Woman Arrested For Recording Attempt To Report Police Officer Who Sexually Assaulted Her
from the feeling-safer? dept
We've had a few stories about how police have been abusing wiretap laws to arrest people who video or audiotape the police, and here's a whopper of a case. Apparently a woman named Tiawanda Moore has been arrested and faces 15 years in prison in a case that goes to trial shortly. Her "crime"? Apparently, after being sexually assaulted by a Chicago police officer, she went to the Chicago Police Department's internal affairs group to report the officer. After being pressured not to file a report, she pulled out her mobile phone and started recording what was going on. The officers in the room saw this... and arrested her for eavesdropping. Oh yeah, while her trial starts shortly, the officer she reported is still "being investigated."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: chicago, eavesdropping, illinois, police, recording, wiretapping
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Business As Usual
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business As Usual
Oh wait, yah I have. It revolves around money and the buddy buddy system of collusion they have going.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Business As Usual
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Business As Usual
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Business As Usual
There is also the perspective issue. If you know someone and know they are ordinarily ok (after all, they befriended you), then you can see how something might have been a human mistake. But when you are dealing with strangers, it's much easier to fear and suspect the worst (or at least be more objective).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Business As Usual
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business As Usual
They also protect big corporations from us (ie: patents and many other laws used to suppress competitive innovators) but they don't sufficiently protect us from them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business As Usual
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quote from story
I think Mr. Donahue needs to provide an explanation on how a police officer's actions would change if they knew they were being recorded...maybe some examples would be helpful (Rodney King might be a great starting point!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Quote from story
for just such laws as the "eavesdropping act".
Once that happened, the crooked cops -- not all are crooked -- realized that they'd get in all kinds of trouble if the general public were allowed to video/audio tape their every move.
To clarify, I wholeheartedly support local police forces. It's the crooked individuals that we too often see; and we tend to forget that they make up a small percentage of the whole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Quote from story
In a lot of towns and cities, that statement would refer to the honest cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free press
She should argue that she was planning to turn the tape over to a local news organization (better yet: all of them) and that they were infringing on the 1st Amendment. Every news organization in Chicago should file a request for access to the phone and run a story on what she did manage to record.
Would members of the press still be breaking the law? Doubtful, and if they were, then I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court would have something to say about the Constitutionality of this particular law; even the current Supreme Court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free press
Sorry, but she fails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Free press
It's not a difficult story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Free press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Free press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Free press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Free press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free press
While we're on the rights of the police, how about his speedy trial? She got her speedy trial, but the cop she filed a complaint against is still being investigated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Free press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free press
Where I feel that we disagree is that when the officers were acting as representatives of the State, then their actions should be in compliance with any applicable Sunshine laws, and thus it's not their actions that are being recorded, but the utterances and actions of the State as incorporated by the States acting agents. In this case the IA officers.
If the officers wanted their conversation to be private, they should not be acting in their official capacity. Otherwise their actions, carried out in the citizens name, should be accountable to the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Free press
I could see an argument that police officers or district attorneys need to have private discussions about on-going investigations and things of that nature; however, that was not the type of recording made in this instance. To take it one step further, I believe that the police should be recording all of their interactions with any citizen and those recordings should be made available on demand (except where a judge says no for public safety, on-going criminal case, etc.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Free press
Everywhere we go, we are now virtually recorded. These recordings can be used by those making it for whatever purpose they see fit. Given our surveillance society, why shouldn't a private citizen be able to use any recording device that they have available to document their side?
To paraphrase Chris Rhodes comment"The laws that we had created to protect the public from abusive government practices are now being revised to protect the government by prohibiting the public from having access to the facts to defend themselves.. So much for personal freedom in our evolving police state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free press
Not to mention the government often tries to destroy any evidence of their wrongdoings so that they can later deny it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Free press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free press
Regardless of local laws, eavesdropping does not infringe upon anyone's rights ("privacy" and "public" are mutually exclusive)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Free press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free press
Who watches the watchmen, remember?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free press
Except she doesn't, because citizens clearly have the right to tape officers on duty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free press
As far as I've EVER been able to tell, cops are well aware of their own rights...it's the rights of others they routinely violate.
