Guy Arrested, Threatened With 15 Years For Recording Traffic Stop In Illinois

from the it-just-gets-worse-and-worse dept

With Illinois planning to appeal the Michael Allison case, in which the state wants to put Allison in jail for 75 years because he recorded an interaction with the police, it's worth pointing out that this is not the only such case in Illinois. A few people have sent over this ABC report about another guy, Louis Frobe, who was arrested and told he was facing 15 years in jail for daring to turn on his Flip cam during a traffic stop. You can see the video of the traffic stop in the news report below. Yes, note the irony: the whole thing was recorded (without Frobe's permission) by the police car camera, but the second the officer sees the Flip cam, he tells Frobe he's committed a felony and arrests him:
The key part:
Frobe calls it the worst experience of his life. He was on his way to a late evening movie on an August night last year when he was stopped for speeding in far north suburban Lindenhurst. He didn't believe he was in a 35-mile-an-hour zone, and he figured if he was going to get ticket he wanted to be able to document his challenge with video evidence, so he got out his flip camera, which he was not very adept at using.

At one point he held it out the window trying to record where he was. When the officer, being recorded on his squad dash cam, walked back to Frobe's car, the officer saw Frobe's camera.

Officer: "That recording? Frobe : "Yes, Yes, I've been... Officer: "Was it recording all of our conversation? Frobe: "Yes. Officer: "Guess what? You were eavesdropping on our conversation. I did not give you permission to do so. Step out of the vehicle."

Louis Frobe was then cuffed and arrested for felony eavesdropping.
Yes, eavesdropping. On himself.

In this case, prosecutors eventually dropped the charges, but Frobe turned around and sued them for the arrest in the first place. The Illinois Attorney General -- who still insists there's no First Amendment right to record the police -- has said Frobe's case should be dismissed since he has no standing. Of course, this is a nearly identical fact pattern to the Glik case in Massachusetts, where the court not only allowed Glik to sue but found 1st and 4th Amendment problems with the arrest. These are different circuits, so the ruling in Massachusetts doesn't directly act as precedent for Illinois, but it certainly can be cited and discussed.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Xyro TR1 (profile), Sep 30th, 2011 @ 8:47am

    This is just getting ridiculous. I'm going to mount a remote-activated stealth camera in my car just for traffic stops since showing your camera is apparently a felony.

    Doesn't the squad car have a dash cam anyway?

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Fickelbra (profile), Sep 30th, 2011 @ 11:16am

      Re:

      "When the officer, being recorded on his squad dash cam, walked back to Frobe's car, the officer saw Frobe's camera."

       

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

    •  
      icon
      btr1701 (profile), Sep 30th, 2011 @ 11:34am

      Re: Law

      > Doesn't the squad car have a dash cam anyway?

      Yes, but the Illinois law, unlike other states with similar eavesdropping laws, actually carves out an exception for law enforcement. So the law itself says it's legal for the cops to record you without your permission, but you can't record them without theirs.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Greg G (profile), Sep 30th, 2011 @ 11:55am

        Re: Re: Law

        Then such a law needs to be challenged as unconstitutional, citing the Massachusetts ruling re: 1st and 4th amendment issues.

        And I agree that this is getting absolutely ridiculous. WTF is going on up there in IL?

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 30th, 2011 @ 5:05pm

      Re:

      You may want to rethink that. Showing your camera (or at least having it in plain sight) is the only thing keeping it legal. Otherwise you've wiretapped them.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 30th, 2011 @ 9:44am

    Don't you think it would have been better for him to finish with the police officer before trying to "document the scene"? I smell something on this one, the guy's logic is pretty faulty.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 30th, 2011 @ 9:47am

      Re:

      Oh yeah because with out the police officer in the picture it would be real believable that he was in the same spot he got the ticket.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      paperbag (profile), Sep 30th, 2011 @ 9:49am

      Re:

      Nope. Nothing wrong with recording a public event in public. Start and stop anytime, doesn't matter. The only thing I would have been worried about is the officer seeing the guy reaching for something... but apparently he wasn't worried about that.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      iamtheky (profile), Sep 30th, 2011 @ 9:49am

      Re:

      Yes lets document the aftermath so that the actions can be denied.

      What about videotaping the events as they happen sound like the smell you cant get rid of?

