Know your rights when you see flashing lights.
OFF THE WIRE
Dennis Bodzash
Source: examiner.com
It may seem hard to believe, but people who video record police in some states can find themselves facing up to 15 years in prison, a sentence that is comparable to that faced by rapists, armed robbers, and other violent criminals. Besides the draconian nature of this law itself, an even worse part is that the anti-wiretapping statutes, which cover video recording, are often used to hide police misconduct, too.
The latest battle in the police war on photographers comes when Tiawanda Moore, from Chicago, tried to make a report of sexual harassment against a police officer who, ironically, was at her home to investigate a domestic dispute between her and her boyfriend. According to Moore, the police department actively discouraged her from filing a report and, out of frustration, Moore began to record the conversations on her phone.
Problem: in Illinois, this is considered wiretapping, and wiretapping is a class 1 felony, the same as rape, and carries a sentence of up to 15 years in prison.
Needless to say, this case has sparked widespread outrage.
Now, while this is not specifically a case of photographing/video recording on-duty police, it is just the latest in a string of cases where citizens have found themselves in jail for pointing a camera at a police officer while he/she is on duty and conducting official business.
Legally speaking (see legal resources below), photographing police is not illegal so long as the action of taking pictures does not interfere with the officer doing his/her job. Unfortunately, with a subjective definition of 'interference' being the guiding force behind the law, there is a lot of room for interpretation here. In the most liberal sense, a police officer who does not want to be photographed can claim that the presence of the camera itself is interference and thus grounds for making an arrest.
However, when it comes to videos, the situation gets more complex.
Every state has laws regulating audio recording of conversations. Generally speaking, in most states, it is illegal to record someone when the other person can have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Obviously, a police officer out and about in public should, in theory, not have any such expectation because of the simple fact that any passer-by can her exactly what is transpiring between the officer and the suspect. However, Illinois (along with Massachusetts) is unique in that, in order for audio recording to be legal, both parties must consent no matter where the conversation is taking place (though Massachusetts is far less aggressive in prosecuting cases where exchanges are in public). Implication: still photography off police is okay but video recording with audio is a felony.
Does anyone else see the idiocy here?
Hopefully, Moore will be able to get a lawyer who can get a judge to see the absurdity of the charges and have them dismissed and, instead, turn the tables on Chicago's not so finest, who were, in this case, being the real criminals.
The latest battle in the police war on photographers comes when Tiawanda Moore, from Chicago, tried to make a report of sexual harassment against a police officer who, ironically, was at her home to investigate a domestic dispute between her and her boyfriend. According to Moore, the police department actively discouraged her from filing a report and, out of frustration, Moore began to record the conversations on her phone.
Problem: in Illinois, this is considered wiretapping, and wiretapping is a class 1 felony, the same as rape, and carries a sentence of up to 15 years in prison.
Needless to say, this case has sparked widespread outrage.
Now, while this is not specifically a case of photographing/video recording on-duty police, it is just the latest in a string of cases where citizens have found themselves in jail for pointing a camera at a police officer while he/she is on duty and conducting official business.
Legally speaking (see legal resources below), photographing police is not illegal so long as the action of taking pictures does not interfere with the officer doing his/her job. Unfortunately, with a subjective definition of 'interference' being the guiding force behind the law, there is a lot of room for interpretation here. In the most liberal sense, a police officer who does not want to be photographed can claim that the presence of the camera itself is interference and thus grounds for making an arrest.
However, when it comes to videos, the situation gets more complex.
Every state has laws regulating audio recording of conversations. Generally speaking, in most states, it is illegal to record someone when the other person can have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Obviously, a police officer out and about in public should, in theory, not have any such expectation because of the simple fact that any passer-by can her exactly what is transpiring between the officer and the suspect. However, Illinois (along with Massachusetts) is unique in that, in order for audio recording to be legal, both parties must consent no matter where the conversation is taking place (though Massachusetts is far less aggressive in prosecuting cases where exchanges are in public). Implication: still photography off police is okay but video recording with audio is a felony.
Does anyone else see the idiocy here?
Hopefully, Moore will be able to get a lawyer who can get a judge to see the absurdity of the charges and have them dismissed and, instead, turn the tables on Chicago's not so finest, who were, in this case, being the real criminals.
We in America live in a society where everyone is supposed to be subject to the same laws, whether ordinary citizen or police officer. Obviously, with the police working for us (we pay their checks with our taxes), we citizens should have a right to monitor the police and how they conduct themselves by medium of the camera. Obviously, with police intimidating photographers with threats of arrest, police are often abusing their power to, in some cases, cover up misconduct via intimidation of witnesses, which is covering up a crime by commission of yet another offense. Hopefully, the courts will see this and start ruling to protect our rights as citizens to monitor police activity, thus keeping America a nation of open government,
Continue reading on Examiner.com 15 years in prison awaits those who video police - National photography | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/photography-in-national/15-years-prison-awaits-those-who-video-police#ixzz1Owa0UAC5
Continue reading on Examiner.com 15 years in prison awaits those who video police - National photography | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/photography-in-national/15-years-prison-awaits-those-who-video-police#ixzz1Owa0UAC5
