Illinois Just Made it a Felony for Its Citizens to Record the Police

[NewLiberty]

Courts are often completely insane.
You know they convicted Bernard von NotHaus of Counterfeiting because his pure silver medallions might be mistaken for the Nickle-Copper stuff the US Government makes?  So they confiscated millions of dollars of silver even though THEY LOOK NOTHING ALIKE.

Getting your day in court is not always what it is cracked up to be, especially when it is you against law enforcement and only a jury of your "peers" standing between you and a career ending felony.

BvN used the "$" symbol and even put the word "DOLLAR" on his coins.

You can't do that unless Congress says you may, via delegated authority.

The judge was pretty fair and kept him out of prison, much to the chagrin of the overreaching prosecutor thugs.

This Illinois recording law is being overblown with FUD.  It doesn't make it illegal to record where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.  If it did, the courts would shred it in no time.

Neither of the issues you raised were of any significance in the trial, just in the press release issued afterward by the FBI to rewrite the history.  They would have been easily refuted in the court.  The press is more fickle.

For your edification:
There was never a "$" on any US coin before BvN (though on many Mexican Peso coins).  The word "Dollar" is also not unique to US coins and is on very many (Including Disney Dollars), coupons, coins, "Dollar Stores".  These words and symbols are not the purview of congress, and to think that they ought control such minutia would be pretty insane anyway.

The Sacagawea dollar was the first with a "$" and this was well after the BvN trial.  It also was disingenuously called the Sacagawea golden dollar, though not having ANY gold in it and made smaller to give the impression that it had more valuable metals.
So who are the counterfeiters really?  Such brazen disregard for the people of the USA by the US Mint was answered by this coin becoming the ridicule of the numismatic community and practically driven from circulation.

The US Mint copies BvN designs more than once, and then he has to change or be charged with counterfeiting.  The minting community is not that large, and most in it knows the story pretty well.  Where BvN lead, the US Mint followed.

[BitMos]

without the cme^tm, Illinois would be in worst shape than Detroit at its worst. What saddening is that for what ever hubris the dear leaders are following there, they are ready to ditch the American dream... so sad. A2 is a premise of A1. Why can't I record the police? Isn't it the interest of all among the more perfect union to have the more perfect police that can justify it's action on tape, and be proud of themselves, and not hiding failures ala greenpeace? Anyway in the Iron Ring of Manhattan such deviant behaviors are always recorded... who is afraid of whom? you wanna play, welcome to the XXI century, bitches:).

[NewLiberty]

without the cme^tm, Illinois would be in worst shape than Detroit at its worst. What saddening is that for what ever hubris the dear leaders are following there, they are ready to ditch the American dream... so sad. A2 is a premise of A1. Why can't I record the police? Isn't it the interest of all among the more perfect union to have the more perfect police that can justify it's action on tape, and be proud of themselves, and not hiding failures ala greenpeace? Anyway in the Iron Ring of Manhattan such deviant behaviors are always recorded... who is afraid of whom? you wanna play, welcome to the XXI century, bitches:).

It is unenforceable in any case. 
Every time they walk into a 7-11 for free coffee or go get some donuts, they will be on surveillance camera.

[BitMos]

It is unenforceable in any case. 
Every time they walk into a 7-11 for free coffee or go get some donuts, they will be on surveillance camera.

what those monkeys don't know is that they already are, it's just last phases of the corrupts that have to be pathed. Have you ever played an AI in a real VG?

[TECSHARE]

Courts are often completely insane.
You know they convicted Bernard von NotHaus of Counterfeiting because his pure silver medallions might be mistaken for the Nickle-Copper stuff the US Government makes?  So they confiscated millions of dollars of silver even though THEY LOOK NOTHING ALIKE.

Getting your day in court is not always what it is cracked up to be, especially when it is you against law enforcement and only a jury of your "peers" standing between you and a career ending felony.

BvN used the "$" symbol and even put the word "DOLLAR" on his coins.

You can't do that unless Congress says you may, via delegated authority.

The judge was pretty fair and kept him out of prison, much to the chagrin of the overreaching prosecutor thugs.

This Illinois recording law is being overblown with FUD.  It doesn't make it illegal to record where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.  If it did, the courts would shred it in no time.

Neither of the issues you raised were of any significance in the trial, just in the press release issued afterward by the FBI to rewrite the history.  They would have been easily refuted in the court.  The press is more fickle.

