Breaking: Supreme Court Blocks Illinois Law Prohibiting Taping of Police
Source: Associated Press
Supreme Court blocks Illinois law prohibiting taping of police
Associated Press
9:01 a.m. CST, November 26, 2012
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a plea from the Cook County state's attorney to allow enforcement of a law prohibiting people from recording police officers on the job.
The justices on Monday left in place a lower court ruling that found that the state's anti-eavesdropping law violates free speech rights when used against people who tape law enforcement officers.
- snip -
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in 2010 against State's Attorney Anita Alvarez to block prosecution of ACLU staff for recording police officers performing their duties in public places, one of the group's long-standing monitoring missions.
Opponents of the law say the right to record police is vital to guard against abuses.
Read more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-supreme-court-rejects-plea-to-prohibit-taping-of-police-20121126,0,686331.story?track=rss
marmar
(77,118 posts)nt
24601
(3,967 posts)allowed to run it like North Korea?
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)hlthe2b
(102,525 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)The court rejected an appeal and let the lower court decision stand. The police cannot stop people from recording them while performing their duties.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)The police should have no expectation of privacy while in the public, just like a private citizen has no expectation of privacy while in public.
The police are no better than the general citizenry.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)As explained in Wikipedia,
Since the Judiciary Act of 1925 and the Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988, most cases cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court as a matter of right. A party who wants the Supreme Court to review a decision of a federal or state court files a "petition for writ of certiorari" in the Supreme Court. A "petition" is printed in booklet format and 40 copies are filed with the Court. If the Court grants the petition, the case is scheduled for the filing of briefs and for oral argument.
A minimum of four of the nine Justices are required to grant a writ of certiorari, referred to as the "rule of four". The court denies the vast majority of petitions and thus leaves the decision of the lower court to stand without review; it takes roughly 80 to 150 cases each term. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari
The Clerk of the Supreme Court seems to think Anita Alvarez filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (#12-318) and did not file an appeal. The Clerk of the Supreme Court also seems to think that the Supreme Court denied a Petition for Cert, and he reported such denial ( http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-318.htm )
Was the Clerk wrong?
Instead of filing a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, did the State's Attorney in Chicago do "just the opposite" and file an appeal with the result that "the court rejected an appeal"?
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,356 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)violence with impunity.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)powerful than any mayor or governor or any juristriction nationwide.
they are their own mercanary force getting worse than ever
because the good cops won't out the bad ones.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)We have some great people on our city council in Los Angeles.
Bill Rosendahl is one of them. Ed Reyes another. A whole group of good people.
A former police chief is also on the council.
You have to work to get good people elected. You have to get to know your councilperson and not just vote for a party or a ticket without knowing who you are voting for.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)background of those whom they vote for and what they are really all about.
duhneece
(4,126 posts)This sounds like a good thing.
rocktivity
(44,586 posts)except when they step into in a public bathroom stall. And that INCLUDES the police, especially when they're on duty.
rocktivity
mopinko
(70,364 posts)to the progressives that supported her. gave us the old- who but an insider could clean this dept up? answer- anybody but.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)They can spy on us at all times, without warning (chicago's downtown is filled with cameras in ALL locations) yet, we cannot show misbehavior by police? I am glad the Supremes did the right thing. Then again, there are some pretty good justices on the bench now.
LiberalFighter
(51,344 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)mopinko
(70,364 posts)failing to stand up against abusive interrogations is one.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)fasttense
(17,301 posts)So, they decided NOT to hear the case and the lower ruling stands. How supremely kingly of them.
libodem
(19,288 posts)Restore Sanity to the US.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)The lower court's decision is a precedent for itself and the courts subject to its jurisdiction. Courts in other jurisdictions can choose to follow it.
Lasher
(27,673 posts)Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Let's not give the SCOTUS too much credit here. By refusing to hear this case, they allowed enforcement of similar laws in the other 47 states - without having to be so obvious about it.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)A FIFTEEN year prison term was the maximum penalty for videotaping cops? I guess it's not enough for them to curtail our rights and our ability to defend ourselves against police misconduct. They have to add insult to injury and tack on grossly excessive and ridiculous penalties too.
I'm really glad the court ruled the way it did. But I want the people responsible for writing this fascist law punished and that bitch attorney to lose her job.
Iggo
(47,597 posts)Kicked and Recommended.
malthaussen
(17,237 posts)Oh, wait...
-- Mal
randome
(34,845 posts)I could almost understand it if it was based on the last century since taping involved lugging around heavy cameras and this could interfere with the police. But that's simply me stretching a devil's advocate position a great deal.
Even if that WERE the rationale, today anyone can be filmed using a cell phone so it's kind of a ridiculous position to take.
Does anyone know on what basis the law was originally written?
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Whether that law is constitutional is another question altogether--a question to be decided by the courts if, and only if, someone sues the state on the grounds that the law in question is unconstitutional. That's exactly what happened here.
-Laelth
randome
(34,845 posts)Anything that made sense or was it just, 'Because we say so!' ?
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)was that it violated an officer's right to privacy. Apparently, cops are the only ones entitled to privacy when outdoors according to that logic.
The real reason? I think a lot of cops just got tired of seeing all those videos on youtube of their fellow officers behaving badly, and didn't like the fact that citizens armed with cameras posed a threat to their ability to get away with things that they've always gotten away with in the past, so they pressured some lawmakers into taking away that ability from the public.
randome
(34,845 posts)For a public official in public, I don't see how anyone can argue that with a straight face.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)jerseyjack
(1,361 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)She may have agreed to defend the law. She may have been pressured to defend the law. Her job description may even say that she must defend the State of Illinois in all legal actions, but, as a Constitutional officer, she is not required to defend a law that she believes is unconstitutional.
She either believed the law was constitutional, or she didn't care and went with the flow so as not to offend the Governor or the legislature. Either way, she bears some responsibility here.
-Laelth
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)She can (if neccesary) resign at any time, or simply refuse a repugnant order.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)after a lower court ruled it unconstitutional. She could have let it die there if she was so opposed to it.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)damnedifIknow
(3,183 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)ProudProgressiveNow
(6,129 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)and I've never had a problem with citizen oversight, whether it be watching me do my job, or filming me do my job, as long as they don't actively interfere, I say record away, it keeps us honest.
Good job SCOTUS, IL. should have known better.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)their actions memorialized under the conditions that you've mentioned.
I'm now retired, but I've known some good cops. I've also known some bad ones.
Whether a community has good cops or bad ones, in my opinion, depends upon management. Bad politicians reward and promote bad cops. Responsible politicians do not.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)and that's why I won't tolerate any bad actions from the officers under my command. My division has had the least IAD complaints 2 years running now and when I retire, I will retire with pride knowing that my division is as honest as I could make it.
Logical
(22,457 posts)But I apreciate your attitude.