By Carlos Miller
With shocking regularity, police throughout the United States are being allowed to use felony wiretapping charges to arrest people who happen to videotape or record them in public.
And what’s even more shocking is that in Illinois, police are actually authorized to make these arrests.
Most states have a provision where a cop must have an expectation of privacy in order for the charges to stand, not that it hasn’t stopped cops from making these arrests.
That provision was removed from the Illinois statute in 1994, according to Radley Balko’s column in the Chicago Sun-Times.
And that doesn’t spell good news for Christopher Drew, a Chicago street artist who was arrested last December after violating this law.
Drew, 59, was initially brought into the station on two city charges of not having a peddler’s license and peddling in a prohibited area.
But when police searched him, they found a digital voice recorder which had recorded the actual arrest.
So they slapped him with an additional felony eavesdropping law.
And this month, an Illinois judge rejected Drew’s motion to dismiss the case. So he is still facing between 4 to 15 years in prison.
All for recording a couple of cops who were harassing him for selling his dollar-a-piece art.
Talk about unconstitutional.
The eavesdropping law also appears to be unconstitutional in Maryland where Anthony Graber is facing two counts of felony wiretapping charges after he posted a video of an undercover cop pulling a gun on him during a traffic stop. He goes to court June 1.
And in another Maryland incident caught in the video above, police were arresting a woman at the Preakness race track while a man was videotaping them.
One cop turns to the videographer and tells him the following:
“Do me a favor and take a walk, now,” the officer says. “Do me a favor and turn that off. It’s illegal to record anybody’s voice or anything else in the state of Maryland.”
The videographer stopped recording it, but as one law professor pointed out in a WJZ.com article, once the officer acknowledged that the man was recording, it was no longer a “secret” recording, therefore, not applicable under the wiretapping law.
The last official interpretation of Maryland’s law came from the previous attorney general saying it was legal for officers to record video on dashcams.
Delegate Sandy Rosenberg is pushing the current attorney general for his opinion on whether you can record them, too.
“If he finds that there are circumstances when it’s illegal, under existing law, to tape public actions by police or other public officials, then it’s appropriate for me to introduce a bill to change that statute,” said Rosenberg, (D) District 41, Baltimore City.
So if there is no current legal opinion or law in Maryland, then why the hell is Graber still facing charges?
Popularity: 4% [?]
31 responses so far ↓
1 Giovanni // May 25, 2010 at 1:31 AM
If there are any lawyers from Illinois who may read this…please provide contact information in a future post. Is it possible to completely by-pass the biased Illinois state courts and seek an immediate Federal restraining order or injunction prohibiting the implementation of this clearly un-constitutional law. What is the proceedure for acquiring a restraining order or injunction from the Federal District Court? Please Advise.
2 Rance // May 25, 2010 at 3:15 AM
Illinois never ceases to amaze me, or cast any doubt in my mind, that they have the most corrupt laws and lawmakers of any state in the USA.
I don’t care what the circumstances are, in a public space, a public official (or anyone else for that matter) has absolutely no reasonable expectation of privacy.
As it was explained to me by NOPD, the reason he wanted to take my camera in for evidence was because he didn’t want to wind up on youtube, and subject to a lawsuit from the person he was arresting. So much for needing evidence.
In order to keep my brand new 5D MKII safe, and out of the hands of a clumsy, abusive cop (as well as keeping myself out of jail), I deleted the video I made of the arrest. In hindsight, I should have let him arrest me, but you know what they say about hindsight.
If a cop is following the law to the letter, and they have nothing to hide, they need not worry about their arrest video being posted on youtube.
Rance´s last blog ..BinaryGravy: RT @marklevinshow: Obama has authority to lead the oil spill recovery but he won’t b/c he doesn’t know what to do… http://bit.ly/b7ayfz
3 Rusty Carr // May 25, 2010 at 3:39 AM
Rance wrote: “If a cop is following the law to the letter, and they have nothing to hide, they need not worry about their arrest video being posted on youtube.”
They’re so fond of telling us that if we’ve done nothing wrong then we have nothing to fear.
4 akagoldfish // May 25, 2010 at 5:20 AM
The idea that the Illinois wire-tapping statute prohibits video taping a police officer in the course of their duties is something of an urban legend. However, if one goes to look up the statute and bothers to read through it’s entirety they will find the following under section 14-3, paragraph (i): “Recording of a conversation made by or at the request of a person, not a law enforcement officer or agent of a law enforcement officer, who is a party to the conversation, under reasonable suspicion that another party to the conversation is committing, is about to commit, or has committed a criminal offense against the person or a member of his or her immediate household, and there is reason to believe that evidence of the criminal offense may be obtained by the recording.”
So, if you see a police officer behaving abusively, it would be legal to record that conversation under this exception. Or, given how often police misconduct themselves, you could probably claim that any time a police officer does anything there’s a reasonable suspicion they’re about to committing a crime.
