in public. This will be shot down sooner or later. Now they're just perverting the law that was intented to protect peoples privacy. Privacy which does not exist in public to begin with it.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Have we actually got an independent source for this ?

I'm not entirely sure that it's true, or, more than likely, it has been blown out of all proportions for some reason.


Reason.com is where I first read this. Dont know others.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Yeah we are on the same page / side for once in this thread lol. I have no idea what the hell is wrong with the Peoples Republic of Illinois lately. Its obvious what the wiretap law is intended to do, and this is certainly not it. In this instance, with certain jurisdicitons in Illinois continually doing this, it makes me wonder what they are hiding.

As I said, I understand where the judge was coming from, but I dont agree with it at all. Sometimes all that is needed is for the Judge or Police Officer to take the 5 minutes to explain this is what the law says, this is why it is so please remember that for future reference (referring to the ourt Room incident).

As I said, this person took an active approach to gather information, made calls to notify he would be recording, showed up for his court date and really wanted to resolve this in a fair manner.

Its commendable, not criminal and as my post a few up suggests what should happen to the police / PA / judge involved.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   
You know, police should be scared of these laws.... Think about it, it is getting to a breaking point if it keeps going. If I am gonna get 75 years for recording some corrupt cop to expose evil.... Might as well kill and bury the cop instead and take my chances. At least killing the evil cop makes sure the cop can't victimize anyone else, recording it might not help at all, and still heading to jail. Makes sense to me.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
You know, police should be scared of these laws.... Think about it, it is getting to a breaking point if it keeps going. If I am gonna get 75 years for recording some corrupt cop to expose evil.... Might as well kill and bury the cop instead and take my chances. At least killing the evil cop makes sure the cop can't victimize anyone else, recording it might not help at all, and still heading to jail. Makes sense to me.


The guy was not imprisoned for 75 years. Each count has a max of 15 years in prison, and he has not been convicted of anything.

As far as police being scared, we are already wired head to toe with body mics, dashcams, tasers with audio/video, duty weapons with audio/video. Based on that I fail to understand any argument against a citizen for appropriately recording things. If the person is the one being detained obviously its a bit different.

I mean Illinois is starting to look like they are intentionally trying to prove some kind of point by doing this. Funny enough, its this mindset that ultimately results in case law being made changing the law, fines / disbarment and removal of those people who took an oath to defend and uphold the very laws they are violating themselves.
edit on 28-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join