Guy Arrested, Threatened With 15 Years For Recording Traffic Stop In Illinois

from the it-just-gets-worse-and-worse dept

Fri, Sep 30th 2011 9:32am — Mike Masnick

With Illinois planning to appeal the Michael Allison case, in which the state wants to put Allison in jail for 75 years because he recorded an interaction with the police, it's worth pointing out that this is not the only such case in Illinois. A few people have sent over this ABC report about another guy, Louis Frobe, who was arrested and told he was facing 15 years in jail for daring to turn on his Flip cam during a traffic stop. You can see the video of the traffic stop in the news report below. Yes, note the irony: the whole thing was recorded (without Frobe's permission) by the police car camera, but the second the officer sees the Flip cam, he tells Frobe he's committed a felony and arrests him:

The key part:

Frobe calls it the worst experience of his life. He was on his way to a late evening movie on an August night last year when he was stopped for speeding in far north suburban Lindenhurst. He didn't believe he was in a 35-mile-an-hour zone, and he figured if he was going to get ticket he wanted to be able to document his challenge with video evidence, so he got out his flip camera, which he was not very adept at using.

At one point he held it out the window trying to record where he was. When the officer, being recorded on his squad dash cam, walked back to Frobe's car, the officer saw Frobe's camera.

Officer: "That recording? Frobe : "Yes, Yes, I've been... Officer: "Was it recording all of our conversation? Frobe: "Yes. Officer: "Guess what? You were eavesdropping on our conversation. I did not give you permission to do so. Step out of the vehicle."

Louis Frobe was then cuffed and arrested for felony eavesdropping.

Yes, eavesdropping. On himself.

In this case, prosecutors eventually dropped the charges, but Frobe turned around and sued them for the arrest in the first place. The Illinois Attorney General -- who still insists there's no First Amendment right to record the police -- has said Frobe's case should be dismissed since he has no standing. Of course, this is a nearly identical fact pattern to the Glik case in Massachusetts, where the court not only allowed Glik to sue but found 1st and 4th Amendment problems with the arrest. These are different circuits, so the ruling in Massachusetts doesn't directly act as precedent for Illinois, but it certainly can be cited and discussed.

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: free speech, illinois, louis frobe, michael allison, police, recording

70 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Xyro TR1 (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 8:47am

This is just getting ridiculous. I'm going to mount a remote-activated stealth camera in my car just for traffic stops since showing your camera is apparently a felony.

Doesn't the squad car have a dash cam anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Fickelbra (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 11:16am
  
  Re:
  "When the officer, being recorded on his squad dash cam, walked back to Frobe's car, the officer saw Frobe's camera."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 11:20am
    
    Re: Re:
    I kept reading that as the 'squad death cam'. I'm not sure why, but it made me laugh.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 11:34am
  
  Re: Law
  > Doesn't the squad car have a dash cam anyway?
  
  Yes, but the Illinois law, unlike other states with similar eavesdropping laws, actually carves out an exception for law enforcement. So the law itself says it's legal for the cops to record you without your permission, but you can't record them without theirs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Greg G (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 11:55am
    
    Re: Re: Law
    Then such a law needs to be challenged as unconstitutional, citing the Massachusetts ruling re: 1st and 4th amendment issues.
    
    And I agree that this is getting absolutely ridiculous. WTF is going on up there in IL?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 5:05pm
  
  Re:
  You may want to rethink that. Showing your camera (or at least having it in plain sight) is the only thing keeping it legal. Otherwise you've wiretapped them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 9:44am

Don't you think it would have been better for him to finish with the police officer before trying to "document the scene"? I smell something on this one, the guy's logic is pretty faulty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 9:47am
  
  Re:
  Oh yeah because with out the police officer in the picture it would be real believable that he was in the same spot he got the ticket.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- paperbag (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 9:49am
  
  Re:
  Nope. Nothing wrong with recording a public event in public. Start and stop anytime, doesn't matter. The only thing I would have been worried about is the officer seeing the guy reaching for something... but apparently he wasn't worried about that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- iamtheky (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 9:49am
  
  Re:
  Yes lets document the aftermath so that the actions can be denied.
  