For your edification:
There was never a "$" on any US coin before BvN (though on many Mexican Peso coins).  The word "Dollar" is also not unique to US coins and is on very many (Including Disney Dollars), coupons, coins, "Dollar Stores".  These words and symbols are not the purview of congress, and to think that they ought control such minutia would be pretty insane anyway.

The Sacagawea dollar was the first with a "$" and this was well after the BvN trial.  It also was disingenuously called the Sacagawea golden dollar, though not having ANY gold in it and made smaller to give the impression that it had more valuable metals.
So who are the counterfeiters really?  Such brazen disregard for the people of the USA by the US Mint was answered by this coin becoming the ridicule of the numismatic community and practically driven from circulation.

The US Mint copies BvN designs more than once, and then he has to change or be charged with counterfeiting.  The minting community is not that large, and most in it knows the story pretty well.  Where BvN lead, the US Mint followed.

Agreed. I watched NORFED grow and get prosecuted and raided as it happened. NORFED did NOT violate similitude laws, and furthermore there is no law against using the $ symbol, it is not exclusive to the US or a US invention by any means. BVNH was RAILROADED, and the $7 million dollars in precious metals he had backing up their warehouse receipts was stolen by the government, not NORFED. From what I understand the metals have to now be released back to the customers. I wonder what this means for all certificate holders and individuals that had their orders seized...

[jaysabi]

BUT WAIT - It gets weird.

Now in California, this happened?

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/11/oakland-protester-unmasked-as-undercover

"An undercover law enforcement officer attempted to infiltrate an anti-police brutality protest in Oakland, California, last night. But once his cover was blown, he drew his gun. A photographer snapped pictures of him pointing it directly at the camera."

Art imitates life imitates art.



I get that they are defending themselves against the guy on the ground (who allegedly hit one of the officers).
But why the gun pointed at the camera?

A Canon is not a cannon.

When I saw this picture, my first thought was "Is he a thug wanna-be, or poorly trained?"

What cop holds a gun like that?

[jaysabi]

As for the bill referenced in the OP...

It quite clearly states that it covers recording PRIVATE CONVERSATION between two or more parties where A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY exists.  To whit, simply recording the police going about their day to day business IN PUBLIC (where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy) would not be illegal.  Recording the private conversation between two offices, an officer and a suspect/member of the public would be (potentially).

You obviously aren't an expert in law. Try reading the definition of "private conversation".

"(d)Private conversation

For the purposes of this Article,
"private  conversation" means any oral communication between
2 or more persons, whether in person or transmitted between the
parties by wire or other means, when one or more of the parties
intended the communication to be of a private nature under
circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation."

In short, all the cop has to say is he intended the conversation to be private, and that's it. The recording is illegal regardless of how actually public it is.

I did read, and indeed cited, parts of the definition of 'private conversation'... you sir seem to fail at English comprehension.  The cop could claim he 'intended the conversation' to be private as much as he likes, if it's not under 'circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation' he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

e.g. You record a cop screaming at a fleeing person at the top of his voice - no problem
e.g. You record the same cop's DISCUSSION once he's arrested/arresting the same person and speaking directly to them, you're potentially in trouble.

NB it would, ultimately, be up to a court to decide whether or not the circumstances gave rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The second section does, indeed, state that IF (and only if) the conversation recorded was deemed to be private and recorded illegally (as above, a conversation isn't automatically private just because one or the other party stated that they intended it to be) any such recording would be inadmissible (fruit of the poison tree) however, as I implied, and you stated outright, recording actions (as opposed to conversation/discussion) in public would bypass this entirely (and if you were close enough to record you could actually testify as to what, if anything, you overheard).

 Actually you  didn't "cite" parts of the "private conversation" definition, you INTERPRETED IT. If you know anything about law you would know words ONLY MEAN what they say they mean in the definition. If they defined "private conversation"  as talking to a stadium full of people, talking to a stadium full of people would now be "private". Your standard understanding of the definitions of the words are MEANINGLESS UNLESS DEFINED, and they are defined, exactly how I quoted, not how you INTERPRETED it.

The law clearly states

"when one or more of the parties intended the communication to be of a private nature under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation."

All a cop has to do is SAY HE INTENDED for the conversation to be private, now law enforcement gets to pick and choose which evidence is admissible. The part that says "under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation." is COMPLETELY OPEN TO INTERPRETATION by law enforcement and prosecutors. Any time there is a law regarding police that states something should have to be "reasonable" it is ABUSED HEAVILY, because for something to be "reasonable" you only have to again create another idea in your head to fabricate a REASON for your expectation of privacy.