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 30th, 2011 @ 9:51am

      Re:

      Your vacation photos must be really funny.

      Why, you ask? Well, judging by your logic, you must be the kind of person that takes vacation photos after the vacation is over.

      And then you think: "Gee, Paris (or some other town) sure is real pretty this time of the year. It looks just like my house!".

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Ninja (profile), Sep 30th, 2011 @ 10:02am

      Re:

      I can't help laughing at your comment. Good job for the comedy! Wait, the intent was to humor here wasn't it?

      Point is, why couldn't he film the place while talking to the cop? And man, how the fuck can I eavesdrop myself? No rly, I'm gonna try, should be amusing.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Sep 30th, 2011 @ 10:37am

        Re: Re:

        RTFS - "At one point he held it out the window trying to record where he was. When the officer, being recorded on his squad dash cam, walked back to Frobe's car"

        My guess is the officer took his information and walked back to his squad car to write up the ticket. It was at that point that Frobe was recording the area and when the officer was walking back to give him the ticket he saw the recording.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Any Mouse (profile), Sep 30th, 2011 @ 3:02pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Funny how you respond to THIS one but not the ones that actually challenge you with logic.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Ninja (profile), Oct 3rd, 2011 @ 10:26am

          Re: Re: Re:

          And my guess is that your guess doesn't support the accusations in any way along with, as mouse said, not answering anything. But you did manage to make me laugh again so I'm assuming you are doing it on purpose for the comedy. Good job ;)

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 30th, 2011 @ 11:20am

      Re:

      No.

      As usual, though, your desperation shows.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      lucidrenegade (profile), Sep 30th, 2011 @ 11:46am

      Re:

      "I smell something on this one, the guy's logic is pretty faulty."

      What you smell is your own bullshit.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      JMT (profile), Sep 30th, 2011 @ 2:13pm

      Re:

      "...the guy's logic is pretty faulty."

      The guy's "logic" was probably telling him that it's perfectly alright to do what he was doing, because if you didn't have specific knowledge of this law (and I doubt it's common knowledge), it would never enter your head that a law so stupid would exist.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      tmr, Oct 4th, 2011 @ 6:04am

      re: seems like there should be something odd about this

      You read this story and think wow...no way...there has got to be more to this... unfortunately this has been happening quite a bit in Illinois. Evidently, there is a law that was passed about not recording someone without their permission. The intent was to protect people from being recorded for various illicit reasons. It seems however that the only time that the state is actually enforcing this law is when citizens attempt to record police officers. This is only one of many cases that have been popping up in the media.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    Bill Silverstein (profile), Sep 30th, 2011 @ 9:48am

    Only those with something to hide.

    If you are not doing something illegal, then you should have nothing to hide from the police! Why not allow the recording without a warrant? What are you trying to hide from the police you criminal?

    Oh, it was the police making arrest because of the recording. Ah, you must be a terrorist because you are taking pictures or making recordings without permission from the government. He should have been arrested, yeah.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Sep 30th, 2011 @ 9:56am

    Yes, note the irony: the whole thing was recorded (without Frobe's permission) by the police car camera,...

    Not familiar with Illinois law - is there some sort of exemption for police officers in the felony eavesdropping law or could cops with dash cams recording audio face this charge too?

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Sep 30th, 2011 @ 9:58am

    hahahaha Illinois is building itself some fine reputation.. I found myself telling it was just like Illinois these days when I saw a case of police abuse of power and then I read this.

    Priceless. I hope Illinois PD loses big time and get put back at their place.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    sehlat (profile), Sep 30th, 2011 @ 10:18am

    Only Two Citations Are Relevant

    1. "The innocent have nothing to fear."

    So what was the cop afraid of?

    2. John 3:20(KJV)For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

    Perhaps he(the cop) was afraid of his deed being reproved?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Majestic, Sep 30th, 2011 @ 10:21am

    I have to agree with the Illinois Attorney General on the point of no First Amendment right to record the police. See here why:

    http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/10/freedom_of_speech_and_of_the_press/

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Rich, Sep 30th, 2011 @ 10:26am

      Re:

      So, what? They didn't have cameras when The Bill of Rights was written. Besides, the courts (thankfully) disagree with you and Illinois' Idiot General.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Sep 30th, 2011 @ 10:42am

      Re:

      So what is the constitutional basis for cops recording the public?

