Is It Legal to Film Police?

[Turek]

@Mr_Downtown

All right. Which Constitutional restriction do you think restricts the Illinois General Assembly from forbidding recording the actions of a public official conducting official business in a public place?

Court strikes blow to Illinois eavesdropping law

“The Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit said in its opinion. “As applied to the facts alleged here, it likely violates the First Amendment’s free speech and free-press guarantees.”

In the state capital, a Senate bill that would rewrite the law to formally include an exception for people recording police officers at work in public places is awaiting a vote in the House. An earlier bill failed in a House vote, but the measure has been revised to reflect some of the concerns of law enforcement officials.

[Greg_Charles]

@IceQube

I didn’t know that cops liked to engage people in sexual positions during traffic stops.

Nice try, but using “lay” to mean “lie” is so common in modern English that your barb isn’t even likely to be understood.

[Mr_Downtown]

I wonder if this is the first time the law—indeed, the correct answer to the OP—has changed while the Dope was debating it?

At any rate, I’m delighted by today’s decision, which reverses the District Court decision. Read it here.

[Acsenray]

@Mr_Downtown

I wonder if this is the first time the law—indeed, the correct answer to the OP—has changed while the Dope was debating it?

At any rate, I’m delighted by today’s decision, which reverses the District Court decision. Read it here.

Regarding that quote from Potts: “The district court seized on this single sentence from Potts and read it for much more than it’s worth.”

Hey, that’s what I almost said! Stop peeking, Sykes!

[Acsenray]

I said:

So far as the law s concerned, did you even notice that the court itself applied First Amendment standards to test the restrictions involved? How in the world does that even happen if the court doesn’t think that the First Amendment applies to the situation?

Sykes said:

If Potts stood for a categorical proposition that audiovisual recording is wholly unprotected, as the district court seemed to think, none of this analysis would have been necessary.

[Mangosteen]

@CookingWithGas

There was a case where a motorcyclist was pulled over, and had a helmet-mounted camera that recorded the whole stop. The cop was very aggressive although the guy had been going pretty damn fast. He posted it on YouTube and was later arrested for under a wiretapping law. It wasn’t illegal to make a video, but they got him on a technicality for recording the sound. I don’t remember the outcome.

It is alsolegal to photograph and videotape the security area at an airport but many TSA agents will tell you it’s not. Once my wife was taken to secondary screening because of a bracelet she was wearing and I took her picture because I thought it was kind of amusing. An agent waved at me that photos were not allowed. I wish I’d known at the time he was wrong.

But you would have missed your flight.

[JRDelirious]

Just as a side comment, it is an attractive concept, the notion of the citizen telling the authorities, “If **YOU **have nothing to hide, you should not mind being monitored and recorded”. But of course the authorities being authorities they see no symmetry there at all…

[kayaker]

@Mr_Downtown

Do you really want any citizen to be able to say “I refuse to testify about what I saw, because I’m protecting a source for my blog?”

Yes.

What makes a blog a less serious journalistic endeavor than a newspaper?

[md2000]

@kayaker

Yes.

What makes a blog a less serious journalistic endeavor than a newspaper?

Sounds like the story about having the company lawyer sit in on all meetings so they can be privileged.

I would imagine outside of anything that reveals a (not public) name, you can still be compelled to testify about what you saw or heard.

[Mr_Downtown]

@kayaker

What makes a blog a less serious journalistic endeavor than a newspaper?

Nothing. But society sometimes has to balance competing interests. As a society, we have an interest in compelling citizens to testify about miscreants. And we have an interest in ensuring that “the press” uncovers wrongdoing. Some states have balanced these interests by creating shield laws that protect certain journalists from being compelled to reveal sources. To extend that shield law to every citizen “journalist” would obviously obliterate the first interest listed above.

To get back to the OP, I should point out that in Illinois it is still illegal to record audio of the police without their consent. However, the Seventh Circuit has enjoined the Cook County State’s Attorney from enforcing the Illinois Eavesdropping Act against “people who openly record police officers performing their official duties in public.” Elsewhere in the state, you still take your chances.

[Wallenstein]

Do the police get an exemption from wiretapping laws even if they have no specific warrent?

Surely the standard police dashcams are filming all sorts of people without their consent (under this logic)?

[MysteryFellow63427]

Reason magazine actually has an ongoing series on filming the police, with a great deal of information. If you are interested in this topic, I think you’ll find these and other links highly informative.

The War on Cameras

An Interactive "War on Cameras" Map

Reason.tv: Fighting the War on Cameras - Jerome Vorus and the ACLU take D.C....

[kayaker]

@Mr_Downtown

As a society, we have an interest in compelling citizens to testify about miscreants.

Alleged miscreants.

@Mr_Downtown

Some states have balanced these interests by creating shield laws that protect certain journalists from being compelled to reveal sources. To extend that shield law to every citizen “journalist” would obviously obliterate the first interest listed above.

So then, how is “journalist” to be defined?

[Alley_Dweller]

@Wallenstein

Do the police get an exemption from wiretapping laws even if they have no specific warrent?

Surely the standard police dashcams are filming all sorts of people without their consent (under this logic)?

Each state makes its own laws that don’t have to be consistent with the laws of any other state. Here is the specific law in Illinois:

720 ILCS 5/14-3)
Sec. 14-3. Exemptions. The following activities shall be exempt from the provisions of this Article:
…
(h) Recordings made simultaneously with the use of an in-car video camera recording of an oral conversation between a uniformed peace officer, who has identified his or her office, and a person in the presence of the peace officer whenever (i) an officer assigned a patrol vehicle is conducting an enforcement stop; or (ii) patrol vehicle emergency lights are activated or would otherwise be activated if not for the need to conceal the presence of law enforcement.
For the purposes of this subsection (h), “enforcement stop” means an action by a law enforcement officer in relation to enforcement and investigation duties, including but not limited to, traffic stops, pedestrian stops, abandoned vehicle contacts, motorist assists, commercial motor vehicle stops, roadside safety checks, requests for identification, or responses to requests for emergency assistance;
(h-5) Recordings of utterances made by a person while in the presence of a uniformed peace officer and while an occupant of a police vehicle including, but not limited to, (i) recordings made simultaneously with the use of an in-car video camera and (ii) recordings made in the presence of the peace officer utilizing video or audio systems, or both, authorized by the law enforcement agency;
(h-10) Recordings made simultaneously with a video camera recording during the use of a taser or similar weapon or device by a peace officer if the weapon or device is equipped with such camera;