Woman Arrested For Recording Attempt To Report Police Officer Who Sexually Assaulted Her

from the feeling-safer? dept

We've had a few stories about how police have been abusing wiretap laws to arrest people who video or audiotape the police, and here's a whopper of a case. Apparently a woman named Tiawanda Moore has been arrested and faces 15 years in prison in a case that goes to trial shortly. Her "crime"? Apparently, after being sexually assaulted by a Chicago police officer, she went to the Chicago Police Department's internal affairs group to report the officer. After being pressured not to file a report, she pulled out her mobile phone and started recording what was going on. The officers in the room saw this... and arrested her for eavesdropping. Oh yeah, while her trial starts shortly, the officer she reported is still "being investigated."


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 10:21am

    Business As Usual

    The laws that we created to protect us from the government now protect the government from us. The force of law can't stop the feds from wiretapping citizens without a warrant, but we'll be sure to nail this woman to the wall.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Killer_Tofu (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 10:34am

    Re: Business As Usual

    I have never been able to figure out why they let all the high profile people such as politicians and actors and actresses off very light and then "make an example" of your every day person who nobody knows.

    Oh wait, yah I have. It revolves around money and the buddy buddy system of collusion they have going.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Eric, Jan 24th, 2011 @ 11:18am

    Quote from story

    This a great quote from the NY times story covering the topic: "Mark Donahue, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said his organization “absolutely supports” the eavesdropping act as is and was relieved that the challenge had failed. Mr. Donahue added that allowing the audio recording of police officers while performing their duty “can affect how an officer does his job on the street.”"

    I think Mr. Donahue needs to provide an explanation on how a police officer's actions would change if they knew they were being recorded...maybe some examples would be helpful (Rodney King might be a great starting point!)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Benny6Toes (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 11:18am

    Free press

    The IA officers had every right to stop talking after they saw her pull out the phone, and they didn't. the phone wasn't concealed and, by the sound of it, she placed it on the desk. they kept talking. That sounds like consent to me.

    She should argue that she was planning to turn the tape over to a local news organization (better yet: all of them) and that they were infringing on the 1st Amendment. Every news organization in Chicago should file a request for access to the phone and run a story on what she did manage to record.

    Would members of the press still be breaking the law? Doubtful, and if they were, then I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court would have something to say about the Constitutionality of this particular law; even the current Supreme Court.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 24th, 2011 @ 11:23am

    Re: Free press

    Not everyone is aware that a cell phone can also be used as a recorder. If she was intending to record the conversation, she should have put the phone on the table and said "I am recording this conversation, is that okay with you?". By doing it in a secretive manner (just placing the phone to the table isn't enough show what she was doing, she could have just been checking the time), she violated their rights. Guess what? Police have rights too.

    Sorry, but she fails.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 24th, 2011 @ 11:23am

    Re: Free press

    Well, unless Congress decides journalistic privilege is against the law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 24th, 2011 @ 11:25am

    Re: Re: Free press

    Except...clearly they were aware, or we wouldn't be talking about this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 24th, 2011 @ 11:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Free press

    Once they became aware she was using it to record, they arrested her. It wasn't based on her declaration, rather someone realized she was recording without permission.

    It's not a difficult story.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Ben, Jan 24th, 2011 @ 11:36am

    A bit confused

    If she pulled out the phone in front of them and started recording with their knowledge as it sounds like the case here, how is this eavesdropping? Seems pretty scare for law enforcement to have the power to tap our phones without a warrant and yet arrest us for a clearly identified attempt to record an incident that may be illegal in itself.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 24th, 2011 @ 11:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Free press

    Ah yes, how dare someone actually try to record the real statements of authority figures instead of the ones they make when they are aware they are being recorded.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 11:40am

    12 Monkeys

    Man, this law is just full of fail.

    Also, one has to wonder if this would ever make it past a jury. They just need *one* person in the jury who thinks cops have too much power and, let's be honest, they do. Seems like a bad law and a waste of taxpayer money.

    It is curious that this law also applies to law enforcement. I doubt it's quite as aggressively enforced going the other way.

    Luckily, The ACLU are on this. Further reading from digging around links from the article are about Micheal Allison and Chris Drew. I do find it off that the law is max 3 yrs for first offense, and 5 for more than one *unless* you're recording a judge, attorney or a cop-- where it's 15 years max. So, if I record a cop without consent while that cop records me without consent, I'll go away for a max of 15 years and he'll get a max of 3. For recording the same exact conversation. That seems fair, right? :/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    DCX2, Jan 24th, 2011 @ 11:45am

    Re: Re: Free press

    Police may have rights, but a citizen should be able to record their interactions with law enforcement officials who are in the act of carrying out their duties.