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      MrWilson, Sep 30th, 2011 @ 11:20am

      Re:

      All of the "original intent of the Constitution" arguments are generally irrelevant to modern issues. The document does serve as a basis for our laws, but it is not the end of our laws. It is merely the beginning. Case law history and the passage of laws granted by the Constitution since its inception are what is important. If the Supreme Court interprets the First Amendment as covering the recording of police officers when in public, then that's what it covers. As someone else stated, the Constitution was written before audio-video recording devices existed, so it's not possible that the technology was taken into account when the document was written. But in an analog scenario, the First Amendment would cover you writing down with quill and ink what an officer of the law stated to you during an encounter and the publication of his statements in a printed newspaper. Despite the technological differences, how is the scenario any different otherwise?

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Boost, Sep 30th, 2011 @ 2:51pm

        Re: Re:

        You are dangerously ignorant and wrong.

        If this were the case, that would be be the basis for granting the courts to make up the laws as they desire by "interpreting" the constitution to mean things it doesn't. It would throw out checks and balances all together; it would be the basis for an Oligarchy.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          MrWilson, Oct 1st, 2011 @ 7:18am

          Re: Re: Re:

          You are ignorant of the duties of the judicial branch if you think the courts don't interpret the law. It's their job to do so. And yes, they will make biased interpretations of law. The checks and balances are that Congress could pass a law to reject how the courts interpreted a previous law.

          Or are we supposed to stick to 18th Century methods of doing things because the Constitution doesn't say anything about television, the internet, telephones, et cetera?

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Prisoner 201, Oct 1st, 2011 @ 10:19am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Hey, it could not possibly be illegal to pirate stuff - the original constitution says nothing about computers!

             

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 4th, 2011 @ 6:45pm

        Re: Re:

        Article VI.

        [...]
        "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
        [...]

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 4th, 2011 @ 6:46pm

        Re: Re:

        Article VI.

        [...]
        "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
        [...]

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 4th, 2011 @ 6:47pm

        Re: Re:

        Article VI.

        [...]
        "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
        [...]

         

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

    •  
      icon
      Cabal (profile), Sep 30th, 2011 @ 11:29am

      Re:

      And refuted with the first line of your link:

      "...so people can openly discuss or criticize government policy or conduct of public agents without fear of being charged with a seditious crime"

      Let me repeat that for the cheap seats:

      THE CONDUCT OF PUBLIC AGENTS WITHOUT FEAR OF BEING CHARGED WITH A SEDITIOUS CRIME.

      While 'eavesdropping' isn't 'treason' or 'rabble rousing', the obvious intent of this application of the law is to control the ability of people to refute, challenge, or highlight conduct issues of public officials.

      That there is any 'grey area' in this debate boggles my mind. At its root, the question is "Does a police officers' right to 'privacy' outweigh the rights of a citizen to speak out on the policies or conduct of the government without fear of reprisal,".

      Considering the Supreme Court is extremely reluctant to establish a blanket right to privacy this should be a no brainer.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        tmr, Oct 4th, 2011 @ 6:10am

        Re: Re:

        Just as I have no expectation of privacy when in a public place an officer should have no expectation of privacy when on the job.

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 30th, 2011 @ 10:42am

    Remember folks, it's not the police who write the laws. It's their job to enforce them: they aren't supposed to choose which ones get enforced. Get mad at the Illinois legislature and the court system if you're going to blame someone or something.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Sep 30th, 2011 @ 10:44am

      Re:

      And who lobbied the legislature to provide law enforcement an exemption to said laws.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 30th, 2011 @ 10:51am

      Re:

      Look up the term "enforcement discretion". No police department has the ability to enforce all laws equally. Nor does any court have the ability to try the cases if the police. This means they do have to choose what to enforce.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 30th, 2011 @ 11:19am

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 30th, 2011 @ 10:42am

      Most refer to that as lawful evil. "The police are just enforcing laws and orders." Bullshit. That excuse didn't work for the Nazis at Nuremburg and it sure as hell won't work here. When you are aware of yourself enforcing an unjust law, you are abusing the system. Lisa Madigan will get her comeupance when this goes to court.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Chris Rhodes (profile), Sep 30th, 2011 @ 11:20am

      Re:

      It's their job to enforce them
      First of all "I'm just doing my job" doesn't cut it as an argument.

      Second of all, they don't have to stretch laws to cover things well beyond the original intent, merely because they don't have a legitimate reason to arrest somebody. That's not justice, and it's not their job.

      Thirdly, they don't enforce the law equally. Officers routinely let other officers (and other "important" people) off the hook for crimes that would land a normal person in jail.

      Time to re-think your position.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 30th, 2011 @ 10:47am

    The guys exemption may be here. Is it a criminal offense to write a flase ticket?




    Sec. 14‑3. Exemptions. The following activities shall be exempt from the provisions of this Article:

    (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;

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Brendan (profile), Sep 30th, 2011 @ 1:46pm

      Re:

      Interesting, but it might get a bit circular.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 1st, 2011 @ 9:09am

      Re:

      This is an interesting argument. The guy believed he wasn't in a 35mph zone and wasn't speeding. If the cop writes a false ticket, that's a crime. (Not sure of the IL statute, but every state has something about official misconduct and/or falsifying government records.) Therefore, the guy could have had "reason to believe that evidence of the criminal offense may be obtained by the recording" he was making of the cops.

      I don't think that's going to matter though. This is pretty clearly an unconstitutional application of the "eavesdropping" statute. I hope these jackass cops get hit with a huge judgment.

      And one other thing--I hate how the media just comes right out and says "If you record an officer's voice without his permission, you're committing a felony." This is terrible reporting, because it's going to discourage people from doing what they have a right to do. A better way to report it would be "A few irresponsible officers seem to think that you recording them is a felony. The courts say otherwise, and [so and so] is suing some of them for $XXXXXX. [report the rest of the story]. If you're a victim of this kind of abuse, please let us know right away so we can put you in touch with a good lawyer to protect your rights."

       

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

  •  
    icon
    gorehound (profile), Sep 30th, 2011 @ 12:00pm

    why do you even be so nice as to call these guys "Police Officers".They are PIGS !!! FUCKEN PIGS !!!
    I would sue for at least a million bucks and take it to the Supreme Court if neccessary.PIGS will not be able to get away with this kind of BS for much longer.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 2nd, 2011 @ 7:40am

      Re:

      why do you even be so nice as to call these guys "Police Officers".They are PIGS !!! FUCKEN PIGS !!!
      I would sue for at least a million bucks and take it to the Supreme Court if neccessary.PIGS will not be able to get away with this kind of BS for much longer.


      You wouldn't do shit.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    Thomas (profile), Sep 30th, 2011 @ 12:04pm

    Himmler..

    would be proud of the cops and prosecutors in Illinois. How long before the state of Illinois makes it a criminal offense to possess a video camera?

    Remind me never to visit Illinois; the cops are like the Gestapo there.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Thomas (profile), Sep 30th, 2011 @ 12:09pm

    Uniforms..

    Do the cops' uniforms in Illinois have a swastika armband?

    I think the cops are just trying to prevent someone from recording them beating the crap out of innocent people. There will not be a Rodney King incident in Illinois because videotaping the incident will be a crime and the video destroyed. Great for corrupt cops, terrible for honest people.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 30th, 2011 @ 2:03pm

      Re: Uniforms..

      "Do the cops' uniforms in Illinois have a swastika armband?"

      One of the most ignorant comments of the day. I guess they are going to send him to the ovens for having used a camera?

      FUCKING IDIOT!

       

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

      •  
        icon
        JMT (profile), Sep 30th, 2011 @ 2:20pm

        Re: Re: Uniforms..

        "I guess they are going to send him to the ovens for having used a camera?"

        No, just to jail for 15 years! Way to completely miss the hyperbole and end with an ironic insult.

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Joe, May 19th, 2012 @ 10:07am

      Re: Uniforms..

      "Do the cops' uniforms in Illinois have a swastika armband?" Well as far as you know, yes. But you see, I can't actually show you videos of them so you'll have to take my word for it. j/k (although it should be obvious)

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Ray Brown, Sep 30th, 2011 @ 1:34pm

    "eavesdropping" arrest in Illinois.

