Posted on 08/22/2010 6:42:35 AM PDT by marktwain
There’s been a misconception in the media lately about it being illegal to videotape cops in three states; Maryland, Massachusetts and Illinois.
That’s not exactly true.
In Massachusetts, it is illegal to secretly record anybody without their consent, but there is no law against openly videotaping anybody in public with or without their consent, including cops. In fact, charges have been dropped against people who have been arrested for videotaping cops in public in Massachusetts.
In Maryland, state police and a certain prosecutor treat it as if it is illegal but another state attorney as well as the attorney general disagree that it is illegal to videotape cops in public. The debate should be settled entirely by the time Anthony Graber goes to trial on October 12. Also, the ACLU, which is backing Graber in this case, is asking the law to be further clarified.
That leaves us with Illinois where Radley Balko reported that it is illegal to audio record cops, even if they happen to be in public with no expectation of privacy.
Fortunately, the ACLU is now trying to change this law after filing a federal lawsuit in Chicago Wednesday to challenge the Illinois Eavesdropping Act, according to the Chicago Tribune:
Unfortunately, the article also builds on the misconception that it is illegal to record cops in public in other states.
Illinois is one of only a few states, including Massachusetts and Oregon, where it is illegal to record audio of conversations that take place in public settings without the permission of everyone involved.
In Oregon, it is not illegal to record conversations that take place in public settings because they would not have an expectation of privacy. This issue was clarified in a memo from the Beaverton City Attorney last month that was distributed
(Excerpt) Read more at carlosmiller.com ...
For once, I agree with the aclu.
The broken clock strikes...
Federal judges should write the states’ laws. Just ask the ACLU.
Not Good Enough, If the ACLU were serious, they would immediately start taking cases by people wrongly accused and forcibly kidnapped by the Jack Booted Thugs. And sue every thug personally in Federal Court for Civil Rights Violations. They should be demanding Criminal Prosecution for ALL THUGS attempting to Usurp the Rights of Sovereign Citizens. Cops are not your friends and NEVER will be. They are GOVERNMENT AGENTS first and foremost.
The ACLU cannot be counted on to help preserve the Constitution. While I sympathize with the ACLU in this case, I am not sure that it is a Constitutional one. I do think it is good public policy that it should be legal to video/audio record public officials in the course of their public duties. It helps to keep them honest and civil.
Setting public policy is a legislative function.
“Setting public policy is a legislative function.”
As limited by the State and Federal Constitutions (Federal where incorporated), executive veto, and the next election.
Where is this in the Federal Constitution?
“Where is this in the Federal Constitution?”
I did not say that it was in the Federal Constitution.
Not surprising in the least that all three of these hell-holes are RAT-run Nanny/Police-States where freedom and liberty are a PRIVELEGE granted by left-wing bureaucrats, and many of the law (pronounced "lawr" up there) enforcement agencies are mere SS troopers (small wonder many of the police uniforms up there actually LOOK like Nazi uniforms) used to intimidate and pound the sheeple into compliance with these various statist regimes authoritarian dictates.
Just WHO, other than dolts, masochists, far-left-loons, moonbats, etc., would EVER want to live in those "Peoples Republics"?
If this isn't "incorporated", why should it be in federal court?
Actually, there is a Constitutional issue: freedom of the press. Recording the actions of public officials acting in an official capacity is part of reporting on those actions—in this case the record can be published by uploading to YouTube. All of us have freedom of the press, not just “professional” journalists. The same standard has to apply to all citizens that applies to the cameraman for W*** or K***’s local news division.
“If this isn’t “incorporated”, why should it be in federal court?”
I do not know. You are the one who said it should be in federal court, not me.
The right to a public trial is worthless if the public can not see what is happening. This means to me the public has every right to see what the courts / Criminal Justice System, is up to, just as the defendant has the right to a public trial. They go hand in hand. You cant have a public trial, if the public is not invited.