    While we're on the rights of the police, how about his speedy trial? She got her speedy trial, but the cop she filed a complaint against is still being investigated.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 11:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Free press

    I can see why you would want to remain anonymous with that opinion! Remember - if the police had nothing to hide they would have no need to prosecute.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Jeremy Lyman (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 11:51am

    Re: 12 Monkeys

    I'd read that Illinois has an exemption for law enforcement officials recording citizens.

    Citizen records Citizen without consent = 3-5 years in jail
    Citizen records Cop or Govt official without consent = 15 years in jail
    Cop records Citizen without consent = Good police work.

    I'm boycotting Illinois till the get this mess sorted.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    CStrube (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 11:51am

    Re: Re: Free press

    I agree that the officers have rights as well, however we apparently disagree on a point. The officers, I feel, have all the rights/privileges of people when acting as people.

    Where I feel that we disagree is that when the officers were acting as representatives of the State, then their actions should be in compliance with any applicable Sunshine laws, and thus it's not their actions that are being recorded, but the utterances and actions of the State as incorporated by the States acting agents. In this case the IA officers.

    If the officers wanted their conversation to be private, they should not be acting in their official capacity. Otherwise their actions, carried out in the citizens name, should be accountable to the same.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    ECA (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 11:53am

    i WONDER.

    ITs amazing the laws we create.
    The law is for protection of Private property.
    You cant TAPE ME on my own property, without permission.
    YOU CAN tape me if I am on YOUR property.

    Public places and locations...OPEN to anyone that wishes to record you. THAT is how Business works and can get away with recording Thieves in stores. Unless they DECLARE they are private property, which means you MUST have permission to record.

    A police building is a PUBLIC facility. Only protection you have is IF' you declare it and in the restroom.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Nastybutler77 (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 11:55am

    Chi town

    And this is why most of the country thinks Chicago is the most corrupt city in the US.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    DJ (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 11:58am

    Re: Re: Business As Usual

    While you are correct, it goes deeper than that; WAY deeper.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Benny6Toes (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 12:02pm

    Re: Re: Free press

    Except that getting any phone to record is more than simply flipping a switch. If it was just pulling a phone out and clicking a button and putting it down then I might agree that it wasn't obvious. Only it's at least three operations to make a phone record (turn on screen, open recording app/function, click record button). I don't buy that they didn't know she started recording until a few minutes later (or longer)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 24th, 2011 @ 12:03pm

    The interrogation rooms are all recorded anyways. Whats the harm in one more recorder in the room?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    DJ (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 12:04pm

    Re: Quote from story

    Rodney King WAS a great starting point...
    for just such laws as the "eavesdropping act".
    Once that happened, the crooked cops -- not all are crooked -- realized that they'd get in all kinds of trouble if the general public were allowed to video/audio tape their every move.

    To clarify, I wholeheartedly support local police forces. It's the crooked individuals that we too often see; and we tend to forget that they make up a small percentage of the whole.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 12:04pm

    Re: Re: 12 Monkeys

    Yeah, now I notice that they do, however, from what I can make out through the legalese, it requires a judge's approval beforehand, with some exceptions that still require a judge's approval after the fact.

    It's also worth noting that the definition of "eavesdropping device" is very broad.

    I'm also sad to learn that my state of Massachusetts is one of the 12 states that require all parties consent to record a conversation-- but is singled out with Illinois as the only two states that don't have an exception to this law for public conversations where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Very disturbing. I'm going to have a tough time boycotting my state of residence. :/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Benny6Toes (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 12:08pm

    Questions

    1) If a press conference is held, then does the press corps need to ask every speak if they can record them before asking a question (and recording it)?
    1a) Does members of the press corps have to ask each other if they can record each other?

    2) If a reporter walks up to somebody on the street and has a camera man with them (or a voice recorder in hand), then are they automatically breaking the law when they start pelting their target with questions?