Anonymous Coward - yeah, that seems like a good name for you :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A bit confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
12 Monkeys
Also, one has to wonder if this would ever make it past a jury. They just need *one* person in the jury who thinks cops have too much power and, let's be honest, they do. Seems like a bad law and a waste of taxpayer money.
It is curious that this law also applies to law enforcement. I doubt it's quite as aggressively enforced going the other way.
Luckily, The ACLU are on this. Further reading from digging around links from the article are about Micheal Allison and Chris Drew. I do find it off that the law is max 3 yrs for first offense, and 5 for more than one *unless* you're recording a judge, attorney or a cop-- where it's 15 years max. So, if I record a cop without consent while that cop records me without consent, I'll go away for a max of 15 years and he'll get a max of 3. For recording the same exact conversation. That seems fair, right? :/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 12 Monkeys
Citizen records Citizen without consent = 3-5 years in jail
Citizen records Cop or Govt official without consent = 15 years in jail
Cop records Citizen without consent = Good police work.
I'm boycotting Illinois till the get this mess sorted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 12 Monkeys
It's also worth noting that the definition of "eavesdropping device" is very broad.
I'm also sad to learn that my state of Massachusetts is one of the 12 states that require all parties consent to record a conversation-- but is singled out with Illinois as the only two states that don't have an exception to this law for public conversations where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Very disturbing. I'm going to have a tough time boycotting my state of residence. :/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 12 Monkeys
Then, they need a warrant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 12 Monkeys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i WONDER.
The law is for protection of Private property.
You cant TAPE ME on my own property, without permission.
YOU CAN tape me if I am on YOUR property.
Public places and locations...OPEN to anyone that wishes to record you. THAT is how Business works and can get away with recording Thieves in stores. Unless they DECLARE they are private property, which means you MUST have permission to record.
A police building is a PUBLIC facility. Only protection you have is IF' you declare it and in the restroom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: i WONDER.
We have expanded the right to 'not been seen nude without our permission' so much that.... you can basically get away with near anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chi town
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chi town
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Questions
1a) Does members of the press corps have to ask each other if they can record each other?
2) If a reporter walks up to somebody on the street and has a camera man with them (or a voice recorder in hand), then are they automatically breaking the law when they start pelting their target with questions?
3) If I get pulled over and tell the cop that I'm recording everything that is said in the traffic stop, then can he give me a ticket? :-p
(Yes, I know the answer to #3, but it would be fun to try...somewhere other than Chicago.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Questions
The fact is that LEO's are just as likely to lie as the worse mass murdering sociopath on the planet, if they wish to nail you.
That is the reason why I believe that LEO's should NOT be taken anymore as telling the truth as a regular person is, without outside confirmation (which more and more states are doing by having recording equipment on police vehicles).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Questions
I also don't consent to speed or other traffic cameras recording me when I'm driving. Sounds almost like an instant out to red-light cameras to me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a minute
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not evedropping or wiretapping!
Chicago must have a very corrupt Internal Affairs department in the police department. And a corrupt District Attorney's office too.
Suggest all people make a note not to go to Chicago if at all possible. Not for conventions, not for business. Corruption at that level is such that one can't do business in that area at all.
It boggles the mind, as if it were being done in some corrupt third world nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can see a plausible justification; that recording a government official CAN discredit the law enforcement agency or office/administration that the official works for.
However, enforcement of the law itself does more to discredit the entire government of Illinois in the eyes of the people.
Since when is the government supposed to be here to serve the government? I thought the government was here to serve the people?
This 'law' should be repealed, or at least amended to state that should officers be recorded violating the laws or even improperly enforcing them, that they should be placed on an immediate paid suspension and all such judgments against the citizens should be overturned with reparations made.
I HATE when Police, Firefighters, etc. refer to those whom are NOT part of their organizations as civilians. They are too. Unless you're the President/Vice President of the USA, a member of the NSA, CIA, FBI, Homeland Defense, etc. or a member of the Armed Forces, meaning Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, or Coast Guard, then you're a civilian. If you're a civilian working FOR one of those agencies then you're still a civilian, no matter what your job title is. I am an Army retiree and I am now a civilian. I love the police, fire departments (except those jackasses who let houses out of district burn down if they owner hasn't paid the premium) and other local law enforcement and protection agencies, but YOU ARE ALL CIVILIANS TOO. Funny thing is, they're not all citizens though.