  What about videotaping the events as they happen sound like the smell you cant get rid of?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 9:51am
  
  Re:
  Your vacation photos must be really funny.
  
  Why, you ask? Well, judging by your logic, you must be the kind of person that takes vacation photos after the vacation is over.
  
  And then you think: "Gee, Paris (or some other town) sure is real pretty this time of the year. It looks just like my house!".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 10:02am
  
  Re:
  I can't help laughing at your comment. Good job for the comedy! Wait, the intent was to humor here wasn't it?
  
  Point is, why couldn't he film the place while talking to the cop? And man, how the fuck can I eavesdrop myself? No rly, I'm gonna try, should be amusing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 10:37am
    
    Re: Re:
    RTFS - "At one point he held it out the window trying to record where he was. When the officer, being recorded on his squad dash cam, walked back to Frobe's car"
    
    My guess is the officer took his information and walked back to his squad car to write up the ticket. It was at that point that Frobe was recording the area and when the officer was walking back to give him the ticket he saw the recording.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Any Mouse (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 3:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Funny how you respond to THIS one but not the ones that actually challenge you with logic.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 3 Oct 2011 @ 10:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And my guess is that your guess doesn't support the accusations in any way along with, as mouse said, not answering anything. But you did manage to make me laugh again so I'm assuming you are doing it on purpose for the comedy. Good job ;)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 11:20am
  
  Re:
  No.
  
  As usual, though, your desperation shows.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- lucidrenegade (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 11:46am
  
  Re:
  "I smell something on this one, the guy's logic is pretty faulty."
  
  What you smell is your own bullshit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 2:13pm
  
  Re:
  "...the guy's logic is pretty faulty."
  
  The guy's "logic" was probably telling him that it's perfectly alright to do what he was doing, because if you didn't have specific knowledge of this law (and I doubt it's common knowledge), it would never enter your head that a law so stupid would exist.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tmr, 4 Oct 2011 @ 6:04am
  
  re: seems like there should be something odd about this
  You read this story and think wow...no way...there has got to be more to this... unfortunately this has been happening quite a bit in Illinois. Evidently, there is a law that was passed about not recording someone without their permission. The intent was to protect people from being recorded for various illicit reasons. It seems however that the only time that the state is actually enforcing this law is when citizens attempt to record police officers. This is only one of many cases that have been popping up in the media.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill Silverstein (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 9:48am

Only those with something to hide.
If you are not doing something illegal, then you should have nothing to hide from the police! Why not allow the recording without a warrant? What are you trying to hide from the police you criminal?

Oh, it was the police making arrest because of the recording. Ah, you must be a terrorist because you are taking pictures or making recordings without permission from the government. He should have been arrested, yeah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gwiz (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 9:56am

Yes, note the irony: the whole thing was recorded (without Frobe's permission) by the police car camera,...

Not familiar with Illinois law - is there some sort of exemption for police officers in the felony eavesdropping law or could cops with dash cams recording audio face this charge too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 10:03am
  
  Re:
  Of course, there is little printing on the form for your driver's licence that says you may be recorded at any/all times by the state, for your protection.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DOlz (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 11:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    Driver's licences have EULAs??
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Randy, 30 Sep 2011 @ 10:08am
  
  Re:
  Yes, there is an exemption in the law that allows for law enforcement officers, along with other groups to "eavesdrop" without penalty
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 9:58am

hahahaha Illinois is building itself some fine reputation.. I found myself telling it was just like Illinois these days when I saw a case of police abuse of power and then I read this.

Priceless. I hope Illinois PD loses big time and get put back at their place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sehlat (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 10:18am

Only Two Citations Are Relevant
1. "The innocent have nothing to fear."

So what was the cop afraid of?