    If it's a felony why did they not prosecute? Perhaps because the camera was there for all and sundry to see. Ray

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Digitari, Sep 30th, 2011 @ 2:15pm

    RE: Recording

    I think, the laws says audio recordings, not Video. You can make a movie all you want in Ill, just hold up placards, and make sure there is no sound.....(does this law defy the Americans with disabilities act? what if you are blind, but can hear..)

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Stephen, Sep 30th, 2011 @ 2:39pm

    disgusting

    That cop was a d1ck and gives other decent LEOs a bad name, and the legislators in that state are obviously fascists. Remind me to never go to Illinois.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    ECA (profile), Sep 30th, 2011 @ 2:39pm

    LONG ago, 70's to 80's

    There was a big debate over WHERE public and PRIVATE are concerned.
    Looks as if its back again.

    BACK then, as a Property owner, we lost a few RIGHTS on protecting our property.

    BUT, if they uphold the POLICE rights at ANY TIME..then we can have them Arrested for infringing on OURS, in recording the Police stop, and even making the information PUBLIC/given to out insurance corp...
    IF they consider police cameras, PUBLIC/PRIVATE information.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    PrometheeFeu (profile), Sep 30th, 2011 @ 3:08pm

    This is a good time to remember answering a cop's questions is a bad idea. When asked if he was recording the whole time, the guy should have remained silent or given the ubiquitous: "Is there a problem officer?" Remember, cops are NOT your friends.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Moose12 (profile), Sep 30th, 2011 @ 4:36pm

    Illinois guy gets 15 year sentence for taping cop

    We vote for the people who make the laws and not for the laws. Once they are made into law they can be manipulated by the powers that be because we are made to feel inadequate to interpret them. The tail is now wagging the dog. This "ticket" has all the "clout" of a seat belt violation. No death, no personal injury, no property damage,not even a plaintiff. Any of these scam tickets can be beat!! You must be prepared by knowing the law or having a trustworthy attorney, by being willing to spend 1-2 nights in jail, and be willing to appeqal to the next higher court and/or jury trial.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    atroon, Oct 1st, 2011 @ 8:15am

    The forgotten amendment

    In an excellent write up at http://davidbrin.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/the-transparency-amendment-the-under-appreciated-sixth/, futurist David Brin explains some of the implications of the sixth amendment and argues that it gives us the right to look back at authority. The text of the 6th amendment is thus:
    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    Did you notice that last part? Every person subject to criminal prosecution shall have compulsory process to obtain witnesses in his defen[s]e. Your sixth amendment right to compel testimony in your favor trumps any eavesdropping law on the books. This man is compelling the officer to tell the truth, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Andreas (profile), Oct 2nd, 2011 @ 4:01pm

    Vote Pirates - or even better, become one!

     

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

  •  
    icon
    The Moon Dog (profile), Oct 2nd, 2011 @ 5:38pm

    Constitutional Rights

    I luv listening to American's argue about the bill of rights. You should try living in a country that doesn't have one.

    Having said that, turnabout is fair play.
    If the authorities can record, you should be able to.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Wisconsinite, Oct 4th, 2011 @ 9:08am

    Police above the law there suppose to be up-holding what a bunch of crap. Seems like the Police don't want any dout about anything they say or do, so when they break the law abuse power there is no proof. Then they can say who do you believe a police officer of a lying citizen (criminal, terrorist ect.) What a load of crap. Should sue for 1 million bucks and win.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    WI, Oct 4th, 2011 @ 9:29am

    Wish I had one in my car when the idiot cop gave me a speeding ticket 15 years ago. I admit when I'm wrong but this guy was full of crap and uneducated. Quote Last time I checked if I was going 70 and he was going 70 we would stay the same distance apart. We need to have this freedom to protect ourselves from the corrupt and the ignorant. Second private business spy on employees all the time and say it's for security reasons.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    WI, Oct 4th, 2011 @ 9:31am

    He said he had to do 70 to catch up to me so I was going 70.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Oct 25th, 2011 @ 6:43pm

    Well, I suppose that means the Broadcast News media - radio & teevee - cannot show us news.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    christ colonel, Dec 10th, 2011 @ 11:10am

    Thats why they say you need a good camera holster to hide the camera :-)

     

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


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