Record a Cop, get 15 years?

[smalltime]

Yikes...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/us...ping.html?_r=1

Although law-enforcement officials can legally record civilians in private or public, audio-recording a law-enforcement officer, state’s attorney, assistant state’s attorney, attorney general, assistant attorney general or judge in the performance of his or her duties is a Class 1 felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

[fishhead]

Move along citizen. You don't need to record what we are saying.

[Ross]

Mark Donahue, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said his organization “absolutely supports” the eavesdropping act as is and was relieved that the challenge had failed. Mr. Donahue added that allowing the audio recording of police officers while performing their duty “can affect how an officer does his job on the street.”

OK and that's a bad thing?

[rancher1913]

this should scare the crap out of you. if they have nothing to hide and do a good job they should not mind little brother recording big brother.

[bluemoonluck]

Pretty much everything cops do is recorded - their cars have video cameras, they have body microphones, etc. Ever seen the reality shows where they'll show the wildest cop car chases or stupidest criminals where they show footage of the event? Yeah, that's where they get it from.... if there is ever a question about what a cop said their supervisor will pull the video and audio and review it.

My guess is the cops don't want civilians recording what they do because this footage could then be altered and edited to make it appear that the cop did or said something that never happened.

[Ernie]

Originally Posted by bluemoonluck

Pretty much everything cops do is recorded - their cars have video cameras, they have body microphones, etc. Ever seen the reality shows where they'll show the wildest cop car chases or stupidest criminals where they show footage of the event? Yeah, that's where they get it from.... if there is ever a question about what a cop said their supervisor will pull the video and audio and review it.

My guess is the cops don't want civilians recording what they do because this footage could then be altered and edited to make it appear that the cop did or said something that never happened.

I know your husband/fiancee/boyfriend or something is a cop and that's swaying your viewpoint, but cops don't mind those videos they control. It's the ones they don't control they have a problem with.

Often they "lose" the crucial evidence of the cameras in their control. They don't want civilians recording the incidents because they don't like their activities shown to the world. There have been a number of recent cases where the evidence that would have shown the cops in a bad light mysteriously disappeared from the evidence locker.

[fantasymaker]

Originally Posted by bluemoonluck

Pretty much everything cops do is recorded - their cars have video cameras, they have body microphones, etc. Ever seen the reality shows where they'll show the wildest cop car chases or stupidest criminals where they show footage of the event? Yeah, that's where they get it from.... if there is ever a question about what a cop said their supervisor will pull the video and audio and review it.

My guess is the cops don't want civilians recording what they do because this footage could then be altered and edited to make it appear that the cop did or said something that never happened.

LOL and of course the COPS would never do that right? Nor would any"law-enforcement officer, state’s attorney, assistant state’s attorney, attorney general, assistant attorney general or judge "

[DavidUnderwood]

Without a recording, its your word against
his. Guess who they will believe. What, you
have no evidence? Oh well......

[bluemoonluck]

Originally Posted by Ernie

I know your husband/fiancee/boyfriend or something is a cop and that's swaying your viewpoint, but cops don't mind those videos they control. It's the ones they don't control they have a problem with.

Often they "lose" the crucial evidence of the cameras in their control. They don't want civilians recording the incidents because they don't like their activities shown to the world. There have been a number of recent cases where the evidence that would have shown the cops in a bad light mysteriously disappeared from the evidence locker.

Originally Posted by fantasymaker

LOL and of course the COPS would never do that right? Nor would any"law-enforcement officer, state’s attorney, assistant state’s attorney, attorney general, assistant attorney general or judge "

I'm not naive, I know there are bad cops out there. I also know there are bad commanding officers out there, and bad prosecuting attorneys, and bad people on both sides who are willing to alter or lose evidence to cover their assets.

I also know that the MAJORITY of cops and CO's and prosecuting attorneys are good people who do a good job day in and day out for low pay and little thanks from Joe Public.

The department my fiance works in is huge on integrety for their officers - if you tell them something and they find out your version of the events was not accurate, you are terminated immediately. This is common knowledge in the dept and the cops will tell their CO's up front when they've screwed up. Better to be suspeded for a week than be unemployed. But this is just his department, and I know every PD is run differently.

[Ernie]

I wish I lived in his district then instead of the one I do now.

There's a significant difference between a peace officer and a law enforcement officer.

[mnn2501]

If you think a citizen recording what Cops really do is a bad thing I have 2 words for you: Rodney King

[Ernie]

Originally Posted by mnn2501

If you think a citizen recording what Cops really do is a bad thing I have 2 words for you: Rodney King

That's exactly why they DON'T want us recording them and exactly WHY we should be.

[fordy]

................After reading the article that this must be the Dumbest woman I've heard of in a long time ! She and her Bf keep having stupid arguments resulting in multiple visits by the cops , then after she encounters resistance in filing a complaint she and Bf stage another argument thus allowing the cops too visit her again thus giving them an excuse too arrest her and file charges , thereby getting even for filing a complaint against the police officer that had many friends in the department . Her IQ must be just above plant life , is it any wonder she got herself thrown in the slammer ? , fordy

[Ode]

You know, I am recalling a couple videos shot in New Orleans after Katrina, where the police notice they were being filmed in the act of doing some clearly illegal activities and threatened the people who were filming them with arrest. Those officers looked pretty darn hostile in the videos. I can't believe it is against the law to tape them in the course of their public duties. You would think (at least any reasonable person would think!) that any activity they were performing in public would be fair game, as no one has the absolute right to privacy in public. That's how the paparazzi are allowed to operate as they do. Cops shouldn't be any different. Also, it is pretty easy for a good forensic team to tell if a video was altered, so that arguement doesn't sit well with me.

If they aren't doing anything wrong, there shouldn't be any objection from the cops. I would think the only ones having a basis for objection would be any civilians in the video, and only if they were not blurred out if the video was released to the media. As Anderson Cooper says, it's just keeping them honest. If they can't handle that, maybe they're in the wrong profession. I understand the CIA is big on secrecy, maybe they should apply there.

[texican]

I hear tell they have some mighty small video cameras these days. Pretty much all smart, and a lot of dumb, phones have em.

If I were to record an interaction, I'd not tell the officer, and not mention it, unless the officer had done something wrong, or improper. And then at the trial, it'd be presented. After I'd made dozens of copies, and hid copies on the internet.

[||Downhome||]

whats good for the citizen is good for the gander , I mean officer....

[||Downhome||]

isn't it only eaves dropping if you are listening in on a third party?

I believe if you are recording a first party conversation your ok, I.E. you and someone else.... am I wrong?

[ChristyACB]

Originally Posted by ||Downhome||

isn't it only eaves dropping if you are listening in on a third party?

I believe if you are recording a first party conversation your ok, I.E. you and someone else.... am I wrong?

Depends on the state. Some have laws that expressly call out audio unless all parties agree..while video isn't mentioned. Some call out all forms of recording unless all parties know. Some call out all unless the initiator knows...etc.

Each state is pretty different (part of the reason that some states still have perverts who put cameras around houses or even inside common walls and so long as it doesn't go into the living space of the spied upon and doesn't have sound, it isn't illegal) so check your state and then comply with their law.

In fact, if you go this route, have a copy of the law in your glove box.

[Shrek]

Heartland-America sells a functioning ink pen with pinhole camera and mic that can record up to 3 hours or so for about $70.

[fantasymaker]

Originally Posted by bluemoonluck

I'm not naive, I know there are bad cops out there. I also know there are bad commanding officers out there, and bad prosecuting attorneys, and bad people on both sides who are willing to alter or lose evidence to cover their assets.

I also know that the MAJORITY of cops and CO's and prosecuting attorneys are good people who do a good job day in and day out for low pay and little thanks from Joe Public.

The department my fiance works in is huge on integrety for their officers - if you tell them something and they find out your version of the events was not accurate, you are terminated immediately. This is common knowledge in the dept and the cops will tell their CO's up front when they've screwed up. Better to be suspeded for a week than be unemployed. But this is just his department, and I know every PD is run differently.

I am glad to hear that about your fiance's dept BUT I doubt your statment I bolded is true elsewhere.
If it was I don't think that over HALF of the Death penalty cases in IL would be overturned when closely scrutinized by a neutral third party.
Your mileage may vary.