And this is all not withstanding that there’s already Supreme Court precedent on this issue, which everyone (especially the cops filing these bogus charges) seem to be forgetting.
akagoldfish´s last blog ..ridle monstr
5 John Howard // May 25, 2010 at 8:58 AM
Am I the only one who actually paid attention and understand this was in Maryland, not Illinois?
6 Porcupine Picayune // May 25, 2010 at 9:40 AM
I’d say it’s time to push for Federal Legislation legalizing the monitoring and recording of ANY Public Official in a Public Setting.
Porcupine Picayune´s last blog ..Capture A Cop & Win Dead Presidents!
7 mepsipax // May 25, 2010 at 9:44 AM
Regoddamndiculous.
mepsipax´s last blog ..Fuck you, you hillbilly cunt
8 discarted // May 25, 2010 at 12:45 PM
The Graber video made CNN today:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2010/05/25/am.costello.recording.cops.cnn?hpt=T3
9 Rusty Carr // May 25, 2010 at 12:49 PM
“Regoddamndiculous”!!
WOW! Can I use that?!
10 Carlos Miller // May 25, 2010 at 1:11 PM
Thanks for posting that. I can’t believe they blocked out the cop’s face.
They really seem to be missing the point here.
Graber had a camera sticking out of his helmet. Any idiot could see that.
So why are they afraid to state the obvious rather than just say that is the ACLU’s opinion?
11 Rusty Carr // May 25, 2010 at 1:41 PM
Well Carlos, if they stated the obvious then the next time there’s a big news story involving the state police some other news agency would get the scoop!
12 Daigo // May 25, 2010 at 2:08 PM
There is such a glut of abuse of our legal system today. I don’t know how cops expect to have some double standard that’s not given to everyone else. It’s the same with large corporations. I just read this story about Subway trying to trademark footlong: http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2010/05/24/can-subway-trademark-a-unit-of-measurement/ America is definitely becoming a less friendly place for regular hard-working people.
13 geofff // May 25, 2010 at 11:39 PM
Based on an opinion written by the Office of the Maryland Attorney General last year, the entire recording issue hinges on if there is a “reasonable expectation of privacy”. This link points to a PDF of the opinion. Note you don’t even have to inform anyone of being recorded in a public venue.
http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opinions/Advice2009/madaleno.pdf
14 Rusty Carr // May 26, 2010 at 1:09 AM
“Note you don’t even have to inform anyone of being recorded in a public venue.”
Somebody correct me if I’m wrong but I do believe that when in the PRC you DO have to inform when there’s an audio channel open.
15 Rance // May 26, 2010 at 4:10 PM
Forgive me Rusty, but the part of my brain that deciphers acronyms has taken a hiatus, and isn’t expected to be back this week. What is PRC?
I know that in certain states (Texas for example), as long as one person knows that there is an audio recording of a conversation, including recorded phone conversations, then there isn’t a breach of privacy. That one person can be the person doing the actual recording. Some states are pretty anal about it (Maryland, Illinois, and a handful of others), though police officers shouldn’t have any expectation of privacy at all when performing their duties. They can, and will, record us any chance they get in order to cover their asses and use our (citizens) words against us, so why can’t the people record them for the same reasons? The answer is that our governments, both state and federal, are comprised of the worst kind of hypocrites.
People have been transformed to sheeple, and the government has become an abusive nanny, trampling on the Constitutional rights of everyone because they know they can get away with it. When the people decide they have had enough, and stand up for their rights, they are labeled as a threat to society and charged accordingly.
I still have no idea what PRC means though, or if I came anywhere close to answering your question. Sorry for the rant.
Rance´s last blog ..BinaryGravy: RT @marklevinshow: Obama has authority to lead the oil spill recovery but he won’t b/c he doesn’t know what to do… http://bit.ly/b7ayfz
16 Unanimous // May 27, 2010 at 12:24 PM
Somebody needs to check who actually taped the video on youtube named “Preakness 2010 excessive force’. I hear that it was a cop!
17 Unanimous // May 27, 2010 at 12:25 PM
Somebody needs to check who actually taped the video on youtube named “Preakness 2010 excessive force’. I hear that it was a cop!
18 Fascist Nation // May 28, 2010 at 8:36 AM
“Always remember the law doesn’t mean what it says, but instead it means what we say it means at the time we say it.” — Those in charge (hint: the ones with the guns).
19 Cool // Jun 2, 2010 at 9:20 PM
To my understanding, there are 12 States which require 2 party consent to recording conversations.
California
Connecticut
Florida
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Washington
All others allow single party consent. Now, if you’re wearing a SIGN on your person that you are recording ANY conversation, and talking to you illustrates CONSENT to be recorded… wouldn’t that stifle the situation here? but then again… it’s obvious the DA’s won’t trifle with their bread and butter!
20 Rusty Carr // Jun 2, 2010 at 9:59 PM
Does that include conversations that are being held in a public place where one has no expectation of privacy?
