Man Faces Life In Jail For Recording Police
09-01-2011, 02:48 PM
#21
Just a piece of FYI, but every state has laws regarding whether recorded conversations are one or two party consent. Federal laws state one party consent, but the states may restrict it to two party consent. If the second party does not consent to the recording, the first party must stop recording or be in violation of the law. Before conducting such a recording, it's good to know if your party is one or two party consent. If Illinois is a two party consent state, the civilian may not record the conversation without willful consent of the officer.
This is why you get the "this conversation is being recorded for training and quality issues...." sometimes. Either party may be in a two party consent state, so they HAVE to notify you they are recording it. If you don't consent, they may not record it. If they do, they are in violation of criminal statutes, and can probably get hammered in a civil suit.
This is why you get the "this conversation is being recorded for training and quality issues...." sometimes. Either party may be in a two party consent state, so they HAVE to notify you they are recording it. If you don't consent, they may not record it. If they do, they are in violation of criminal statutes, and can probably get hammered in a civil suit.
Reply
0
0
09-01-2011, 02:54 PM
#22
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,494
Total Cats: 4,080
In May 1836, after opponents destroyed his printing press for the third time, Lovejoy left St. Louis and moved across the river to Alton in the free state of Illinois. In 1837 he started the Alton Observer, also an abolitionist paper. On November 7, 1837, a pro-slavery mob attacked the warehouse where Lovejoy had landed his fourth printing press. Lovejoy and his supporters exchanged gunfire with them, and when he tried to prevent the mob from burning down the warehouse, they shot him. He died on the spot and was soon hailed as a martyr by abolitionists across the country. After his death, his brother Owen entered politics and became the leader of the Illinois abolitionists.
On November 2, 1837, five days before his murder, a public meeting was held in Alton, IL to discuss the "Abolition question." At this meeting, Lovejoy gave the following speech:
"It is not true, as has been charged upon me, that I hold in contempt the feelings and sentiments of this community, in reference to the question which is now agitating it. I respect and appreciate the feelings and opinions of my fellow-citizens, and it is one of the most painful and unpleasant duties of my life, that I am called upon to act in opposition to them. If you suppose, sir, that I have published sentiments contrary to those generally held in this community, because I delighted in differing from them, or in occasioning a disturbance, you have entirely misapprehended me. But, sir, while I value the good opinion of my fellow-citizens, as highly as any one, I may be permitted to say, that I am governed by higher considerations than either the favor or the fear of man. I am impelled to the course I have taken, because I fear God. As I shall answer it to my God in the great day, I dare not abandon my sentiments, or cease in all proper ways to propogate them.
"I, Mr. Chairman, have not desired, or asked any compromise. I have asked for nothing but to be protected in my rights as a citizen--rights which God has given me, and which are guaranteed to me by the consitution of my country. Have I, sir, been guilty of any infraction of the laws? Whose good name have I injured? When, and where, have I published any thing injurious to the reputation of Alton?
"Have I not, on the other hand, labored, in common with the rest of my fellow-citizens, to promote the reputation and interests of this City? What, sir, I ask, has been my offence? [sic] Put your finger upon it--define it--and I stand ready to answer for it. If I have committed any crime, you can easily convict me. You have public sentiment in your favor. You have [your] juries, and you have your attorney [looking at the attorney-general], and I have no doubt you can convict me. But if I have been guilty of no violation of law, why am I hunted up and down continually like a partridge upon the mountains? Why am I threatened with the tar-barrel? Why am I waylaid every day, and from night to night, and my life in jeopardy every hour?
"You have, sir, made up, as the lawyers say, a false issue; there are not two parties between whom there can be a compromise. I plant myself, sir, down on my unquestionable rights, and the question to be decided is, whether I shall be protected in the exercise and enjoyment of those rights,--that is the question, sir;--whether my property shall be protected; whether I shall be suffered to go home to my family at night without being assailed, and threatened with tar and feathers, and assassination; whether my afflicted wife, whose life has been in jeopardy, from continued alarm and excitement, shall, night after night, be driven from a sick-bed into the garret, to save her life from the brick-brats and violence of the mobs; that, sir, is the question." [Here, he reportedly broke into tears, then continued.]