    3) If I get pulled over and tell the cop that I'm recording everything that is said in the traffic stop, then can he give me a ticket? :-p

    (Yes, I know the answer to #3, but it would be fun to try...somewhere other than Chicago.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Anonymous Coward (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 12:09pm

    Re: Re: 12 Monkeys

    Good luck. Illinois has a lot of issues, and this one is only the tip of the iceberg.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    DJ (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 12:15pm

    Re: Re: Free press

    The First Amendment DOES NOT prohibit someone from recording (for the idjits: "recording" can be done by handwriting, so don't bother with any time vs. tech arguments) a public, or semi-public, conversation; just that YOUR right to say whatever you want can't be infringed upon.
    Regardless of local laws, eavesdropping does not infringe upon anyone's rights ("privacy" and "public" are mutually exclusive)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Terry, Jan 24th, 2011 @ 12:15pm

    Wait a minute

    I thought the wiretapping laws restricted recording conversations where the other party/parties were NOT aware of it. Sounds like she attempted to record the conversation right in front of their faces. Am I wrong?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    Bruce Ediger (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 12:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Business As Usual

    Care to elaborate a bit? I mean, it's something of an open secret that US police abuse their power, from petty things in some jurisdictions all the way up to totally major things like huge cover-ups, with a side does of having it in for obvious members of racial minorities. But you sound like you're talking about something else altogether.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Jackie Aldridge, Jan 24th, 2011 @ 12:34pm

    Not evedropping or wiretapping!

    Notifying people that she's recording something is not wire tapping or evesdropping.
    Chicago must have a very corrupt Internal Affairs department in the police department. And a corrupt District Attorney's office too.
    Suggest all people make a note not to go to Chicago if at all possible. Not for conventions, not for business. Corruption at that level is such that one can't do business in that area at all.
    It boggles the mind, as if it were being done in some corrupt third world nation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    Will Sizemore (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 12:34pm

    What if an Illinois cop records a (higher) government official? Do to the members of the Illinois National Guard also have this protection? What about other governmental officials NOT under the employ of the state of Illinois?

    I can see a plausible justification; that recording a government official CAN discredit the law enforcement agency or office/administration that the official works for.

    However, enforcement of the law itself does more to discredit the entire government of Illinois in the eyes of the people.

    Since when is the government supposed to be here to serve the government? I thought the government was here to serve the people?

    This 'law' should be repealed, or at least amended to state that should officers be recorded violating the laws or even improperly enforcing them, that they should be placed on an immediate paid suspension and all such judgments against the citizens should be overturned with reparations made.

    I HATE when Police, Firefighters, etc. refer to those whom are NOT part of their organizations as civilians. They are too. Unless you're the President/Vice President of the USA, a member of the NSA, CIA, FBI, Homeland Defense, etc. or a member of the Armed Forces, meaning Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, or Coast Guard, then you're a civilian. If you're a civilian working FOR one of those agencies then you're still a civilian, no matter what your job title is. I am an Army retiree and I am now a civilian. I love the police, fire departments (except those jackasses who let houses out of district burn down if they owner hasn't paid the premium) and other local law enforcement and protection agencies, but YOU ARE ALL CIVILIANS TOO. Funny thing is, they're not all citizens though.

    Illinois is all kinds of jacked up these days and I'm glad I've never even been there.

    Its funny how the term originated to mean the OPPOSITE! A civilian was SUPPOSED to mean Civil Servant. What the hell are police, judges and lawyers if not civil servants? "To Serve and Protect " is more accurate a motto.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 12:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Free press

    Not only does it not prohibit it, but if you recall the Freedom of the Press portion of the first amendment, a savvy lawyer (IANAL) could spin it in such a way that the First Amendment *protects* gathering news, allowing for public recording without consent from all parties.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 24th, 2011 @ 12:44pm

    It's ok to record if you think something illegal is happening or is about to happen without asking for consent and that is what she did.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 24th, 2011 @ 12:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Free press

    I couldn't agree more. Public officials, when acting in a public capacity, do not and should not have any expectation of privacy.

    I could see an argument that police officers or district attorneys need to have private discussions about on-going investigations and things of that nature; however, that was not the type of recording made in this instance. To take it one step further, I believe that the police should be recording all of their interactions with any citizen and those recordings should be made available on demand (except where a judge says no for public safety, on-going criminal case, etc.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 24th, 2011 @ 12:58pm

    If I take notes on a conversation I have with a police officer with pen and paper, would it be illegal recording?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 24th, 2011 @ 12:58pm

    If I take notes on a conversation I have with a police officer with pen and paper, would it be illegal recording?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    John Duncan Yoyo, Jan 24th, 2011 @ 1:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free press

    Yeah but what prosecutor in his right mind would bring this case to trial. It would be a guaranteed loser- rape victim threatened with prosecution by police trying to cover up fellow policeman's miss deeds. Can we say Streisand Effect.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 1:11pm

    Re:

