Charges dropped against man facing life in prison for recording police.

There was a thread about this story earlier on ATS about this guy facing a life sentence for recording police.




The charges has been dropped

Michael Allison, the 41-year old Illinois mechanic who faced life in jail for recording police officers, has had all charges against him dropped after a state judge ruled that his First Amendment rights had been violated, following a trend of similar rulings across the country that underscore the fact that it is not illegal to film cops.

Source to article

www.prisonplanet.com...


Personal comment: I am relieved that there are some people that still believe in the constitution and abide by it. This was ridiculous to begin with, kudos to the man for not Giving in to "deals" offered had he pleaded "guilty". He stood his ground and came out victorious.

I salute him

This is indeed great news. I was following this case, and was interested in how it turned out. What kind of message do the towns/state send when they seperate the LEOs from the citizens they are meant to protect. We either ALL follow the rules, or none, can't have it so double tiered.

Also, to contribute, here is another website that reported this story.

www.rcfp.org...

it´s sickening such a farce of a case can even make it to a court.

laughable that it´s punishable with life in prison.

glad the charges got dropped though

Originally posted by Daemonicon
This is indeed great news. I was following this case, and was interested in how it turned out. What kind of message do the towns/state send when they seperate the LEOs from the citizens they are meant to protect. We either ALL follow the rules, or none, can't have it so double tiered.

Also, to contribute, here is another website that reported this story.

www.rcfp.org...

Thank you for that, I was looking for another source but couldnt find it. none the less, this is great news. I was following the story as well and couldn't believe what I was seeing. But alas justice has prevailed, and I hope everyone takes notice that it is NOT illegal to film cops.

Isn't the next step for this guy filing a suit against the department which arrested him in the first place? When these cases are thrown out, these people need to turn around and file a suit against the department responsible for the arrest. The fact it was thrown out, would only help.

I'm not sure this was such a good thing, actually. I don't believe a jury would have convicted this guy, regardless. I've rarely ever heard a better example for jury nullification. However, by simply dropping all charges, they get themselves a do-over. This guy's nightmare is over, but they can do this again to the next guy when the media may not have their pencils quite as sharp as they did this time. It might have been better to see this ridiculous charge taken the distance and put down formally in a court, as it needs to be.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I'm not sure this was such a good thing, actually. I don't believe a jury would have convicted this guy, regardless. I've rarely ever heard a better example for jury nullification. However, by simply dropping all charges, they get themselves a do-over. This guy's nightmare is over, but they can do this again to the next guy when the media may not have their pencils quite as sharp as they did this time. It might have been better to see this ridiculous charge taken the distance and put down formally in a court, as it needs to be.

You do have a good point, However this case can also serve as an example and anyone who falls victim should follow the example of the case of the OP. The judge ruled "it is not illegal film cops" that on it's own should say something.

The simple fact is that videoing police pretty much cramps their style, which all to often is trashy and subjective bullying. I do not see that all police commands, or their actions should be sacrosanct, either here or in the US. No surprise that after the London riots, when politicians started talking about bringing in a American officer to advise on rioting, a leading police officer, Sir Hugh Orde, said thanks but no thanks.

Originally posted by MysticPearl
Isn't the next step for this guy filing a suit against the department which arrested him in the first place? When these cases are thrown out, these people need to turn around and file a suit against the department responsible for the arrest. The fact it was thrown out, would only help.

The stronger suit, and one that has much more legal standing in a court of law, is to sue the individuals that unlawfully detained and arrested him. Those individuals were guilty of a number of crimes, including impersonating a police officer, or government official (the uniform and badge to not give jurisdiction and without that jurisdiction the individuals dressed in uniform and/or badge were not operating in an official manner and instead acting upon their own private beliefs), simulation of legal process, malicious prosecution, false arrest, and obstruction of justice.

The proclivity to go after the police department instead of the rogue individual who committed the crime against Alison is more than likely rooted in the understanding that more money is likely to be had by suing the department, but by filing a verified complaint against the gang member thugs who violated Alison's rights and harmed him in undeniable ways, and going after the individuals actually involved in the crimes is a much stronger message, and does not in any way exclude filing suit against the department as well.

File charges against the thugs who did this to Alison, that is the most important next step, and then make sure that the prosecuting attorneys do their job and do their best to obtain a conviction on these criminal thugs. When more individuals begin doing this, it will not matter what policy may or may not be in place within any given police department, what will matter is that police officers will come to understand in very plausible ways that it is not their job to act unlawfully, and they have neither any obligation nor duty to do so.

To not file a verified complaint against the criminals involved in this matter, and just go for the money and sue the department also puts out a message, and that message is that it is perfectly okay to deny and disparage the rights of individuals, just as long as in the end the police department is willing to shell out a certain amount of money for the transgression. Have the rogue police officers in this matter arrested and convicted then sue the police department and a much stronger message is sent to everyone involved.

Originally posted by smurfy
The simple fact is that videoing police pretty much cramps their style, which all to often is trashy and subjective bullying. I do not see that all police commands, or their actions should be sacrosanct, either here or in the US. No surprise that after the London riots, when politicians started talking about bringing in a American officer to advise on rioting, a leading police officer, Sir Hugh Orde, said thanks but no thanks.

That would probably cause more rage from the people of london had they accepted. Police are meant to serve and protect the public, not abuse their power. As I said before, I was raised believing police were the good guys, not the enemy. Noone likes a bully and someone who abuses their power should lose that power. Least That is the way I see it.