Recording the Police, and Police Retaliation....

OFF THE WIRE
I hope everybody who reads this article, (cited here by Jan ), notes the number of times the ACLU is involved or invoked - and Sends ‘em (the ACLU in your area… ) a $20 Bill . . .
Big


Wiretap laws were originally intended to make sure that organized crime figures who were wiretapped didn't get off on a technicality. Some states with a high degree of crime syndicate operations had two-party consent laws rather than one-party consent laws. If cops wanted to get the goods on Mafia bosses, they either had to get a judge to issue a warrant or they had to inform the Mafia boss of the recording and get consent.
Now, many people have recorders at the ready, and the cops do not want their abuses to be recorded. That was NOT an intent of any wiretapping laws. The intent was to ensure the rights of Mafia figures 4th amendment privacy guarantees were not violated due to lack of warrant issued upon some proof of probable cause, thus providing them with legal loopholes. So, the intent of keeping the cops in line has become extremely perverted and abused by the cops who now use their knowledge of wiretapping laws to their advantage. Most wiretapping laws pertain to audio recordings only, but if your video camera also records audio, you might be in violation unless you get consent. Also, some wiretapping laws contain a provision that the microphone or camera cannot be hidden.
Now, the police are getting extremely nasty and retaliatory. BOLT has already had many discussions and gone to great lengths to research the exact situation in our respective states regarding the recording of police and government officials. Reference, "Can we record police?". We will have to continue to track the situation, because the rules of the game are always subject to change.

With that background in mind, the article referenced below is from Reason, January 2011. Enjoy!
http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/the-war-on-cameras

I recently became a card-carrying ACLU member and am not ashamed of it. Despite their support for some things I do not support, I see the ACLU as an important legal rights organization. They may be more liberal than conservative, (I realize many people here consider themselves conservative), but horizontal political partisan alignment is an almost totally irrelevant measurement. Evident of this is that the people get screwed over by either state-sponsored party. It it is not horizontal left or right alignment that matters the most when it comes to defense of liberties. The more important measurement is vertical, where statist (government control) positioning is down and libertarian principles (individual liberties, self-determination, rights) are up. The ACLU is clearly MUCH more libertarian than statist.
If you look at some of the more important legal cases which have established legal precedence in support of the Bill of Rights, the ACLU has often played a part. If a person can't find any other reason to be thankful for the continued existence of the ACLU, consider the fine job they have done in helping to educate people about their lawful rights during a police encounter.
Jan