Being out in public WOULD NOT bypass this law at all, and I know this for a fact. You know how I know this? Because they were enforcing a previous version of this law intended to stop illegal wiretapping, against people filming IN PUBLIC in order to charge them with felonies. The supreme court struck this practice down, now in order to regain this ability, they are modifying the law to explicitly give them the power to do so. You have far too much blind faith and trust in law enforcement who have no desire or obligation to help you, but only a mandate to CONSUME you and all that you own, because at the end of the day all they are, are armed revenue collection agents for their localities going into massive debt. Your well being doesn't factor into it anywhere.

When the Illinois Supreme Court invalidated the previous state law like this, they held that a police officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy in  public encounters with citizens. They did not define or elaborate further, but that language is now common law in IL, and because the new law uses the same language the previous ruling used, this new law cannot invalidate that.

I have no doubt the police will attempt to abuse or wrongly interpret the ambiguity the court left in its ruling to escape oversight, but I have hope that it will be easy to get another decision to expound upon the first ruling when they do on the basis that the intent of the ruling seems plain to me.

[TECSHARE]

As for the bill referenced in the OP...

It quite clearly states that it covers recording PRIVATE CONVERSATION between two or more parties where A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY exists.  To whit, simply recording the police going about their day to day business IN PUBLIC (where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy) would not be illegal.  Recording the private conversation between two offices, an officer and a suspect/member of the public would be (potentially).

You obviously aren't an expert in law. Try reading the definition of "private conversation".

"(d)Private conversation

For the purposes of this Article,
"private  conversation" means any oral communication between
2 or more persons, whether in person or transmitted between the
parties by wire or other means, when one or more of the parties
intended the communication to be of a private nature under
circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation."

In short, all the cop has to say is he intended the conversation to be private, and that's it. The recording is illegal regardless of how actually public it is.

I did read, and indeed cited, parts of the definition of 'private conversation'... you sir seem to fail at English comprehension.  The cop could claim he 'intended the conversation' to be private as much as he likes, if it's not under 'circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation' he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

e.g. You record a cop screaming at a fleeing person at the top of his voice - no problem
e.g. You record the same cop's DISCUSSION once he's arrested/arresting the same person and speaking directly to them, you're potentially in trouble.

NB it would, ultimately, be up to a court to decide whether or not the circumstances gave rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The second section does, indeed, state that IF (and only if) the conversation recorded was deemed to be private and recorded illegally (as above, a conversation isn't automatically private just because one or the other party stated that they intended it to be) any such recording would be inadmissible (fruit of the poison tree) however, as I implied, and you stated outright, recording actions (as opposed to conversation/discussion) in public would bypass this entirely (and if you were close enough to record you could actually testify as to what, if anything, you overheard).

 Actually you  didn't "cite" parts of the "private conversation" definition, you INTERPRETED IT. If you know anything about law you would know words ONLY MEAN what they say they mean in the definition. If they defined "private conversation"  as talking to a stadium full of people, talking to a stadium full of people would now be "private". Your standard understanding of the definitions of the words are MEANINGLESS UNLESS DEFINED, and they are defined, exactly how I quoted, not how you INTERPRETED it.

The law clearly states

"when one or more of the parties intended the communication to be of a private nature under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation."

All a cop has to do is SAY HE INTENDED for the conversation to be private, now law enforcement gets to pick and choose which evidence is admissible. The part that says "under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation." is COMPLETELY OPEN TO INTERPRETATION by law enforcement and prosecutors. Any time there is a law regarding police that states something should have to be "reasonable" it is ABUSED HEAVILY, because for something to be "reasonable" you only have to again create another idea in your head to fabricate a REASON for your expectation of privacy.

Being out in public WOULD NOT bypass this law at all, and I know this for a fact. You know how I know this? Because they were enforcing a previous version of this law intended to stop illegal wiretapping, against people filming IN PUBLIC in order to charge them with felonies. The supreme court struck this practice down, now in order to regain this ability, they are modifying the law to explicitly give them the power to do so. You have far too much blind faith and trust in law enforcement who have no desire or obligation to help you, but only a mandate to CONSUME you and all that you own, because at the end of the day all they are, are armed revenue collection agents for their localities going into massive debt. Your well being doesn't factor into it anywhere.

