• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The Government's War on Cameras!

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
Oh, I agree. Please read again what I wrote - we need a law to make explicit that police interference with that right will be punished by more than a departmental wrist slap.

As well as a prohibition against Unions hindering such disciplinary action. Some departments would love to get rid of their incompetent "employees" but the Unions are all in lockstep when it comes to blocking any action like this. Chief's now apparently have to "negotiate" with the Union in order to even reassign officers if the new assignment "offends" the disciplined officer.

At least the Post Office knew how to deal with that. They'd just assign the worthless employee a "desk job" and then never give them any work. After they were about to die of boredom, the'd quit.
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
Oh, I agree. Please read again what I wrote - we need a law to make explicit that police interference with that right will be punished by more than a departmental wrist slap.

There already is a law, just not a state one. Between this law and the 14th Amendment, you've got quite a punishment on tap:

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 13--CIVIL RIGHTS


Sec. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or
custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or
laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or
penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his
color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or
both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation
of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;
and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this
section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap,
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual
abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or
imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be
sentenced to death.

And:

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 13--CIVIL RIGHTS


Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession,
or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege
secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or
because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the
premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise
or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured--
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in
violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an
attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or
both, or may be sentenced to death.

As well as a prohibition against Unions hindering such disciplinary action. Some departments would love to get rid of their incompetent "employees" but the Unions are all in lockstep when it comes to blocking any action like this. Chief's now apparently have to "negotiate" with the Union in order to even reassign officers if the new assignment "offends" the disciplined officer.

At least the Post Office knew how to deal with that. They'd just assign the worthless employee a "desk job" and then never give them any work. After they were about to die of boredom, the'd quit.

Last I checked, you can't make a legal contract to violate the law without voiding the contract. It wouldn't matter what the police union's deal with a city or state says, if the law says otherwise.
 
Last edited:

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
Dose this no cameras on federal property thing apply to all federal property? We are talking a lot of different types of buildings how many of us have ever had a cell phone with vedio capabilities on us while in a post office


If there was a prohibition against photography on "Federal Property" wouldn't that make filming or photography illegal in National Parks?

Just sayin'...
 

ldsgeek

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
103
Location
New Hampshire
Not all federal property

If there was a prohibition against photography on "Federal Property" wouldn't that make filming or photography illegal in National Parks?

Just sayin'...

This is usually the case on military bases or military contractors. I grew up near Groton, CT and these signs were all around the Sub Base and Electric Boat, where they built a good number of the subs.
 

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
There was a recent post elsewhere that pointed out that there are about 12 states that either require all parties permission to audio/video record. In some of those states, such as here in Illinois, it is ILLEGAL to do either to a cop on duty, even from your own property.

It is a felony that they charge you with if you do.

Loophole in Ill under the "Open meeting Act" ??
"Meeting" means any gathering, whether in person or by video or audio conference, telephone call, electronic means (such as, without limitation, electronic mail, electronic chat, and instant messaging), or other means of contemporaneous interactive communication, of a majority of a quorum of the members of a public body held for the purpose of discussing public business....

"Public body" includes all legislative, executive, administrative or advisory bodies of the State, counties, townships, cities, villages, incorporated towns, school districts and all other municipal corporations, boards, bureaus, committees or commissions of this State, and any subsidiary bodies of any of the foregoing including but not limited to committees and subcommittees which are supported in whole or in part by tax revenue, or which expend tax revenue, except the General Assembly and committees or commissions thereof.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
There was a recent post elsewhere that pointed out that there are about 12 states that either require all parties permission to audio/video record. In some of those states, such as here in Illinois, it is ILLEGAL to do either to a cop on duty, even from your own property.

It is a felony that they charge you with if you do.

Citation?
 

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
Chicago State's Attorney Lets Bad Cops Slide, Prosecutes Citizens Who Record Them

But Illinois is the one state where the law clearly forbids citizens from recording of on-duty cops...

Ten months later, Chicago PD is still investigating the incident. Moore, on the other hand, was arrested the very same afternoon.

Her crime? At some point in her conversations with internal affairs investigators, Moore grew frustrated with their attempts to intimidate her. So she began to surreptitiously record the interactions on her Blackberry. In Illinois, it is illegal to record people without their consent, even (and as it turns out, especially) on-duty police officers....

This Robinson, Ill., man is facing four counts of violating the eavesdropping law for the recordings he made of police officers and a judge...

The other case to challenge the wiretap law is that of Christopher Drew, an artist who was arrested in December 2009 for selling art without a permit on the streets of Chicago. Drew recorded his arrest, and now faces four to 15 years for documenting the incident.

In a hearing last December, Cook County Assistant State Attorney Jeff Allen invoked homeland security, arguing that Drew's recording could have picked up police discussing anti-terrorism tactics.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/08/chicago-district-attorney-recording-bad-cops_n_872921.html
 

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
Another Resident Detained by Police for Taking Pictures
by Greggory Moore | No Destination | 07.12.11 |

"I asked him if I had to show him my driver's license," says Wolff. "He said 'yes.' And at that point I did feel detained. Because if he was demanding that I identify myself, then I couldn't just walk away."

Wolff says Kahn apparently ran a check on Wolff's driver's license, then came back and said that everything was okay. "He said because of Homeland Security and new laws, [the police] have the authority to ask for my driver's license and run it when they feel that there's cause."

http://www.lbpost.com/news/greggory/11971
 
Last edited:
Top