    (720 ILCS 5/14‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 14‑2)
    Sec. 14‑2. Elements of the offense; affirmative defense.
    (a) A person commits eavesdropping when he:
    (1) Knowingly and intentionally uses an eavesdropping device for the purpose of hearing or recording all or any part of any conversation or intercepts, retains, or transcribes electronic communication unless he does so (A) with the consent of all of the parties to such conversation or electronic communication or (B) in accordance with Article 108A or Article 108B of the "Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963", approved August 14, 1963, as amended;

    For purposes of this Article, the term electronic communication means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or part by a wire, radio, pager, computer, electromagnetic, photo electronic or photo optical system, where the sending and receiving parties intend the electronic communication to be private and the interception, recording, or transcription of the electronic communication is accomplished by a device in a surreptitious manner contrary to the provisions of this Article. Electronic communication does not include any communication from a tracking device. (All emphasis is mine!)
    =======

    Do you consider your eyes a "photo optical system"? If so, then maybe. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    Christopher (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 1:12pm

    Hopefully, the judge will throw this case out as a violation of the woman's right to protect herself. Personally, I was ALWAYS leery of those laws that didn't allow people to record conversations, especially when they were between two people IRL.

    Now, if you have to WIRETAP someone (i.e. become a third person with no relevance to the conversation in question), then you are doing something wrong and should be penalized for that.... however, I believe it should be a CIVIL offense, not a criminal one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    Christopher (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 1:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: 12 Monkeys

    Some of these states need to have these laws amended to say that if you are NOT talking to someone who is required to keep your secrecy (i.e. a doctor, psychologist or lawyer), that person can record your conversation and use it against you period... UNLESS, they are a law enforcement official or acting on orders of a LEO.

    Then, they need a warrant.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    Christopher (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 1:19pm

    Re: i WONDER.

    Actually, I would argue that you don't have privacy in the restroom either, because you could be doing something just as illegal in the restroom as anywhere else.

    We have expanded the right to 'not been seen nude without our permission' so much that.... you can basically get away with near anything.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Christopher (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 1:22pm

    Re: Questions

    Actually, the answer to 3 is not as clear cut as you would make it out to be. The courts have been looking leery at things that ban you from recording police officers WHEN THEY ARE ON THE JOB and WHEN YOU HAVE A LEGITIMATE REASON TO BE RECORDING THEM.

    The fact is that LEO's are just as likely to lie as the worse mass murdering sociopath on the planet, if they wish to nail you.

    That is the reason why I believe that LEO's should NOT be taken anymore as telling the truth as a regular person is, without outside confirmation (which more and more states are doing by having recording equipment on police vehicles).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    Steve R. (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 1:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Free press

    Lets extend this concept a bit further "Public officials, when acting in a public capacity, do not and should not have any expectation of privacy."

    Everywhere we go, we are now virtually recorded. These recordings can be used by those making it for whatever purpose they see fit. Given our surveillance society, why shouldn't a private citizen be able to use any recording device that they have available to document their side?

    To paraphrase Chris Rhodes comment"The laws that we had created to protect the public from abusive government practices are now being revised to protect the government by prohibiting the public from having access to the facts to defend themselves.. So much for personal freedom in our evolving police state.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    Eugene (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 2:00pm

    Re: Re: Free press

    Are you kidding?! If anything, it should be illegal NOT to record everything the police do.

    Who watches the watchmen, remember?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    Benny6Toes (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 2:09pm

    Re: Re: Questions

    I agree completely, and your opening paragraph actually sparked another thought: many (most?) police cars a have a video camera (and mic) recording what's happening. I certainly didn't consent to that monitoring.

    I also don't consent to speed or other traffic cameras recording me when I'm driving. Sounds almost like an instant out to red-light cameras to me...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    Haywood (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 2:22pm

    Re: Re: Quote from story

    "we tend to forget that they make up a small percentage of the whole."