When the Illinois Supreme Court invalidated the previous state law like this, they held that a police officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy in  public encounters with citizens. They did not define or elaborate further, but that language is now common law in IL, and because the new law uses the same language the previous ruling used, this new law cannot invalidate that.

I have no doubt the police will attempt to abuse or wrongly interpret the ambiguity the court left in its ruling to escape oversight, but I have hope that it will be easy to get another decision to expound upon the first ruling when they do on the basis that the intent of the ruling seems plain to me.

This is not how law works. When a state passes a new law contrary to the supreme courts decision it has to be challenged in court, then appealed, and brought before the supreme court AGAIN before it is actually not enforced as law any longer. They did the SAME THING for the gun ban within the City of Chicago. It was struck down but it is still law because no one has been arrested and brought it to appeal yet to challenge it.

So REGARDLESS of how it may end up years and years from now on appeal at the supreme court, it is STILL LAW TODAY, and police still enforce it. What the supreme court said doesn't mean shit if the state is still enforcing the law as they wish with new language specifically defining private as whatever police "intend" private to be, not if an individual is in public or not. So it may very well be against the supreme court dictate, but does it matter? They will still eat up years of your life by arresting you and making you fight costly court battles. In effect it doesn't matter because it is an avenue to harass those who try to hold them accountable, and also allows police to pick and choose which video evidence is admissible in court. Even if you do by some miracle happen to win in court years later and in massive legal debt, who pays the settlement? You do, with your own tax dollars.

[jaysabi]

When the Illinois Supreme Court invalidated the previous state law like this, they held that a police officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy in  public encounters with citizens. They did not define or elaborate further, but that language is now common law in IL, and because the new law uses the same language the previous ruling used, this new law cannot invalidate that.

I have no doubt the police will attempt to abuse or wrongly interpret the ambiguity the court left in its ruling to escape oversight, but I have hope that it will be easy to get another decision to expound upon the first ruling when they do on the basis that the intent of the ruling seems plain to me.

This is not how law works. When a state passes a new law contrary to the supreme courts decision...

Actually, what I described is exactly how the law works, however there is a factual error in my post. The court did not define what "public encounters" are. The previous law the court struck down banned the recording of police working in public, and the court wrote that the state could not ban the the recording of police "where there was no reasonable expectation of privacy." The language in the new bill now uses this exact same language as the IL Supreme Court ruling, which is why legislators are assuming it's constitutional. The new law isn't contrary to the previous decision, but it's still unconstitutional. The court opened the door for something like this when they wrote an ambiguous decision. Because the court was ambiguous, further litigation will be required to define what "public encounters" are.

[TECSHARE]

When the Illinois Supreme Court invalidated the previous state law like this, they held that a police officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy in  public encounters with citizens. They did not define or elaborate further, but that language is now common law in IL, and because the new law uses the same language the previous ruling used, this new law cannot invalidate that.

I have no doubt the police will attempt to abuse or wrongly interpret the ambiguity the court left in its ruling to escape oversight, but I have hope that it will be easy to get another decision to expound upon the first ruling when they do on the basis that the intent of the ruling seems plain to me.

This is not how law works. When a state passes a new law contrary to the supreme courts decision...

Actually, what I described is exactly how the law works, however there is a factual error in my post. The court did not define what "public encounters" are. The previous law the court struck down banned the recording of police working in public, and the court wrote that the state could not ban the the recording of police "where there was no reasonable expectation of privacy." The language in the new bill now uses this exact same language as the IL Supreme Court ruling, which is why legislators are assuming it's constitutional. The new law isn't contrary to the previous decision, but it's still unconstitutional. The court opened the door for something like this when they wrote an ambiguous decision. Because the court was ambiguous, further litigation will be required to define what "public encounters" are.

Like I said, it may be unconstitutional, but it doesn't matter. It is still practiced as law in Illinois, and it is still an effective way to harass people trying to document police misconduct, and an easy way to get inconvenient evidence thrown out of court.

[MemoryShock]

When the Illinois Supreme Court invalidated the previous state law like this, they held that a police officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy in  public encounters with citizens. They did not define or elaborate further, but that language is now common law in IL, and because the new law uses the same language the previous ruling used, this new law cannot invalidate that.

I have no doubt the police will attempt to abuse or wrongly interpret the ambiguity the court left in its ruling to escape oversight, but I have hope that it will be easy to get another decision to expound upon the first ruling when they do on the basis that the intent of the ruling seems plain to me.

This is not how law works. When a state passes a new law contrary to the supreme courts decision...

