• 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.

Man Faces Life In Jail For Recording Police!

For Pete's Sake!

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
42
Location
USA
This is by far one of the biggest abuses of power I have ever seen! Revolutions are spawned from this type of cr@p! :mad::mad::banghead:

http://www.infowars.com/man-faces-life-in-jail-for-recording-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.
 

Tony4310

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
474
Location
Florissant, MO
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?
 

For Pete's Sake!

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
42
Location
USA
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!
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
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.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
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.
 

QilvinLEO

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
46
Location
Missouri
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

Brion

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
160
Location
Goldsboro, NC
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 turd, step in it, and throw the boot away TRASH.
 

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
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.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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?
 

raw6464

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
11
Location
, ,
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.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
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.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 
Top