2. John 3:20(KJV)For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

Perhaps he(the cop) was afraid of his deed being reproved?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Majestic, 30 Sep 2011 @ 10:21am

I have to agree with the Illinois Attorney General on the point of no First Amendment right to record the police. See here why:

http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/10/freedom_of_speech_and_of_the_press/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rich, 30 Sep 2011 @ 10:26am
  
  Re:
  So, what? They didn't have cameras when The Bill of Rights was written. Besides, the courts (thankfully) disagree with you and Illinois' Idiot General.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 10:42am
  
  Re:
  So what is the constitutional basis for cops recording the public?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 30 Sep 2011 @ 11:20am
  
  Re:
  All of the "original intent of the Constitution" arguments are generally irrelevant to modern issues. The document does serve as a basis for our laws, but it is not the end of our laws. It is merely the beginning. Case law history and the passage of laws granted by the Constitution since its inception are what is important. If the Supreme Court interprets the First Amendment as covering the recording of police officers when in public, then that's what it covers. As someone else stated, the Constitution was written before audio-video recording devices existed, so it's not possible that the technology was taken into account when the document was written. But in an analog scenario, the First Amendment would cover you writing down with quill and ink what an officer of the law stated to you during an encounter and the publication of his statements in a printed newspaper. Despite the technological differences, how is the scenario any different otherwise?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Boost, 30 Sep 2011 @ 2:51pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You are dangerously ignorant and wrong.
    
    If this were the case, that would be be the basis for granting the courts to make up the laws as they desire by "interpreting" the constitution to mean things it doesn't. It would throw out checks and balances all together; it would be the basis for an Oligarchy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MrWilson, 1 Oct 2011 @ 7:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You are ignorant of the duties of the judicial branch if you think the courts don't interpret the law. It's their job to do so. And yes, they will make biased interpretations of law. The checks and balances are that Congress could pass a law to reject how the courts interpreted a previous law.
      
      Or are we supposed to stick to 18th Century methods of doing things because the Constitution doesn't say anything about television, the internet, telephones, et cetera?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Prisoner 201, 1 Oct 2011 @ 10:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hey, it could not possibly be illegal to pirate stuff - the original constitution says nothing about computers!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Oct 2011 @ 6:45pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Article VI.
    
    [...]
    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
    [...]
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Oct 2011 @ 6:46pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Article VI.
    
    [...]
    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
    [...]
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Oct 2011 @ 6:47pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Article VI.
    
    [...]
    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
    [...]
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cabal (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 11:29am
  
  Re:
  And refuted with the first line of your link:
  
  "...so people can openly discuss or criticize government policy or conduct of public agents without fear of being charged with a seditious crime"
  
  Let me repeat that for the cheap seats:
  
  THE CONDUCT OF PUBLIC AGENTS WITHOUT FEAR OF BEING CHARGED WITH A SEDITIOUS CRIME.
  
  While 'eavesdropping' isn't 'treason' or 'rabble rousing', the obvious intent of this application of the law is to control the ability of people to refute, challenge, or highlight conduct issues of public officials.
  
  That there is any 'grey area' in this debate boggles my mind. At its root, the question is "Does a police officers' right to 'privacy' outweigh the rights of a citizen to speak out on the policies or conduct of the government without fear of reprisal,".
  
  Considering the Supreme Court is extremely reluctant to establish a blanket right to privacy this should be a no brainer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - tmr, 4 Oct 2011 @ 6:10am
    
    Re: Re:
    Just as I have no expectation of privacy when in a public place an officer should have no expectation of privacy when on the job.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 10:42am

Remember folks, it's not the police who write the laws. It's their job to enforce them: they aren't supposed to choose which ones get enforced. Get mad at the Illinois legislature and the court system if you're going to blame someone or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 10:44am
  
  Re:
  And who lobbied the legislature to provide law enforcement an exemption to said laws.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 10:51am
  
  Re:
  Look up the term "enforcement discretion". No police department has the ability to enforce all laws equally. Nor does any court have the ability to try the cases if the police. This means they do have to choose what to enforce.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 11:19am
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 30th, 2011 @ 10:42am
  Most refer to that as lawful evil. "The police are just enforcing laws and orders." Bullshit. That excuse didn't work for the Nazis at Nuremburg and it sure as hell won't work here. When you are aware of yourself enforcing an unjust law, you are abusing the system. Lisa Madigan will get her comeupance when this goes to court.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 11:20am
  
  Re:
  It's their job to enforce them
  First of all "I'm just doing my job" doesn't cut it as an argument.
  
  Second of all, they don't have to stretch laws to cover things well beyond the original intent, merely because they don't have a legitimate reason to arrest somebody. That's not justice, and it's not their job.
  
  Thirdly, they don't enforce the law equally. Officers routinely let other officers (and other "important" people) off the hook for crimes that would land a normal person in jail.
  
  Time to re-think your position.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 10:47am

The guys exemption may be here. Is it a criminal offense to write a flase ticket?

Sec. 14‑3. Exemptions. The following activities shall be exempt from the provisions of this Article:

(i) Recording of a conversation made by or at the request of a person, not a law enforcement officer or agent of a law enforcement officer, who is a party to the conversation, under reasonable suspicion that another party to the conversation is committing, is about to commit, or has committed a criminal offense against the person or a member of his or her immediate household, and there is reason to believe that evidence of the criminal offense may be obtained by the recording;
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Brendan (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 1:46pm
  
  Re:
  Interesting, but it might get a bit circular.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Oct 2011 @ 9:09am
  
  Re:
  This is an interesting argument. The guy believed he wasn't in a 35mph zone and wasn't speeding. If the cop writes a false ticket, that's a crime. (Not sure of the IL statute, but every state has something about official misconduct and/or falsifying government records.) Therefore, the guy could have had "reason to believe that evidence of the criminal offense may be obtained by the recording" he was making of the cops.
  
  I don't think that's going to matter though. This is pretty clearly an unconstitutional application of the "eavesdropping" statute. I hope these jackass cops get hit with a huge judgment.
  
  And one other thing--I hate how the media just comes right out and says "If you record an officer's voice without his permission, you're committing a felony." This is terrible reporting, because it's going to discourage people from doing what they have a right to do. A better way to report it would be "A few irresponsible officers seem to think that you recording them is a felony. The courts say otherwise, and [so and so] is suing some of them for $XXXXXX. [report the rest of the story]. If you're a victim of this kind of abuse, please let us know right away so we can put you in touch with a good lawyer to protect your rights."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 12:00pm

why do you even be so nice as to call these guys "Police Officers".They are PIGS !!! FUCKEN PIGS !!!
I would sue for at least a million bucks and take it to the Supreme Court if neccessary.PIGS will not be able to get away with this kind of BS for much longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2011 @ 7:40am
  
  Re:
  why do you even be so nice as to call these guys "Police Officers".They are PIGS !!! FUCKEN PIGS !!!
  I would sue for at least a million bucks and take it to the Supreme Court if neccessary.PIGS will not be able to get away with this kind of BS for much longer.
  
  You wouldn't do shit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 12:04pm

Himmler..
would be proud of the cops and prosecutors in Illinois. How long before the state of Illinois makes it a criminal offense to possess a video camera?

Remind me never to visit Illinois; the cops are like the Gestapo there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 12:09pm

Uniforms..
Do the cops' uniforms in Illinois have a swastika armband?

I think the cops are just trying to prevent someone from recording them beating the crap out of innocent people. There will not be a Rodney King incident in Illinois because videotaping the incident will be a crime and the video destroyed. Great for corrupt cops, terrible for honest people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 2:03pm
  
  Re: Uniforms..
  "Do the cops' uniforms in Illinois have a swastika armband?"
  
  One of the most ignorant comments of the day. I guess they are going to send him to the ovens for having used a camera?
  
  FUCKING IDIOT!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JMT (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 2:20pm
    
    Re: Re: Uniforms..
    "I guess they are going to send him to the ovens for having used a camera?"
    
    No, just to jail for 15 years! Way to completely miss the hyperbole and end with an ironic insult.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe, 19 May 2012 @ 10:07am
  
  Re: Uniforms..
  "Do the cops' uniforms in Illinois have a swastika armband?" Well as far as you know, yes. But you see, I can't actually show you videos of them so you'll have to take my word for it. j/k (although it should be obvious)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ray Brown, 30 Sep 2011 @ 1:34pm

"eavesdropping" arrest in Illinois.
If it's a felony why did they not prosecute? Perhaps because the camera was there for all and sundry to see. Ray
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digitari, 30 Sep 2011 @ 2:15pm

RE: Recording
I think, the laws says audio recordings, not Video. You can make a movie all you want in Ill, just hold up placards, and make sure there is no sound.....(does this law defy the Americans with disabilities act? what if you are blind, but can hear..)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stephen, 30 Sep 2011 @ 2:39pm

disgusting
That cop was a d1ck and gives other decent LEOs a bad name, and the legislators in that state are obviously fascists. Remind me to never go to Illinois.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ECA (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 2:39pm

LONG ago, 70's to 80's
There was a big debate over WHERE public and PRIVATE are concerned.
Looks as if its back again.