Actually, what I described is exactly how the law works, however there is a factual error in my post. The court did not define what "public encounters" are. The previous law the court struck down banned the recording of police working in public, and the court wrote that the state could not ban the the recording of police "where there was no reasonable expectation of privacy." The language in the new bill now uses this exact same language as the IL Supreme Court ruling, which is why legislators are assuming it's constitutional. The new law isn't contrary to the previous decision, but it's still unconstitutional. The court opened the door for something like this when they wrote an ambiguous decision. Because the court was ambiguous, further litigation will be required to define what "public encounters" are.

Like I said, it may be unconstitutional, but it doesn't matter. It is still practiced as law in Illinois, and it is still an effective way to harass people trying to document police misconduct, and an easy way to get inconvenient evidence thrown out of court.

I actually agree with that.  Regardless of the constitutionality of the law, the headline is what many people will see and will be intimidated by.  In practice, the police will be able to harass those who are recording and even if the law at some point determines they were wrong to do so, the video still gets messed with, the stigma is still applied and the discouragement factor is still there.

The law takes years to get sorted out even in cases where there are clear violations...if anything, this is just buying time and a little bit of credibility for those who don't deserve it.

[jaysabi]

When the Illinois Supreme Court invalidated the previous state law like this, they held that a police officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy in  public encounters with citizens. They did not define or elaborate further, but that language is now common law in IL, and because the new law uses the same language the previous ruling used, this new law cannot invalidate that.

I have no doubt the police will attempt to abuse or wrongly interpret the ambiguity the court left in its ruling to escape oversight, but I have hope that it will be easy to get another decision to expound upon the first ruling when they do on the basis that the intent of the ruling seems plain to me.

This is not how law works. When a state passes a new law contrary to the supreme courts decision...

Actually, what I described is exactly how the law works, however there is a factual error in my post. The court did not define what "public encounters" are. The previous law the court struck down banned the recording of police working in public, and the court wrote that the state could not ban the the recording of police "where there was no reasonable expectation of privacy." The language in the new bill now uses this exact same language as the IL Supreme Court ruling, which is why legislators are assuming it's constitutional. The new law isn't contrary to the previous decision, but it's still unconstitutional. The court opened the door for something like this when they wrote an ambiguous decision. Because the court was ambiguous, further litigation will be required to define what "public encounters" are.

Like I said, it may be unconstitutional, but it doesn't matter. It is still practiced as law in Illinois, and it is still an effective way to harass people trying to document police misconduct, and an easy way to get inconvenient evidence thrown out of court.

I actually agree with that.  Regardless of the constitutionality of the law, the headline is what many people will see and will be intimidated by.  In practice, the police will be able to harass those who are recording and even if the law at some point determines they were wrong to do so, the video still gets messed with, the stigma is still applied and the discouragement factor is still there.

The law takes years to get sorted out even in cases where there are clear violations...if anything, this is just buying time and a little bit of credibility for those who don't deserve it.

Yeah, I agree with both of you. My original reply was just nit-picky in that I was distinguishing that the new law wasn't written in violation of the IL Supreme Court's earlier ruling. The legislator's actually think they wrote a constitutional law. I disagree, and I hope the court will too when this inevitably gets challenged when the police do what police do: violate rights.

[bf4btc]

When the Illinois Supreme Court invalidated the previous state law like this, they held that a police officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy in  public encounters with citizens. They did not define or elaborate further, but that language is now common law in IL, and because the new law uses the same language the previous ruling used, this new law cannot invalidate that.

I have no doubt the police will attempt to abuse or wrongly interpret the ambiguity the court left in its ruling to escape oversight, but I have hope that it will be easy to get another decision to expound upon the first ruling when they do on the basis that the intent of the ruling seems plain to me.

This is not how law works. When a state passes a new law contrary to the supreme courts decision...

Actually, what I described is exactly how the law works, however there is a factual error in my post. The court did not define what "public encounters" are. The previous law the court struck down banned the recording of police working in public, and the court wrote that the state could not ban the the recording of police "where there was no reasonable expectation of privacy." The language in the new bill now uses this exact same language as the IL Supreme Court ruling, which is why legislators are assuming it's constitutional. The new law isn't contrary to the previous decision, but it's still unconstitutional. The court opened the door for something like this when they wrote an ambiguous decision. Because the court was ambiguous, further litigation will be required to define what "public encounters" are.