"Forgive me, sir, that I have thus betrayed my weakness. It was the allusion to my family that overcame my feelings. Not, sir, I assure you, from any fears on my part. I have no personal fears. Not that I feel able to contest the matter with the whole community; I know perfectly well I am not. I know, sir, you can tar and feather me, hang me up, or put me into the Mississippi, without the least difficulty. But what then? Where shall I go? I have been made to feel that if I am not safe at Alton, I shall not be safe anywhere. I recently visited St. Charles to bring home my family, and was torn from their frantic embrace by a mob. I have been beset night and day at Alton. And now, if I leave here and go elsewhere, violence may overtake me in my retreat, and I have no more claim upon the protection of any other community than I have upon this; and I have concluded, after consultation with my friends, and earnestly seeking counsel of God, to remain at Alton, and here to insist on protection in the exercise of my rights. If the civil authorities refuse to protect me, I must look to God; and if I die, I have determined to make my grave in Alton."
And his best quote:
"As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.”
On November 2, 1837, five days before his murder, a public meeting was held in Alton, IL to discuss the "Abolition question." At this meeting, Lovejoy gave the following speech:
"It is not true, as has been charged upon me, that I hold in contempt the feelings and sentiments of this community, in reference to the question which is now agitating it. I respect and appreciate the feelings and opinions of my fellow-citizens, and it is one of the most painful and unpleasant duties of my life, that I am called upon to act in opposition to them. If you suppose, sir, that I have published sentiments contrary to those generally held in this community, because I delighted in differing from them, or in occasioning a disturbance, you have entirely misapprehended me. But, sir, while I value the good opinion of my fellow-citizens, as highly as any one, I may be permitted to say, that I am governed by higher considerations than either the favor or the fear of man. I am impelled to the course I have taken, because I fear God. As I shall answer it to my God in the great day, I dare not abandon my sentiments, or cease in all proper ways to propogate them.
"I, Mr. Chairman, have not desired, or asked any compromise. I have asked for nothing but to be protected in my rights as a citizen--rights which God has given me, and which are guaranteed to me by the consitution of my country. Have I, sir, been guilty of any infraction of the laws? Whose good name have I injured? When, and where, have I published any thing injurious to the reputation of Alton?
"Have I not, on the other hand, labored, in common with the rest of my fellow-citizens, to promote the reputation and interests of this City? What, sir, I ask, has been my offence? [sic] Put your finger upon it--define it--and I stand ready to answer for it. If I have committed any crime, you can easily convict me. You have public sentiment in your favor. You have [your] juries, and you have your attorney [looking at the attorney-general], and I have no doubt you can convict me. But if I have been guilty of no violation of law, why am I hunted up and down continually like a partridge upon the mountains? Why am I threatened with the tar-barrel? Why am I waylaid every day, and from night to night, and my life in jeopardy every hour?
"You have, sir, made up, as the lawyers say, a false issue; there are not two parties between whom there can be a compromise. I plant myself, sir, down on my unquestionable rights, and the question to be decided is, whether I shall be protected in the exercise and enjoyment of those rights,--that is the question, sir;--whether my property shall be protected; whether I shall be suffered to go home to my family at night without being assailed, and threatened with tar and feathers, and assassination; whether my afflicted wife, whose life has been in jeopardy, from continued alarm and excitement, shall, night after night, be driven from a sick-bed into the garret, to save her life from the brick-brats and violence of the mobs; that, sir, is the question." [Here, he reportedly broke into tears, then continued.]
"Forgive me, sir, that I have thus betrayed my weakness. It was the allusion to my family that overcame my feelings. Not, sir, I assure you, from any fears on my part. I have no personal fears. Not that I feel able to contest the matter with the whole community; I know perfectly well I am not. I know, sir, you can tar and feather me, hang me up, or put me into the Mississippi, without the least difficulty. But what then? Where shall I go? I have been made to feel that if I am not safe at Alton, I shall not be safe anywhere. I recently visited St. Charles to bring home my family, and was torn from their frantic embrace by a mob. I have been beset night and day at Alton. And now, if I leave here and go elsewhere, violence may overtake me in my retreat, and I have no more claim upon the protection of any other community than I have upon this; and I have concluded, after consultation with my friends, and earnestly seeking counsel of God, to remain at Alton, and here to insist on protection in the exercise of my rights. If the civil authorities refuse to protect me, I must look to God; and if I die, I have determined to make my grave in Alton."
And his best quote:
"As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.”
Reply
0
0
09-01-2011, 03:09 PM
#23
All this blanket cop bashing is vile. Sure, there are some bad apples in the cart, but the other side of the coin is anarchy and a complete deterioration of society. The issue here is that we're no longer a republic, and the government is using laws and regulations to push political and financial agendas, not to ensure the basic safety needs of the public. Remind you all of another society that did that......comrades?