    In a lot of towns and cities, that statement would refer to the honest cops.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    citizen kane, Jan 24th, 2011 @ 2:28pm

    Sad fact of life: the crooks have been in control for quite some time now. question abusive authority: create fear, intimidation, "get on the ground" (grovel)/imprisonment --- up to and including immediate execution ("he was reaching for his waistband"). Big bro gangsta rap for real... ("There's something goin' on here..."). Gotta feed da system (prison/industrial complex). To quote Prince Charles: "Some people don't know their place.?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Mohammed K, Jan 24th, 2011 @ 2:38pm

    Why is that

    why this thing is happend here while she suppose to have the right and she got Jailled, It doesn't seems well after she got abused after all that she show them the recording she did not show them to destroy his reputation it was self defence eavesdropping.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 2:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Free press

    You've obviously never heard of the Hawthorne Effect: the very act of obsservation is enough to change the behaviour of an individual.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Paul, Jan 24th, 2011 @ 2:51pm

    Re:

    Actually, if you're a member of NSA, CIA, FBI, etc., you're still a civilian. A NON-CIVILIAN is covered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (in addition to all the other laws). That includes most DoD employees.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 3:34pm

    Re:

    clearly the issue is that it is one the police can't easily tamper with if it records something they don't like.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    NattyFido (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 3:57pm

    Surely she hasn't broken any law as she could say she was recording the conversation instead of writing notes?
    My understanding of the law here in the UK is that I do not need to inform the other party in a conversation that I am recording said conversation as long as I am part of that conversation, even a telephone conversation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Dave, Jan 24th, 2011 @ 3:59pm

    she's in for it

    By your title, I thought that she was being arrested for actually recording the assault itself.

    If she recorded something at the police station, especially Internal Affairs, I would bet they have her dead to rights legally.

    Even though I'm inclined to sympathize with her, I can see where the police have an argument. If someone can record any police interview anywhere, then the police cannot keep anything confidential, and their work requires confidentiality in many cases. Sadly, this could shield some abusers.

    For a depressing but gripping read, look up Adrian Schoolcraft in the Village Voice site. An officer in Brooklyn, he taped all his work for about a year, exposing plenty of corruption.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Jose_X, Jan 24th, 2011 @ 4:00pm

    Re: Re: Business As Usual

    >> It revolves around money and the buddy buddy system

    There is also the perspective issue. If you know someone and know they are ordinarily ok (after all, they befriended you), then you can see how something might have been a human mistake. But when you are dealing with strangers, it's much easier to fear and suspect the worst (or at least be more objective).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 24th, 2011 @ 6:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Free press

    I don't think permission should generally be required. A police station should be public property, it's funded by the public, and the police are funded by the public and they work to serve the public. The public has a right to know how they are doing their jobs. That's part of the reason why police transceivers can be listened to from scanners and travel over the air unencrypted, so that citizens can listen in on what the police are doing. Not saying that everything the police do should be made public, some police work might require some degree of secrecy from criminals, but generally their behavior should be open to the public.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 24th, 2011 @ 6:58pm

    Re: Business As Usual

    "The laws that we created to protect us from the government now protect the government from us."

    They also protect big corporations from us (ie: patents and many other laws used to suppress competitive innovators) but they don't sufficiently protect us from them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    Chris in Utah (profile), Jan 24th, 2011 @ 9:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free press

    its actually at the neutrino level and the fundamental flaw in science but nevertheless pertinent to the discussion as a starting point but the reaction & solution to the "cops have rights" is also fundamentally flawed. How? you might ask. It's simple really; rights are made up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    Rose M. Welch (profile), Jan 25th, 2011 @ 1:25am

    Re: Re: Free press

    Sorry, but she fails.

    Except she doesn't, because citizens clearly have the right to tape officers on duty.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    Rose M. Welch (profile), Jan 25th, 2011 @ 1:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Free press

    You have to be charged before your Sixth Amendment rights can kick in.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    icon
    Rose M. Welch (profile), Jan 25th, 2011 @ 1:31am

    Re: she's in for it

    If someone can record any police interview anywhere, then the police cannot keep anything confidential, and their work requires confidentiality in many cases.

    There was no police interview. There were only her protests that there should be an interview.

    Regardless, I firmly believe that we should be able to record any interactions we have with LEOs. If two Illinois LEOs need to have a private conference about a confidential matter, they can do it behind a closed door, like LEOs do in other states.

    Sadly, this could shield some abusers.

    An abuser is being shielded now, so what's the difference?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Jan 25th, 2011 @ 4:08am

    Re: she's in for it

    No, shge recorded the reaction of IA to a serious allegation against an officer of the law. There's a subtle, but distinct, difference.

    She has requested that person A was investigated, alleging sexual assault. When they basically laughed at her, shee got her phone out and started recording. IF this was done surreptitiously, then they are, indeed, bang to rights.

