Recording a Police Officer Shouldn't Be a Crime

on September 5, 2011 at 10:10 PM

chicago police Cops in Chicago are cracking down on citizens that have the gall to record them while they’re on duty. Apparently, any attempt to record your interaction with the popo in Chi-Town is an arrestable offense. It’s considered to be eavesdropping, and Illinois is the only state in the union that expressly forbids citizens from filming or recording on-duty cops.

Tiwanda Moore was sexually assaulted by a police officer during a domestic disturbance call. She went down to headquarters to file a complaint, and was strongly discouraged from doing so. She pulled out her cell phone to record the conversation, and was arrested.

Michael Allison challenged a zoning law so that he could fix up old cars on his property. When he was brought to court for violating the zoning law, he asked for a court reporter and was told no. He whipped out his digital recorder, and was arrested for violating the judge’s right to privacy. On the recorder, police found more recordings that Allison had made of his interactions with officers over this zoning issue. He has no prior criminal record, and if convicted, faces up to 75 years in prison.

This sounds more like Soviet Russia than the United States of America. Those who work in law enforcement are public figures, and they’re supposed to protect us, not oppress us. Recording something is the single best way to prove something happened, and police on the up-and-up shouldn't have a problem with it. If they are doing their jobs like they’re supposed to, no one will catch anything untoward on camera.

Police have a unique (and powerful) role in society. They carry guns and employ them when they feel it’s necessary. They arrest people and lock them up. They are the hall monitors of the real world, and not all of them have hearts of gold. Some of them might even grope a woman during a domestic disturbance call. If police can’t be recorded, what’s to rein in the bad ones from doing bad things and denying it later?

Law enforcement is there to protect the rights of the citizens. They arrest thieves, murderers, rapists, and all sorts of shady characters that endanger my rights to life, liberty, and property ownership. The rights of all Americans to a fair and just legal system trump any expectation of privacy of an on-duty police officer.

Image via MSVG/Flickr

Filed Under: crime, human rights, in the news, media, law

Like What You Just Read?

Click the "Like" button below to get Jenny Erikson's stories on Facebook.

Comments (21)

JHanc968

on Sep 5, 2011 at 10:13 PM

How stupid!

Report this comment

Anastazia975

on Sep 5, 2011 at 10:18 PM

First please refrain from making comments like that on the Soviet Union. Americans really don't know a whole lot about it. I used to live there, and it was nothing like what Americans portray. Secondly, where exactly have you been living lately?? Rights have been getting trounced on left and right. Yes I do mean that politically also. People say they want a small government, and yet they all give up rights all in the name of god, or some skewed moral compass. The minute people actually start respecting the constitution and not being a bunch of lemmings and maybe possibly stop listening to stupidity that money hungry politico's, we might be in better shape. This happens everywhere. And has been for some time. Also, using slang such as popo, does not make you look in the know.

Ladywithtwo

on Sep 5, 2011 at 10:24 PM

It is ridiculous that they could get away with that!

Nonmember comment from Rocin

on Sep 5, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Ana, interesting comment, please name a few rights we have given up "in the name of god". Curious minds want to know.

kkey75

on Sep 5, 2011 at 10:57 PM

I completely agree and I work for the police dept. All our officers wear recording devices to protect both them and the citizens.

Nonmember comment from Beaver

on Sep 6, 2011 at 12:06 AM

The mother of my son recorded a river grove police officer slap me on the forth of july for havin a bottle rocket in front of my 3 yr old son.. An a month later was arrested an charged with a class one felony an is now facing up to 15yrs in prison Even tho she has No criminal record.. some of these police out there r nothing more than cowards.. Respect goes the real police not these scared cowards

prplecat

on Sep 6, 2011 at 1:12 AM

I'm originally from Chicago, and the police force there has ALWAYS been notoriously corrupt. The police have always been able to target innocent citizens for anything, anytime, anywhere. It really is worse there than in other parts of the country.

Katie1025

on Sep 6, 2011 at 1:15 AM

I think the State of Illinois has taken the definition of "eavesdropping" a bit too far.

Definition of eavesdropping: "to listen secretly to a private conversation". This implies that a third party is listening on a seperate conversation. In both of these cases, the defendents were recording conversations of which they were taking a part of, which is not the definition of eavesdropping. With the time the defendents are facing, it almost sounds like it could be wiretapping charges.

This could also interfere to aid in a person's defense, thus violating the person's 6th amendment right to aid in his/her own defense. What if that tape recording between the accused and law enforcement official was the only piece of evidence? Under the current law, it would get thrown out because, under Illinois law, it was obtained illegally.

Now, the exception to this could be a third party recording/videotaping an event of which they have no part of. I can see that argument, as it could interfere with public safety and the police officer's ability to do his/her job.

This is probably the most blatently unconstitutional law on the books that I've heard of. I hope this makes it all the way to the Supreme Court. And denying someone a simple court clerk? How would the records be made public? By the judge's own, biased recollection? Why be so quick and severe when the act does not interfere with public safety or interfere with an officer's ability to do their job?