Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Man Faces Life In Jail For Recording Police!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    42

    Man Faces Life In Jail For Recording Police!

    This is by far one of the biggest abuses of power I have ever seen! Revolutions are spawned from this type of cr@p!

    http://www.infowars.com/man-faces-li...ording-police/


    Also a readers comments on the article with this. Unbelievable!:

    Truthnow says:
    August 31, 2011 at 12:51 pm
    In late 2008, Allison went to the Robinson police station, tape recorder in hand, and asked the chief to tell his officers either to name the law he was violating and issue him a citation or leave him alone. Not long after, two Robinson police officers showed up at his mother’s property and, while he was working on his mother’s car in her driveway, wrote Allison a citation for violating the eyesore ordinance. Allison openly recorded the conversation with a digital recorder. A court date was scheduled for January 2010.

    The day before the trial, Allison went to the Crawford County Courthouse to request a court reporter for the proceedings. “If they were going to convict me of this bogus ordinance violation, I wanted to be sure there was a record of it for my lawsuit,” he says. As he spoke with Crawford County Circuit Court Clerk Angela Reinoehl, Allison showed her his digital recorder, although he says in this instance he wasn’t recording. “I held out the tape recorder to make it clear that if they weren’t going to make a record of this ridiculous farce, I was going to make sure I had one,” he says.

    Reinoehl denied the request, but Allison’s promise to record the proceedings apparently came through loud and clear. Just after he walked through the courthouse door the next day, Allison says Crawford County Circuit Court Judge Kimbara Harrell asked him whether he had a tape recorder in his pocket. He said yes. Harrell then asked him if it was turned on. Allison said it was. Harrell then informed the defendant that he was in violation of the Illinois wiretapping law, which makes it a Class 1 felony to record someone without his consent. “You violated my right to privacy,” the judge said.

    Allison responded that he had no idea it was illegal to record public officials during the course of their work, that there was no sign or notice barring tape recorders in the courtroom, and that he brought one only because his request for a court reporter had been denied. No matter: After Harrell found him guilty of violating the car ordinance, Allison, who had no prior criminal record, was hit with five counts of wiretapping, each punishable by four to 15 years in prison. Harrell threw him in jail, setting bail at $35,000.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    I don't see the problem.
    How is a proper ruling regime supposed to work if what they do can be scrutinized by the ruled?

  3. #3
    Regular Member Tony4310's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Florissant, MO
    Posts
    474
    It's IL so i'm not surprised. They are in the business of banning peoples rights. It's a SHUT YOUR MOUTH AND OBEY state. Can we sell IL to Cuba?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony4310 View Post
    It's IL so i'm not surprised. They are in the business of banning peoples rights. It's a SHUT YOUR MOUTH AND OBEY state. Can we sell IL to Cuba?
    LOL! I have often said that if we ever got rid of New York and California we would have one helluva country! I just added Illinois to the list!

  5. #5
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Even if we had to PAY for Cuba to take Illinois it would be worth it.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    I think we should simply open the floodgates to Cuban immigration, but only if they're willing to relocate in Chicago.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    So basically the judge makes a criminal complaint about the recording, claiming his rights have been violated, then rules on the case set before him. Then he goes on to rule that the defendant should be thrown in jail and set a bail amount based on the charges he brought up. How is that even legal? The defendant violated the judge's right to privacy, so the judge seeks revenge by denying the defendant his right to a fair trial.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    So basically the judge makes a criminal complaint about the recording, claiming his rights have been violated, then rules on the case set before him. Then he goes on to rule that the defendant should be thrown in jail and set a bail amount based on the charges he brought up. How is that even legal? The defendant violated the judge's right to privacy, so the judge seeks revenge by denying the defendant his right to a fair trial.
    I missed this point of view, Jack. You're absolutely correct that a judge in this situation would be well outside the bounds of their authority. Unfortunately, the only recourse is to get it tossed on appeal.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    So basically the judge makes a criminal complaint about the recording, claiming his rights have been violated, then rules on the case set before him. Then he goes on to rule that the defendant should be thrown in jail and set a bail amount based on the charges he brought up. How is that even legal? The defendant violated the judge's right to privacy, so the judge seeks revenge by denying the defendant his right to a fair trial.
    Absolutely correct. Grounds for a mistrial on appeal. If the ******* judge wanted to bring charges, he must be recused from any proceedings.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    Absolutely correct. Grounds for a mistrial on appeal. If the ******* judge wanted to bring charges, he must be recused from any proceedings.
    And wouldn't doing so invalidate any prior rulings?
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    46
    Ignorance of the law is no defense. However, I believe the judge would have to file through the prosecutor and do the whole process as a victim and not be able to judge on his own case. I feel that there are certain key facts missing as news reports often are missing facts, but if not, WOW.