Cops on the public payroll, acing as officers of the law, have no right to exclude the public from their actions. Individuals have a Constitutional Right to be informed.
This is one of the few times the ACLU has something absolutely right. Recording is a two edged sword. It will keep cops honest about their jobs, but it also keeps the number of false claims against police down. I can guarantee that the ACLU and the Trial Lawyers didn’t consider that little consequence. One of the prime rules in public service should be “Don’t do it if you would be ashamed to have it on the front page tomorrow.”
Police interrogations open to attendance by the general public?
No.
From the article that YOU posted:
"Fortunately, the ACLU is now trying to change this law after filing a federal lawsuit...
“From the article that YOU posted:”
And your point is?
Posting an article is not the same as writing it.
That your accusation was false.
You are the one who said it should be in federal court, not me.
Nope. The ACLU, which you "sympathize" with, filed in federal court.
Those being interviewed can reveal what they said if they feel like it. Cops writing tickets out in public, issuing documents charging someone with breaking the law, should be part of the public record. Why not show cops out getting their quota of tickets in? It is just a pity we will never see them giving other cops or the wives or girlfriends a break. Professional courtesy and all that. Oh yeah, remind me again how the law was meant for everyone.
“Federal judges should write the states’ laws.”
I know that is not what you meant, so I don't play silly Internet word games about it.
I can posit assumptions from out of context statements, but that does not make them correct.
Perhaps you should add a /S qualifier to that statement, even if you said “Just ask the ACLU.”
Sans disingenuous redaction:
“Federal judges should write the states’ laws. Just ask the ACLU.”
Officer to passenger: Sir, stay in the car.
I hate to get in the middle of a bit##slapping contest, but there is an obvious explanation.
The ACLU is seeking to void aspects of the Illinois State constitution that support the no taping law because it does not conform to (federal) constitutional law.
IMO, that’s a more effective challenge than going after each state individually.
Now you girls play nice!
/sarc
I know an officer who likes to tell speeders who get snotty, "I don't have a quota. I can write all the tickets I want."
A new penumbral emanation. Time to write more law from the bench.
“Freedom of the Press” is not a penumbra. It’s in the First Amendment, right after the semi-colon.
To be a member of the “press” requires only a soapbox (figuratively) not government approval.
And the word "Congress."
Do you have a point or are you just being peevish? It reads, "Congress shall make no law ..." What is the confusion?
L
Massachusetts isn’t Congress.
Cite.
L
0
Try Arrington v New York Times.
That's not the United States Supreme Court, it's the New York State Court of Appeals. It held that no signed release was required under New York state civil rights laws for an unnamed non-celebrity photographed at random where no commercial use was made of the individual's name or likeness.
Which SCOTUS declined to review so my original post was quite correct. They've spoken. Cops have no more expectation of privacy on a public way than anyone else.
And they said no signed release was required under New York state civil rights laws for an unnamed non-celebrity photographed at random where no commercial use was made of the individual's name or likeness.
Swing and a miss!
recording the cops on video should ABSOLUTELY be our right! I hate the aclu 98% of the time, they are absolutely right on this one.
Are cops non-celebrities? Why yes, they are.
Is commercial use being made of these recordings? Why no they aren't/
Did the Supremes refuse to hear the NY case basically saying it was decided correctly? Why yes they did!
Who's right? Why Lurker is, as usual.
Who's grasping at straws? Well, we'll leave that to the reader to decide.
Have a wonderful day.
State law of New York. Check.
Solely applicable to New York. Check.
Not a 1st Amendment issue under the United States Constitution. Check.
Photographer could be held liable under state law. Check.
Supremes refused to hear the NY case basically saying it was decided correctly and that state law controlled what was permitted and whether or not photographers could be held liable? Check.
Epic fail by Lurker. Check.
You should be able to take take pictures. They shouldn’t mind either unless their doing something wrong right?
http://www.ghg.com/products/timesheets
Wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.