    On the other hand, if it was blatant, as in, 'I'm going to record this now,' then she's bang to rights on basic First Amendment grounds. Just ebcause you have an idea of Free Speech doesn't mean that speech is automagically copyrighted and illegal to record etc. That would be insane.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    icon
    Killer_Tofu (profile), Jan 25th, 2011 @ 6:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Business As Usual

    While that would make sense for cops and politicians perhaps it doesn't make sense for the slew of actresses lately who have been going to jail for drugs and drunk driving and all that jazz. If anything, the courts would know that those ladies are high profile and they wouldn't know them personally. Who better to make an example of? Yet they let them off really light or are always released early because of "overcrowding" (which I know is a real problem in a lot of places but its funny how those people are always let go early).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    icon
    TheGmatCoach (profile), Jan 25th, 2011 @ 8:33am

    Gov't Control

    I go back to Jefferson's quote: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

    We must stand up to this type of behavior that doesn't protect the people in which the government serves.

    - Lee

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 25th, 2011 @ 9:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free press

    "The laws that we had created to protect the public from abusive government practices are now being revised to protect the government by prohibiting the public from having access to the facts to defend themselves."

    Not to mention the government often tries to destroy any evidence of their wrongdoings so that they can later deny it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    me, Jan 25th, 2011 @ 11:17am

    Re:

    i think you will find that if you itend to share it with a third party you do need to inform them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    known coward, Jan 25th, 2011 @ 11:54am

    public officers executing public duties, in public facilities, should as a matter of course be public record.

    those who make it illegal should be . . . well i can not say. cause you know how the government feels about citizens who believe they have rights to free expression.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    Heidi, May 4th, 2011 @ 5:27am

    Re: Re: Free press

    Give me a break...if cops are that stupid, they don't belong in the job they do...

    As far as I've EVER been able to tell, cops are well aware of their own rights...it's the rights of others they routinely violate.

    Anonymous Coward - yeah, that seems like a good name for you :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 4th, 2011 @ 5:33am

    Re: Chi town

    Nah...that's not the only reason. It has just as much to do with people like Anthony Abbate :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 4th, 2011 @ 5:34am

    Re: Re:

    EXACTLY!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    Heidi, May 4th, 2011 @ 6:05am

    Re: Re:

    In the words of Evee (Natalie Portman's character on V for Vendetta)..."are you, like, a crazy person or something...?"

    WTF difference does it make what is being used to record...? And the very specific difference between eyes, ears and a brain rather than an actual device is that - there is no emotion or conflict or interpretation involved in the device recording. It can be heard AS IT WAS! For REAL!

    Yeah, this government better start being afraid of its people...especially after what they've put us through. We're gonna be watching. It's just too bad that it took this long...goes to show that the media has not been earning their paychecks...they've been too busy trying to distract us from the real issues...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    identicon
    Heidi, May 4th, 2011 @ 6:16am

    Re:

    I agree - except when it involves the government. If the government is going to record a conversation, it should require a warrant.

    Damn Patriot Act is so disturbing...Bush's only legacy when it comes down to the heart of the matter...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    identicon
    h, May 4th, 2011 @ 6:20am

    Re: Re: she's in for it

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    identicon
    Heidi, May 4th, 2011 @ 6:30am

    Re: Re: she's in for it

    Fuck you - that's all I have to say is - FUCK YOU!

    Bang to rights??? WTF are you talking about?

    She was MAKING A STATEMENT - THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDED ANYWAY REGARDLESS. It should have been recorded by the jackasses that she was talking to - but their motivation was skewed. A person...a citizen...a civilian - should be able to record ANY conversation that they have with ANYONE - but even MORE SO a conversation with a public SERVANT. And especially one she's MAKING A STATEMENT TO!

    The ONLY exception I can see in the matter is if the PERSON is acting as an agent of the POLICE/STATE. Seems to me she was doing this of her own accord. I hope those cops get NAILED TO THE WALL! I'm SICK TO DEATH of cops and "officials" getting away with MURDER!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    identicon
    Heidi, May 4th, 2011 @ 6:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Free press

    I think I love you :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    icon
    Angelina (profile), Aug 31st, 2011 @ 7:18pm

    Missing something here are we?

    After reading the comments on here, I think everyone is missing something important that is mentioned in the article and that I am surprised no one else picked up on....

    How do you eavesdrop on your OWN conversation??

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 3:38pm

    Re: Business As Usual

    I dont believe that the police officer assulted her i think she is lying what a shame

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 3:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free press

    THAT WOMEN IS A LYING COW dont believe her she is doing it for attention LIAR

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    identicon
    dojodo187f#$%thepolice, Dec 28th, 2013 @ 11:18pm

    Re: Re: Free press

    Fuck you and those swine

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This