Supreme Court rejects plea to block taping of police
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has rejected an Illinois prosecutor's plea to allow enforcement of a law aimed at stopping people from recording police officers on the job.
The justices on Monday left in place a lower court ruling that found that the state's anti-eavesdropping law violates free speech rights when used against people who tape law enforcement officers. The law sets out a maximum prison term of 15 years.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in 2010 against Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez to block prosecution of ACLU staff for recording police officers performing their duties in public places, one of the group's long-standing monitoring missions.
Opponents of the law say the right to record police is vital to guard against abuses.
The justices on Monday left in place a lower court ruling that found that the state's anti-eavesdropping law violates free speech rights when used against people who tape law enforcement officers. The law sets out a maximum prison term of 15 years.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in 2010 against Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez to block prosecution of ACLU staff for recording police officers performing their duties in public places, one of the group's long-standing monitoring missions.
Opponents of the law say the right to record police is vital to guard against abuses.
Law enforcement officers conducting official business in public places have no reasonable expectation of privacy. On the other hand, the people of the United States have a compelling interest in monitoring the behavior of government officials to ensure that those who are empowered to enforce the law are not themselves breaking it. Does anyone know if the silly Oregon law outlawing audio recordings of police in public places is still on the books? If so, how soon can we get rid of it?
In this age of instant information, it might be in the best interest of citizens not to video record police officers. For example, in the Rodney King case and other cases where police were recorded kicking and beating a subject on the ground, we see that this can lead to rioting, murders, looting and general chaos. So maybe it's better if people don't record these types of things and just keep quiet about it for public safety and their own well being. Now if you get caught with a video tape of a Rodney King beating, the police will confiscate it and put you in prison for ten years. It's considered a crime to reveal the truth.
15 years? Holly crap what are police doing that needs this kind of cover up.
Â
Wait...Cook County, as in Illinois? As in Chicago?
Â
Oh, Ok I see now.
Â
Â
:)
Â
Â
The police have no expectation of privacy when they are in public. Glad the Supreme Court and ACLU prevailed on this one.
Good news. Like Charleton Heston said in Touch of Evil: "Police work is only easy in a police state."
I REALLY want to know, what good does it do, NOT to tape the police.
Â
What reason could there possibly be, for there to be a law, where we the people are not allowed to tape them???
Â
Just a poor attempt at trying to make it so cops can break the law, and no one is allowed to try and stop them.Â
Although I'm not a fan of the ACLU, I believe the Supreme Court and the ACLU got this one right.Â
 @DeaconBugg I am.  I'm a huge fan.  The ACLU is almost always on the side of Constitutional liberties for the individual.  Which sometimes means that they're standing on the side of an issue that, while a little nauseating, is almost always in the best interests of those opposed to oppression. Â
Â
Sometimes you really do have to take the bad to promote the overall good.
 @Festivus Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I do like watchdog groups and feel they play an important role in our society. The ACLU is one that disappoints me more times than not, but again, I'm pleased with this ruling and feel they and the Supreme Court were spot on.
Good... In a police state the costumed goons dont like thier abuses and murders caught on tape for all to see. People that film police are patriotic heros.
I'm really not surprised that it's the Illinois prosecutor who wants this law as the cops in that state have had some very bad dealings lately. When the light of day hits them, they scurry for the darkness like cockroaches.
Those dang aclu socialist, communist, hippies !
Thank god for the ACLU.
Last year the occupiers and the police were taking video of their confrontations. I have no problem with that. Raw video lets us all see the truth.
"What is good for the goose is good for the gander". If the officer's actions are up to the standards we expect from our police force, why would they try to prevent video recording? I think the answer speaks for itself.
So how come there are no cameras allowed inside the Supreme Court? Don't we want to see them at work also?
Good call by the court.
Â
Take videos of all police actions no matter where they occur. Police can and are the problem much of the time. Most cops are type A's and can make a major incident out of a nothing call.
Well, I guess the police have to behave now, Don't they...just because a few bad apples in the crowed doesn't make them all bad,, it also has been proven fact that that video can work both ways.