Reply
0
0
09-01-2011, 03:13 PM
#24
I believe the conversation consent laws pertain to private interactions not public. I'm sure I've caught hundreds of people in the background of random pictures/videos throughout the years and never received consent, at 15 years in prison a person I'm going to be there for quite some time.
IIRC, the whole Title III issue came up when the FBI wiretapped a bunch of corrupt Congresspeople, and subsequently arrested and prosecuted them. The laws were then enacted to "protect personal privacy and freedom".
Reply
0
0
09-01-2011, 04:43 PM
#29
I did some more research on the wiretapping laws and when/why they were enacted. I recall reading an article about certain Congresspeople getting hung up in an FBI sting decades ago, and that the laws were against wiretapping were enacted. But I've just read some other articles that stated that the US Supreme Court passed down some decisions basically stating that wiretapping without a warrant or consent was a violation of the 4th Amendment. Perhaps some of these things were taking place around the same time. Either way, the laws were intended to restrict law enforcement's freely recording conversations.
The Patriot Act, well, that's another topic. Lots of people during the Bush administration ran around screaming that it restricted civilians' freedom. I personally don't remember being restricted in any way at that time. However, I can easy see the current administration using it to fulfill political agendas when Congress and voters try to restrict the administration from it's activities.
The Patriot Act, well, that's another topic. Lots of people during the Bush administration ran around screaming that it restricted civilians' freedom. I personally don't remember being restricted in any way at that time. However, I can easy see the current administration using it to fulfill political agendas when Congress and voters try to restrict the administration from it's activities.
Reply
0
0
09-01-2011, 06:40 PM
#32
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,099
Sorry to ruin the party:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/cit...-1764P-01A.pdf
Ruling from Monday at the circuit court level, affirming the lower court's ruling that ALSO said that taping the cops in public is not wiretapping.
Also, that guy's site sells a bunch of **** to conspiracy theorists, so maybe he's got a vested interest in trumping up every possible story like this?
For fun, I clicked the "About Alex Jones" link on that site, and got this far:
before I stopped reading.
#manufacturedoutrage
http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/cit...-1764P-01A.pdf
Ruling from Monday at the circuit court level, affirming the lower court's ruling that ALSO said that taping the cops in public is not wiretapping.
Also, that guy's site sells a bunch of **** to conspiracy theorists, so maybe he's got a vested interest in trumping up every possible story like this?
For fun, I clicked the "About Alex Jones" link on that site, and got this far:
Internationally recognized veteran broadcaster, documentary filmmaker, and investigative journalist Alex Jones has been featured as a prominent figure of the 9/11 Truth Movement
#manufacturedoutrage
Reply
0
0
09-01-2011, 07:46 PM
#33
Yep.
I've been thinking about this one. Being the cop is a "servant of the public", not to mention "anything you say and will be used against you", there is no reasonable expectation of privacy between the cop and civilian, therefore no law violation by the civilian. Anything the civilian says to the cop is going to be recorded either on paper or by audio, and will be used against said civilian, which would make it public information anyway. The state's going to have it's butt in a HUGE civil suit.
I've been thinking about this one. Being the cop is a "servant of the public", not to mention "anything you say and will be used against you", there is no reasonable expectation of privacy between the cop and civilian, therefore no law violation by the civilian. Anything the civilian says to the cop is going to be recorded either on paper or by audio, and will be used against said civilian, which would make it public information anyway. The state's going to have it's butt in a HUGE civil suit.
Reply
0
0
09-01-2011, 08:01 PM
#34
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
To protect and serve... so long as you don't make an audio or video recording of an officer doing something wrong. How the **** is the crime "eavesdropping" by simply recording an LEO? Eavesdropping on what? I'm quite sure this guy will go free, but if for whatever reason he doesn't some people really need to stand up for this kind of bullying.
Reply
0
0
09-01-2011, 08:10 PM
#36
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
Exactly. Nothing in the interaction between an officer and the "guilty" party should be private. It's all on record and will be brought up in court anyway. So how eavesdropping applies to this is beyond me. Another prime example of out of date laws that need to be updated.
Reply
0
0
09-01-2011, 08:17 PM
#37
It's not an out of date law, it's that they are trying to inappropriately apply it to suit their agenda. If you mean out of date, in that they have to include "not to be applied during contact between an LEO and civilian", well the Constitution already has Amendments to protect the civilian, which are being trampled by the state right now.
Reply
0
0