BACK then, as a Property owner, we lost a few RIGHTS on protecting our property.

BUT, if they uphold the POLICE rights at ANY TIME..then we can have them Arrested for infringing on OURS, in recording the Police stop, and even making the information PUBLIC/given to out insurance corp...
IF they consider police cameras, PUBLIC/PRIVATE information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PrometheeFeu (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 3:08pm

This is a good time to remember answering a cop's questions is a bad idea. When asked if he was recording the whole time, the guy should have remained silent or given the ubiquitous: "Is there a problem officer?" Remember, cops are NOT your friends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moose12 (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 4:36pm

Illinois guy gets 15 year sentence for taping cop
We vote for the people who make the laws and not for the laws. Once they are made into law they can be manipulated by the powers that be because we are made to feel inadequate to interpret them. The tail is now wagging the dog. This "ticket" has all the "clout" of a seat belt violation. No death, no personal injury, no property damage,not even a plaintiff. Any of these scam tickets can be beat!! You must be prepared by knowing the law or having a trustworthy attorney, by being willing to spend 1-2 nights in jail, and be willing to appeqal to the next higher court and/or jury trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
atroon, 1 Oct 2011 @ 8:15am

The forgotten amendment
In an excellent write up at http://davidbrin.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/the-transparency-amendment-the-under-appreciated-sixth/, futurist David Brin explains some of the implications of the sixth amendment and argues that it gives us the right to look back at authority. The text of the 6th amendment is thus:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Did you notice that last part? Every person subject to criminal prosecution shall have compulsory process to obtain witnesses in his defen[s]e. Your sixth amendment right to compel testimony in your favor trumps any eavesdropping law on the books. This man is compelling the officer to tell the truth, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andreas (profile), 2 Oct 2011 @ 4:01pm

Vote Pirates - or even better, become one!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Moon Dog (profile), 2 Oct 2011 @ 5:38pm

Constitutional Rights
I luv listening to American's argue about the bill of rights. You should try living in a country that doesn't have one.

Having said that, turnabout is fair play.
If the authorities can record, you should be able to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lynn, 11 Jan 2012 @ 4:26am
  
  Re: Constitutional Rights
  I agree, if the police can do something, a citizen should have the same right!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wisconsinite, 4 Oct 2011 @ 9:08am

Police above the law there suppose to be up-holding what a bunch of crap. Seems like the Police don't want any dout about anything they say or do, so when they break the law abuse power there is no proof. Then they can say who do you believe a police officer of a lying citizen (criminal, terrorist ect.) What a load of crap. Should sue for 1 million bucks and win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WI, 4 Oct 2011 @ 9:29am

Wish I had one in my car when the idiot cop gave me a speeding ticket 15 years ago. I admit when I'm wrong but this guy was full of crap and uneducated. Quote Last time I checked if I was going 70 and he was going 70 we would stay the same distance apart. We need to have this freedom to protect ourselves from the corrupt and the ignorant. Second private business spy on employees all the time and say it's for security reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WI, 4 Oct 2011 @ 9:31am

He said he had to do 70 to catch up to me so I was going 70.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 25 Oct 2011 @ 6:43pm

Well, I suppose that means the Broadcast News media - radio & teevee - cannot show us news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
christ colonel, 10 Dec 2011 @ 11:10am

Thats why they say you need a good camera holster to hide the camera :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rhonda, 23 Jul 2014 @ 7:43pm

I live in lindenhurst and yes the cops out here r ASSHOLES!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rhonda, 23 Jul 2014 @ 7:43pm

I live in lindenhurst and yes the cops out here r ASSHOLES!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]