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

A possible sentence of 75 years in prison, that's definitely a life sentence at his age. Just imagine that for a moment, a life sentence, the same thing you get for murder. They are equating this crime with murder in the sentencing.

To me that actually cheapens the crime of murder, making it seem less horrible. It's a slap in the face to any family who have had someone they loved killed by another.

Here in the UK we have similar laws abuot recording the police now and you have to ask the question, why? It's nothing to do with the safety of the police, it's all about preventing people from showing the violent manner with which many officers resolve situations.

Some of the worst police videos are captured on the police car dashcam.
Just look on youtube.

I think it should be tit-for-tat. If the government is going to record a person,
that person should be able to record the government.

If you get pulled over and the police have their dashcam on, you should be able
to record as well.

Recording serves the interest of truth...

...so who doesn't want the truth known?

All i can say is what a joke and how much they are hypocrites....

Very sad reality we live in.

The more crap i read on ATS the more i hate the US government, whether it is federal, state or local.

I feel bad for the citizens that have to put up with it.

US citizens commonly ask on ATS why is the world starting to hate the USA, well doesnt stuff like this answer your question, it's a complete joke.....

Your government is screwed up, your laws are screwed up.... perhaps for a change instead of wanting the world to look to you, look at the rest of the world for a change.

I have lost all respect for the US political system and it's government... no trust whatsoever...

Your system shouldnt be looked at as a role model but a warning on what NOT to become... if you dont see that or realise that then you need to spend some time outside the states.....

u forfeited your rights when u became a judge.

how u like them apples

People should use this to their advantage, if you get a red light camera speeding ticket you should sue for them wiretapping.

This is where we are headed. Listen closely to the man at the first of the vid and the man at about :40 seconds in. They are pushing us here and then they will cry when it happens.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


your right based on the sentence he might as well have jumped the little railing and killed the judge. same sentence.

So, the court isn't in violation when the court reporter is transcribing the whole conversation? Touché!

Its the same crime committed concurrently by both parties while in the same room. Its an abuse of authority!

It is our RIGHT to record our own perspective.

It is EVIL to try and make it illegal!

Isn`t there a system of Common Law in this country as there is in Canada and the UK,where by if there is no victim there is no crime .Do the courts operate under Naval Law here ,or Common Law ?


Are we all not Freemen on the Land

this should be taken to the supreme court as this issue needs to be adressed, and now, sad times for any one that thinks the constitution is still working for the average american

Just a comment, not a suggestion...

So, if you are going to jail for 75 years for recording a cop or 75 years for killing a cop...

I don't think the guy in question will get 75 years. Here is the law in Illinois for wire tapping and recording:

Illinois's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Illinois makes it a crime to use an "eavesdropping device" to overhear or record a phone call or conversation without the consent of all parties to the conversation. The law defines an "eavesdropping device" as "any device capable of being used to hear or record oral conversation or intercept, retain, or transcribe electronic communication whether such conversation or electronic communication is conducted in person, by telephone, or by any other means." 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/14-1, -2. If you are operating in Illinois, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording an in-person conversation or telephone call. In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, violating the Illinois wiretapping statute can expose you to a civil lawsuit for damages by an injured party.

Recording in a Court Room:

Illinois Law on Recording Court Hearings and Public Meetings
Court Hearings

In Illinois state trial courts, the use of sound and video recording devices is prohibited except by an order of the Illinois Supreme Court. Use of recording devices is permitted in hearings of the state appellate courts, but you must notify the clerk of the court at least five days in advance, and the appellate court may choose to prohibit recording. If media coverage is permitted, only one television and one still camera will be allowed at any given time.
Federal courts in Illinois, both at the trial and appellate level, prohibit the use of sound and video recording devices in the courtroom.

For people who live in Illinois, many of us know that we have very little freedom left. I have witnessed and been stopped by numerous roadblocks by police “trying to enforce seat belt laws”. I have seen unreasonable searches and seizures. It is pretty crazy here.

I don't think the masses of sheep even care that their rights are being violated. Think about this: the people here in Illinois have some of the highest taxes in the nation, and we are subjected to the removal of our rights on a daily basis with no one ever taking a stand against these infractions.

I live in a great neighborhood – but yet police are everywhere, and sometimes even tail me home. I never break the law, I have no record of breaking the law – but yet for some reason I fall under some strange target list – why? I blame ATS... LOL jk.

I believe that Illinois might be a testing ground to actually see how far they can push the public before we the people actually push back... it seems they can push us pretty far without any type of recourse by the public. Sad times.

One cannot go to court and and use the constitution as a defense because the people of this country did not sign it the States did ,if you try to use it as a defense you can get charged with Criminal Trespass

reply to post by kroms33


One suggestion...move!

We will welcome you next door (Indiana).

The judge should be removed from the bench, barred from practicing law, and locked up in jail for an equal amount of time this guy winds up serving.

Local governments are often far worse abusers of our rights than the federal government.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective

This is absurd! The intent of the law was to protect individuals from their "private" conversations not as a matter of doing "public" business...especially an activity like a courtroom proceeding which is usually recorded by a stenographer (court reporter) anyway. This person should appeal on that basis and the law should be amended to clarify that point and to guarantee that citizens can record anything in the public domain. The exception being if you are seen recording public buildings and infrastructure then you should be questioned for suspicion of being a potential terrorist. If you are a professional photographer or just a curious tourist then you get a pass but if you are up to no good then the authorities can investigate you.....but citizens have the right to record police activities up to the point that it endangers undercover activities (burden of proof on the police). The answer in the meantime is that you should probably state that you are recording them (if being interrogated at arm;s length) but that you should not have to ask their permission - just notify them if you are a party to the conversation). But if you are a bystander recording activities (ie videotaping w a cell phone) then you should not have to notify as you are not a party to it and it is not a private activity since it is in the public domain. I wonder if the Oakland Transportation cop would have gotten away with "manslaughter" if someone had not recorded the slaying (the one where he shot the guy on the ground in the back)?

reply to post by romanmel


Well, we are trying - but being strapped for cash is one reason many people can't move. I have a house that I would have to sell (that would take a while), I would have to find a job in Indiana - or travel longer to get to work, which wouldn't be cost effective for me to do.

I am not looking for excuses - but it is easier said than done. How easy would it be for you to just pick up and move to another state - especially if you own a house?

What angers me the most about this topic is that without being allowed to use recording devices, all the civilian will ever be left with is their word against the officer or judge. And we know how that turns out for the civilian. Of course, which is the whole reason for this.

Video or audio evidence could often vindicate the accused when it is their word against the LEO and we just can't have that. I don't think our government is going to stop this until they have a Greece or Egypt on their hands.

Just like the judge in this case has a right to privacy so does the populous as the law cannot protect one group while not allowing any protections. Besides, a courthouse there is no guarantee of something called "an expectation of privacy" as the judge's privacy can only be guaranteed inside of her private residence and not in a public place such as a courthouse.

If I was the jury foreman I would've turned to the judge and demanded to know why then I would've questioned the Judge asking her to explain herself for denying the defendant the right to a Court Reporter. Based upon what was revealed would've determined if I as Foreman can nullify the case citing the defendant's right to have the case recorded to prevent a case of corruption and neglect. The law also ensures that someone can be safe in their person.

People can use audio video recording equipment to record LE in the commission of their jobs to ensure fairness, honesty and fair treatment Without the ability to record a cop during their job leaves a pandora's box open that they can do whatever the flip they want and there is no one there to defend the innocent people who get hurt.

The same law that was used against the people can be used against LE as no one has the authourity to tape you without your consent pending you are not the target of an undercover operation but even then it is tricky.