Like I said, it may be unconstitutional, but it doesn't matter. It is still practiced as law in Illinois, and it is still an effective way to harass people trying to document police misconduct, and an easy way to get inconvenient evidence thrown out of court.

If it is unconstitutional then the law will eventually get overturned and unconstitutional laws are not very effective of achieving this goal as their effect is very temporary. Also excluding evidence that is obtained illegally is probably also unconstitutional and is another reason why the law will probably be overturned

[NewLiberty]

If it is unconstitutional then the law will eventually get overturned and unconstitutional laws are not very effective of achieving this goal as their effect is very temporary. Also excluding evidence that is obtained illegally is probably also unconstitutional and is another reason why the law will probably be overturned

It seems to be Sequentially temporary...  so maybe Illinois just gets used to it?

The silver lining is that unlike many other felonies, police are not yet allowed to use deadly force against a cameraperson just because they notice they are on camera. 
http://www.sa-macon-il.us/illinois-law-on-the-use-of-deadly-force-.html

Instead filming law enforcement there can legally merely ruin your life instead of end it. 

[jaysabi]

I understand there's still a chance the governor vetos the bill. He's a lame duck, so he doesn't have anything to lose by vetoing it on principle. The problem is the law was passed as part of another law, so it's not being passed on its merits, and it won't be vetoed without consequence to the bill it was attached to.

Actually, best case scenario would be a line item veto, which would force the legislators to go on the record as to why they're such police-state apologists when they try to defend it or override the veto, and give the public a chance to flood their offices with angry calls.

[NewLiberty]

Is it a good thing this didn't happen in Illinois?

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cops-beat-man-7-month-pregnant-wife-deleted-video-survived-cloud/

icloud apparently saved the video before the officer deleted it from the device so the "shooter" managed to retrieve it.

[TECSHARE]

Is it a good thing this didn't happen in Illinois?

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cops-beat-man-7-month-pregnant-wife-deleted-video-survived-cloud/

icloud apparently saved the video before the officer deleted it from the device so the "shooter" managed to retrieve it.

Yep, inadmissible in court doesn't mean it isn't admissible in the court of public opinion. Live casting services are your best protection against abusive thieving cops trying to destroy your property to hide their crimes.

[NewLiberty]

Is it a good thing this didn't happen in Illinois?

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cops-beat-man-7-month-pregnant-wife-deleted-video-survived-cloud/

icloud apparently saved the video before the officer deleted it from the device so the "shooter" managed to retrieve it.

Yep, inadmissible in court doesn't mean it isn't admissible in the court of public opinion. Live casting services are your best protection against abusive thieving cops trying to destroy your property to hide their crimes.

I was asking the question because if this was in Illinois, he could be charged with a felony?  The police could then go to his home and take him into custody.  What happens after that, who could say?

[TECSHARE]

Is it a good thing this didn't happen in Illinois?

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cops-beat-man-7-month-pregnant-wife-deleted-video-survived-cloud/

icloud apparently saved the video before the officer deleted it from the device so the "shooter" managed to retrieve it.

Yep, inadmissible in court doesn't mean it isn't admissible in the court of public opinion. Live casting services are your best protection against abusive thieving cops trying to destroy your property to hide their crimes.

I was asking the question because if this was in Illinois, he could be charged with a felony?  The police could then go to his home and take him into custody.  What happens after that, who could say?

Yes they could. Obviously you should release said video anonymously.

[BADecker]

First, change your Illinois and U.S. citizenship and residency to domicile. Do it by Notice recorded with your county recorder, and by 3 weeks ad in your local newspaper. Attach notes of the change to all your paperwork that has you listed as citizen or resident.

Get a buddy of yours to do the same. Should be a different State.

Then, write up an agreement or contract between you and your buddy that you require each other to photograph local governmental officials every time you have the opportunity.

If you are called to account by local authorities, use Karl Lentz's methods to sue them (their bond) for wrongful activity on your property (your camera and your body are your property) while carrying out duties outlined in a contract. Start studying so that you know how to sue http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html.

Consider the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 1, Clause 1:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Translation for our purposes:

No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts ... .

Karl thinks his methods are a fun way to make money off government.

If you are really into the idea of straightening government and the banks out, check this: http://www.abodia.com/ucc/ . Karl doesn't waste his time on this, but it might be worthwhile for you until a time comes that you have the guts and know how to stand up and be a tough guy/gal, man/woman in court the way Karl does.

The judges (technically, magistrates) and U.S. marshals love him.