{"id":299,"date":"2012-12-03T10:24:07","date_gmt":"2012-12-03T15:24:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/2012\/12\/citizens-can-video-on-duty-police-supreme-court.html"},"modified":"2012-12-03T10:24:07","modified_gmt":"2012-12-03T15:24:07","slug":"citizens-can-video-on-duty-police-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/2012\/12\/citizens-can-video-on-duty-police-supreme-court.html","title":{"rendered":"Citizens can video on duty police &mdash;Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>\nThe Supreme Court has declined to review a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals<br \/>\ndecision that struck down an Illinois law prohibiting audio recordings<br \/>\nwithout permission,<br \/>\nechoing last year&#8217;s<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/blog\/2011\/09\/boston-catches-up-with-atlanta-you-can-video-police.html\"><br \/>\nFirst Court decision that you can record police on the job.<\/a><br \/>\nLet&#8217;s remember it&#8217;s not just police:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote style=\"font-size: 120%;\">\n<p>\n&#8220;Gathering information about government officials in a form that can<br \/>\nreadily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment<br \/>\ninterest in protecting and promoting<\/p>\n<blockquote style=\"font-size: 120%;color:green\"><p>&#8216;the free discussion of<br \/>\ngovernmental affairs.&#8217;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>\nThat means all elected or appointed or employed government officials, from<br \/>\nCounty Commissioners and City Councils down through sheriff and<br \/>\npolice departments to the Animal Shelter.<br \/>\nPolice are employees, not elected or appointed, so these rulings would appear<br \/>\nto apply to other governmental employees.\n<\/p>\n<p>\nRadley Balko wrote for Huffpo 27 November 2012,<br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/www.huffingtonpost.com\/2012\/11\/27\/supreme-court-recording-police_n_2201016.html\"><br \/>\nSupreme Court Inaction Boosts Right To Record Police Officers<\/a>,<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/www.huffingtonpost.com\/2012\/11\/27\/supreme-court-recording-police_n_2201016.html\"><br \/>\n<img decoding=\"async\" style=\"float:right;border:none;\" class=\"at-xid-6a0120a58214e4970b017c343abf20970b\" src=\"\/blog\/images\/6a0120a58214e4970b017c343abf20970b-pi.jpg\"    \/><\/a>\n<\/p>\n<p>The Illinois and Massachusetts laws have been used to arrest people<br \/>\nwho attempt to record on-duty police officers and other public<br \/>\nofficials. In one of the more notorious cases, Chicago resident<br \/>\nTiawanda Moore was arrested in 2010 when she attempted to use her<br \/>\ncell phone to record officers in a Chicago police station.\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>\nMoore had come to the station to report an alleged sexual assault by<br \/>\na Chicago cop, and says she became frustrated when internal affairs<br \/>\nofficers allegedly bullied her and attempted to talk her out of<br \/>\nfiling the report. Moore was eventually acquitted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\nThe lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which<br \/>\nis planning a police accountability project in Chicago that will<br \/>\ninvolve recording police while they&#8217;re on duty. The organization<br \/>\nwanted to be sure its employees and volunteers wouldn&#8217;t be charged<br \/>\nwith felonies.\n<\/p>\n<p>\nThe 7th Circuit Court found a specific First Amendment right to<br \/>\nrecord police officers. It&#8217;s the second federal appeals court to<br \/>\nstrike down a conviction for recording police. In August 2011, the<br \/>\nU.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled that a man wrongly<br \/>\narrested for recording cops could sue the arresting officers for<br \/>\nviolating his First Amendment rights.\n<\/p>\n<table style=\"float:right;width:300px;\"  >\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/articles.chicagotribune.com\/2012-11-27\/news\/ct-met-supreme-court-police-taping-ban-20121127_1_cook-and-crawford-counties-police-officers-enforcement\"><br \/>\n<img decoding=\"async\" style=\"float:right;border:none;\" class=\"at-xid-6a0120a58214e4970b017c343abf29970b\" src=\"\/blog\/images\/6a0120a58214e4970b017c343abf29970b-pi.jpg\"    \/><\/a><br \/>\n<br \/>\n<small><br \/>\nCook County States Attorney Anita Alvarez<br \/>\n<\/small>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>\nThat decision also found a broad First Amendment right to record<br \/>\non-duty government officials in public: &#8220;Gathering information about<br \/>\ngovernment officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to<br \/>\nothers serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and<br \/>\npromoting &#8216;the free discussion of governmental affairs.'&#8221; And in<br \/>\nfact, in that it strips police who make such arrests of their<br \/>\nimmunity from lawsuits, it&#8217;s an even stronger opinion. Of course,<br \/>\nthe police themselves rarely pay damages in such suits \u2014<br \/>\ntaxpayers do&#8230;.\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>\nAnd don&#8217;t we have better uses for our local taxes than defending them from such lawsuits?<br \/>\nSince our local officials no doubt have nothing to hide,<br \/>\nwe can hope such lawsuits never occur here, because local officials will not try to<br \/>\nstop citizens from recording them on audio or video.<br \/>\nAlso note these Circuit Court rulings go beyond the Georgia Open Meetings Law;<br \/>\ncitizens&#8217; First Amendment right to record government officials appears to extend to anywhere<br \/>\nand any time officials are doing their duty.\n<\/p>\n<p>\n-jsq<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court has declined to review a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision that struck down an Illinois law prohibiting audio recordings without permission, echoing last year&#8217;s First Court decision that you can record police on the job. Let&#8217;s remember it&#8217;s not just police: &#8220;Gathering information about government officials in a form that can [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[176,97,2,11,20,733,3],"tags":[8747,8736,372,1274,1275,1272,1273,8701,8699,1276,8702,8710,1271,12,7,661,8799,1270,652,8700,6,234],"class_list":["post-299","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-aclu","category-activism","category-government","category-lake","category-law","category-media","category-transparency","tag-aclu","tag-activism","tag-atlanta","tag-boston","tag-chicago","tag-citizen","tag-first-amendment","tag-georgia","tag-government","tag-illinois","tag-lake","tag-law","tag-law-enforcement","tag-lowndes-area-knowledge-exchange","tag-lowndes-county","tag-massachusetts","tag-media","tag-police","tag-sheriff","tag-transparency","tag-valdosta","tag-video"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/299","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=299"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/299\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=299"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=299"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=299"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}