Illinois is all kinds of jacked up these days and I'm glad I've never even been there.
Its funny how the term originated to mean the OPPOSITE! A civilian was SUPPOSED to mean Civil Servant. What the hell are police, judges and lawyers if not civil servants? "To Serve and Protect " is more accurate a motto.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sec. 14‑2. Elements of the offense; affirmative defense.
(a) A person commits eavesdropping when he:
(1) Knowingly and intentionally uses an eavesdropping device for the purpose of hearing or recording all or any part of any conversation or intercepts, retains, or transcribes electronic communication unless he does so (A) with the consent of all of the parties to such conversation or electronic communication or (B) in accordance with Article 108A or Article 108B of the "Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963", approved August 14, 1963, as amended;
For purposes of this Article, the term electronic communication means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or part by a wire, radio, pager, computer, electromagnetic, photo electronic or photo optical system, where the sending and receiving parties intend the electronic communication to be private and the interception, recording, or transcription of the electronic communication is accomplished by a device in a surreptitious manner contrary to the provisions of this Article. Electronic communication does not include any communication from a tracking device. (All emphasis is mine!)
=======
Do you consider your eyes a "photo optical system"? If so, then maybe. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
WTF difference does it make what is being used to record...? And the very specific difference between eyes, ears and a brain rather than an actual device is that - there is no emotion or conflict or interpretation involved in the device recording. It can be heard AS IT WAS! For REAL!
Yeah, this government better start being afraid of its people...especially after what they've put us through. We're gonna be watching. It's just too bad that it took this long...goes to show that the media has not been earning their paychecks...they've been too busy trying to distract us from the real issues...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, if you have to WIRETAP someone (i.e. become a third person with no relevance to the conversation in question), then you are doing something wrong and should be penalized for that.... however, I believe it should be a CIVIL offense, not a criminal one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Damn Patriot Act is so disturbing...Bush's only legacy when it comes down to the heart of the matter...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My understanding of the law here in the UK is that I do not need to inform the other party in a conversation that I am recording said conversation as long as I am part of that conversation, even a telephone conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
she's in for it
If she recorded something at the police station, especially Internal Affairs, I would bet they have her dead to rights legally.
Even though I'm inclined to sympathize with her, I can see where the police have an argument. If someone can record any police interview anywhere, then the police cannot keep anything confidential, and their work requires confidentiality in many cases. Sadly, this could shield some abusers.
For a depressing but gripping read, look up Adrian Schoolcraft in the Village Voice site. An officer in Brooklyn, he taped all his work for about a year, exposing plenty of corruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: she's in for it
There was no police interview. There were only her protests that there should be an interview.
Regardless, I firmly believe that we should be able to record any interactions we have with LEOs. If two Illinois LEOs need to have a private conference about a confidential matter, they can do it behind a closed door, like LEOs do in other states.
Sadly, this could shield some abusers.
An abuser is being shielded now, so what's the difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: she's in for it
She has requested that person A was investigated, alleging sexual assault. When they basically laughed at her, shee got her phone out and started recording. IF this was done surreptitiously, then they are, indeed, bang to rights.
On the other hand, if it was blatant, as in, 'I'm going to record this now,' then she's bang to rights on basic First Amendment grounds. Just ebcause you have an idea of Free Speech doesn't mean that speech is automagically copyrighted and illegal to record etc. That would be insane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: she's in for it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: she's in for it
Bang to rights??? WTF are you talking about?
She was MAKING A STATEMENT - THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDED ANYWAY REGARDLESS. It should have been recorded by the jackasses that she was talking to - but their motivation was skewed. A person...a citizen...a civilian - should be able to record ANY conversation that they have with ANYONE - but even MORE SO a conversation with a public SERVANT. And especially one she's MAKING A STATEMENT TO!
The ONLY exception I can see in the matter is if the PERSON is acting as an agent of the POLICE/STATE. Seems to me she was doing this of her own accord. I hope those cops get NAILED TO THE WALL! I'm SICK TO DEATH of cops and "officials" getting away with MURDER!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gov't Control
We must stand up to this type of behavior that doesn't protect the people in which the government serves.
- Lee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
those who make it illegal should be . . . well i can not say. cause you know how the government feels about citizens who believe they have rights to free expression.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing something here are we?
How do you eavesdrop on your OWN conversation??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]