21 Tom // Jun 2, 2010 at 9:59 PM
But go back and look at them more closely. Most of those states with 2 party consent require a reasonable expectation of privacy. The law is to prevent the recording of conversations on phones or in private residences or in restaurants. They don’t apply to conversations on the street. And the courts have consistently interpreted these laws this way.
22 Rusty Carr // Jun 2, 2010 at 10:03 PM
THAT’S what I wanted to know. If anybody has specific information about The People’s Republic of Kalifornicate please chime in.
23 Cool // Jun 3, 2010 at 7:02 AM
Oh, I agree… I didn’t mean to imply you needed consent in public, sorry if I wasn’t more elaborate. I think it’s ridiculous and these are just more examples of LEO’s using and bending the laws to their own interpretation and or purpose. They know and use the law, arrest’s and legal process to discourage acts and actions, knowing full well that charges won’t stick, cases will get dismissed… all as a form of intimidation, harassment and discouragement towards those seeking to exercise their rights.
One of the only things I can think of that will begin to cull this behavior would be for LEO’s to lose their shielding and protections provided by law while on duty regarding legal liability. Maybe if they came under the SAME more stringent burden of requirements in effecting an arrest that CITIZENS do, well then, maybe you’d see some change. Try making a citizen’s arrest in the manner they have shown in some of these examples and see what the courts will do to you.
It’s problematic when two sets of rules exist!
24 Kathy // Jun 3, 2010 at 3:47 PM
Wow! I had no idea that one could be arrested for recording a police officer after announcing that such recording was being made!!! So, will I be arrested now?
Kathy´s last blog ..Cambridge Police and General Manager of the Tavern in the Sq
25 Hank // Jun 11, 2010 at 11:23 PM
2 things to remember:
1). these laws cover AUDIO only, which is why cops can still use a dashboard cam with no audio
so
if you see police corruption, capture it with a still (non-video) camera, that way there is no possible violation – until the cops assault you and break your camera, so be sure there is someone else nearby shooting the same thing, and it`s result, from a hidden place nearby if possible
2). doesn`t this make it illegal for news cameramen to video tape cops also ?
think of all the times they shoot outside a court and capture all the cops standing there, as well as some things they are saying
Question: if you inform the cop you are filming, can you then continue to film and take audio legally ?
this needs a brave soul to take their case to the Supreme Court as only Then can there be a legal remedy for all
I hope it`s me !
26 Hank // Jun 11, 2010 at 11:49 PM
and one thing further:
if it Is illegal to film without 2-party consent – when are all the street surveillance cameras coming down ?
27 Chris Flowers // Jun 12, 2010 at 11:51 PM
The police think that public space belongs to THEM. It belongs to US, the PUBLIC. Our states are not POLICE STATES, they belong to us. We must be allowed to video tape them. When the police are not held accountable for anything they do, and we cannot record evidence against them, then we have no freedom to a fair trial.
28 Hank // Jun 13, 2010 at 3:59 PM
I do not see how it could possibly be better put
29 Joe Piervincenti // Jun 18, 2010 at 4:52 PM
I have always said “We The People” when there are complaints about the government pushing the limits against the people. I have reminded officials in government in a number of areas in the country where I was currently living that it’s the taxpayers and “We The People” that form this land and that elected officials and employees of government work for the taxpayers. The People “hire” them and the People can “fire” them.
However, the taxpayers never take a stand for their rights and so we see developments such as the video and situation above. It’s become a adversarial situation of we against them and until the people take this stand, impeach those errant officials, stand up to big government, and take appropriate and legal action, we will be victimized by what is obviously a “police state.”
Although I may have played devil’s advocate in a number of these discussions I have no less regard for individual and civil rights than anyone else, possibly more as I have placed my name on the bottom line in more than a few instances, even in the face of fierce opposition and retaliation.
I have also indicated to be aware and be wary of retaliation by authorities for this conflict is far from over and a contest will surely ensue for there are those that will not relent until every individual right and freedom is capped or eliminated from our society. Perhaps this is the long sought for catalyst that will decide the future for America.
30 Joe Piervincenti // Jun 18, 2010 at 5:46 PM
If you go to You Tube for the video re: the woman on the floor restrained, a witness ten feet from the incident reported that the female struck a guy in the head at a counter and then when two policewomen approached her she struck one of the policewomen.
Ummm, what are we discussing here? Now, with this video and the Seattle cop and two females getting physical, we are discussing individual rights to videotape but not the violations the females perpetrated in both instances? Can we take those infractions and turn this into a plea for the abridgement of individual rights?
I know, I know, some will say thats not the issue. Filming rights are the issue. Well, they are ONE issue, the crimes are THE issue though. We need some cooler minds with a tad more reason to sort this out. We also need to rein in citizens that think because of their personal characteristics that they are immune from codes of conduct and the law.
31 Truongson Huynh // Aug 6, 2010 at 7:49 PM
The current MD Attorney General believes that the police officer in the case of Anthony Gaber had no reasonable expectation of privacy:
http://www.oag.state.md.us/Topics/WIRETAP_ACT_ROSENBERG.pdf
Leave a Comment