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by QilvinLEO View Post
    Ignorance of the law is no defense. However, I believe the judge would have to file through the prosecutor and do the whole process as a victim and not be able to judge on his own case. I feel that there are certain key facts missing as news reports often are missing facts, but if not, WOW.
    Sorry, the old "Ignorance is no Excuse" saying has no place in our legal system.

    Blackstone legal tradition which our country has been founded upon. Benthamite thinking such as "ignorance is no excuse" is just plain wrong.

    To be a crime you must have a victim, actus reus, and mens rea. Now if only we could get juries informed enough not to buy into Bullspit, Prosecutor theories, and Judges faulty instructions.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Goldsboro, NC
    Posts
    160
    I love how LEOs can say "Ignorance is no excuse." when they are Ignorant of the law themselves.
    When someone does something illegal and they didn't know it, they say "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
    Well them I submit to you. Ignorance is no excuse goes both ways. Just because you are ignorant of the law doesn't mean that you can arrest someone for doing something totally legal, but you don't like it. That means that you need to KNOW the laws your are charged to enforce and protect.



    It is legal to record police acting in official duties. Honestly before I would arrest anyone for anything, I would make sure I KNEW that what they were doing was illegal.

    Any cop that ever says "You might beat the charge, but you won't beat the ride." is trash in my book. TRASH. Ratfink. Spit on a dog ****, step in it, and throw the boot away TRASH.

  14. #14
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by QilvinLEO View Post
    Ignorance of the law is no defense. However, I believe the judge would have to file through the prosecutor and do the whole process as a victim and not be able to judge on his own case. I feel that there are certain key facts missing as news reports often are missing facts, but if not, WOW.
    This and two other landmark IL wiretapping cases have been highly publicized for several years now. There are multiple threads on these cases here as well.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    To be a crime you must have a victim, actus reus, and mens rea. Now if only we could get juries informed enough not to buy into Bullspit, Prosecutor theories, and Judges faulty instructions.
    Prosecutors do their level best to ensure the jury is populated with "Why sure! Justice is fair here in America" types. Perhaps a few Constitutional amendments are required. How about professional juries, trained to know precisely what they can and cannot do, as well as to ignore wayward advice from judges?
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

  17. #17
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    Looks like the judge ruled link to post in General Discussion

    I posted this here to consolidate the info
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11
    Class 1 felon, 75 years in the slammer? So technically he was better off of just shooting the cops with a gun than a video recorded.

  19. #19
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    The Eavesdropping, Wiretapping, and Electronic Surveillance Act was part of the federal Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The statute encourages states to have similar statutes as long as they are no less restrictive than the federal statute. The law was directed against abuses by law enforcement and people like the NSA.

    Here's the thing, and it applies both in the federal and state implementations: it only protects private conversations. That's Fourth Amendment privacy, not First Amendment privacy, which means that a "reasonable expectation of privacy", such that the cops would be in violation under search and seizure rules for invading the space without a warrant. E.g., the private conversation of husband and wife in their own bedroom; a telephone conversation between a man and his lawyer, where both are in places where they're not likely to be overheard.

    Things said in open court are not "private conversations". It's that simple. Looks like a 42 USC 1983 / malicious prosecution action in the making, to me. I hope he gets a good lawyer.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    That entire statutes reeks with "reasonable expectation of privacy" and appears to be designed to both prohibit officers or persons acting on their behalf from making recordings when they should, as well as to permit officers or persons acting on their behalf to make recordings under certain circumstances.

    All of these points are touched on in the reg:

    - There's no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a courtroom.

    - There's no "reasonable expectation of privacy" on a public street.

    - People videotaping officers in order to protect themselves against, officers acting outside the law are not making a recording on behalf of the officer.

    - They are, however, protecting the general public i.e. themselves and others.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  21. #21
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    If I understand this correctly, the guy was breaking the law about the "eyesore" ordinance,

    and he was dumb enough to take a recording device into a court of law.

    Stupid is as stupid does.

  22. #22
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    well,,,

    Quote Originally Posted by MilProGuy View Post
    If I understand this correctly, the guy was breaking the law about the "eyesore" ordinance,

    and he was dumb enough to take a recording device into a court of law.

    Stupid is as stupid does.
    You do NOT understand this correctly!!
    Stupid IS! as stupid does.
    Read more, post less, learn to assert your rights.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  23. #23
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Nothing to see here. Move along.
    Last edited by HandyHamlet; 09-29-2011 at 04:36 PM. Reason: To add a manacing GIF
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  24. #24
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Nothing to see here. Move along.
    Last edited by HandyHamlet; 09-29-2011 at 04:35 PM.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  25. #25
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Okay.

    Self-moderation is alive and well here.


    EDIT: I've read back through this thread twice, and I see that the judge's decision to dismiss the charges were found in one of the links that were provided.

    I stand corrected.
    Last edited by MilProGuy; 09-29-2011 at 01:48 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •