Something for Pauly Shore, uhhh GW

Lumi · Sep 29, 2011

Cops Try To Hit Illinois Man With 15 Year Jail Sentence For Recording Traffic Stop

Despite clear legal precedent, nationwide hoax that it is illegal to film cops prevails

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Cops arrested an Illinois man and tried to hit him with a 15-year jail sentence for ?eavesdropping? after the man filmed his own traffic stop, in another example of how citizens are being intimidated out of documenting the actions of public servants despite every single case against Americans for recording police officers being thrown out of court.

<object id="otvPlayer" width="400" height="268"><param name="movie" value="http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/static/flash/embeddedPlayer/swf/otvEmLoader.swf?version=&station=wls&section=&mediaId=8370581&cdnRoot=http://cdn.abclocal.go.com&webRoot=http://abclocal.go.com&configPath=/util/&site=" ></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><param name="allowNetworking" value="all"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed id="otvPlayer" width="400" height="268" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allownetworking="all" allowfullscreen="true" src="http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/static/flash/embeddedPlayer/swf/otvEmLoader.swf?version=&station=wls&section=&mediaId=8370581&cdnRoot=http://cdn.abclocal.go.com&webRoot=http://abclocal.go.com&configPath=/util/&site="></embed></object>

?I?m just an ordinary citizen. I was on my way to the movies, and all of a sudden I?m facing a felony and 15 years in prison,? Frobe told ABC7.

Convinced that he had been stopped unfairly because he was not in a 35-mile-an-hour zone, Frobe used his flip camera to record the incident in Lindenhurst, before being arrested on ?eavesdropping charges?.

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.?

?I was terrified. I was absolutely terrified. I was begging him, I said I didn?t know about this law.

Would you please take the camera ? this is no big deal ? and smash it. You know I didn?t know about the law,? Frobe told ABC7.

?And they had audio and they had video on me, but I?m not allowed to do it to them. I?m in a private car on a public street and it?s a public official. Why shouldn?t I be able to record what?s going on to prove my innocence?? he said.

After spending a night in jail, Frobe was released the next day and all charges against him were dropped. However, Frobe has decided to file a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law, an effort the Attorney General?s office has dismissed, but legal precedent clearly indicates that Frobe will win the case.

The Illinois eavesdropping law has been proven unconstitutional time and time again, and yet police in the state and other states around the country with even less strict laws are still arresting citizens for filming police officers. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place ? that?s why police are allowed to film citizens from dashboard cameras. However, citizens are still being told they have less rights than public servants.

?It?s a public conversation about a public function. A traffic stop,? attorney Torri Hamilton said.

?He has no reasonable expectation that his conversation with Louis is private, and so therefore it shouldn?t be criminal to record it,? said Hamilton.

That stance has been backed up by court rulings over and over again, most recently in the case of Michael Allison, the 41-year old Illinois mechanic who faced life in jail for recording police officers. Despite aggressive efforts by the state to secure a prosecution, Circuit Court Judge David Frankland ruled that Allison?s First Amendment rights had been violated, that the eavesdropping law was unconstitutional, and dropped the case.

Frankland?s decision followed a First Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which found that, ?The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles [of protected First Amendment activity].?

Indeed, every similar case nationwide has concluded in all charges being dropped against the defendant. It is not illegal to film police officers in public.

Despite these rulings, we seem to have entered some kind of twilight zone where legal precedent no longer has any meaning. This is the true measure of a predatory police state. Cops are still being trained by their superiors that recording police officers is a criminal offense.

It?s time to put an end to the hoax once and for all ? it?s going to take a deluge of lawsuits like that being pursued by Louis Frobe to finally teach law enforcement bodies in America that citizens will not have their First Amendment rights trampled. Filming police officers is not a crime and cops who arrest Americans for doing so will be sued personally.

gardenweasel · Sep 29, 2011

i would hope that in a public place that no one has any expectation of privacy....

that said,you can`t be standing there filming a police officer while he`s giving you directions or questioning you...people pulling stuff out and pointing it at cops while they`re in the performance of their duties might just become a danger for them.....and might just get one of these idiots with authority issues shot in the ass...

not to mention the fact any yo-yo with 2 neurons to rub together is able to edit the film they take....seems odd that we see so many videos of the cop`s reaction to a situation and not what precipitated it.....

of course,when you live in an anti-establishment fantasy world in which cops are always harassing ?peaceful, law abiding? citizens,that`s all you really care to see,isn`t it?...

ImFeklhr · Sep 30, 2011

gardenweasel said:
i would hope that in a public place that no one has any expectation of privacy....

that said,you can`t be standing there filming a police officer while he`s giving you directions or questioning you...people pulling stuff out and pointing it at cops while they`re in the performance of their duties might just become a danger for them.....and might just get one of these idiots with authority issues shot in the ass...

not to mention the fact any yo-yo with 2 neurons to rub together is able to edit the film they take....seems odd that we see so many videos of the cop`s reaction to a situation and not what precipitated it.....

of course,when you live in an anti-establishment fantasy world in which cops are always harassing ?peaceful, law abiding? citizens,that`s all you really care to see,isn`t it?...

Do you really think this guy had an issue with authority? And that he should have been arrested? :scared :scared

Lumi · Oct 1, 2011

PATRIOT ACT IS THE DESTRUCTION OF THE 4TH AMENDMENT

I know you sleep well knowing that the Patriot Act was signed on Oct 26, 2001 ! Wow ! They really wrote that purdy damn quick, huh?

In 1995 Joe Biden Basically Wrote The PATRIOT Act.

Joe Biden's pro-RIAA, pro-FBI tech voting record

Lumi · Oct 1, 2011

PATRIOT ACT IS THE DESTRUCTION OF THE 4TH AMENDMENT

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ggKods4UQuE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Reconsidering the Patriot Act

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

When Congress passed the Patriot Act in the emotional aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks, a sunset provision was inserted in the bill that causes certain sections to expire at the end of 2005. But this begs the question: If these provisions are critical tools in the fight against terrorism, why revoke them after five years? Conversely, if these provisions violate civil liberties, why is it acceptable to suspend the Constitution for any amount of time?

Congress is scheduled to review those sections this year, but there is little chance any portion of the Act will be allowed to lapse. If anything, many members of Congress are eager to expand federal police powers.

Supporters of the Patriot Act argue that its provisions have not been abused since its passage in 2001. In essence, Justice Department officials are claiming, ?Trust us ? we?re the government and we say the Patriot Act does not threaten civil liberties.?

But this argument misses the point. Government assurances simply are not good enough in a free society. The overwhelming burden always must be placed on government to justify any new encroachment on our liberty. Now that the emotions of September 11th have cooled, the American people are less willing to blindly accept terrorism as an excuse for expanding federal surveillance powers.

Many of the most constitutionally offensive measures in the Act are not limited to terrorist offenses, but apply to any criminal activity. In fact, some of the new police powers could be applied even to those engaging in peaceful protest against government policies. The bill as written defines terrorism as acts intended ?to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.? Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration might subject attendees to a federal investigation. We have seen abuses of law enforcement authority in the past to harass individuals or organizations with unpopular political views. Congress has given future administrations a tool to investigate pro-life or gun rights organizations on the grounds that fringe members of such groups advocate violence.

The Patriot Act waters down the Fourth amendment by expanding the federal government?s ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight. The requirement of a search warrant and probable cause strikes a balance between effective law enforcement and civil liberties. Any attempt to dilute the warrant requirement threatens innocent citizens with a loss of their liberty. This is particularly true of provisions that allow for issuance of nationwide search warrants that are not specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight.

The Act makes it far easier for the government to monitor your internet usage by adopting a lower standard than probable cause for intercepting e-mails and internet communications. I wonder how my congressional colleagues would feel if all of their e-mail headings and the names of the web sites they visited were available to law enforcement upon a showing of mere ?relevance.?

It?s easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or spend vast sums from the federal treasury. We must understand that politicians and bureaucrats always seek to expand their power, without regard to the long-term consequences. If you believe in smaller government, ask yourself one simple question: Does the Patriot Act increase or decrease the power of the federal government over your life? The answer is obvious to those who understand that freedom cannot be exchanged for security.

May 3, 2005

Lumi · Oct 1, 2011

As long as the dog never bites you, everything is ok!

Obama Backs Extending Patriot Act Spy Provisions

The Obama administration has told Congress it supports renewing three provisions of the Patriot Act due to expire at year?s end, measures making it easier for the government to spy within the United States.
In a letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Justice Department said the administration might consider ?modifications? to the act in order to protect civil liberties.
?The administration is willing to consider such ideas, provided that they do not undermine the effectiveness of these important authorities,? Ronald Weich, assistant attorney general, wrote to Leahy, (.pdf) whose committee is expected to consider renewing the three expiring Patriot Act provisions next week. The government disclosed the letter Tuesday.
It should come as no surprise that President Barack Obama supports renewing the provisions, which were part of the Patriot Act approved six weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
As an Illinois senator in 2008, he voted to allow the warrantless monitoring of Americans? electronic communications if they are communicating overseas with somebody the government believes is linked to terrorism. That legislative package, which President George W. Bush signed, also immunized the nation?s telecommunication companies from lawsuits charging them with being complicit with the Bush administration?s warrantless, wiretapping program. That program was also adopted in the wake of Sept. 11.
These are the three provisions due to expire:
*A secret court, known as the FISA court, may grant ?roving wiretaps? without the government identifying the target. Generally, the authorities must assert that the target is an agent of a foreign power and/or a suspected terrorist. The government said Tuesday that 22 such warrants ? which allow the monitoring of any communication device ? have been granted annually.
*The FISA court may grant warrants for ?business records,? from banking to library to medical records. Generally, the government must assert that the records are relevant to foreign intelligence gathering and/or a terrorism investigation. The government said Tuesday that 220 of these warrants had been granted between 2004 and 2007. It said 2004 was the first year those powers were used.
*A so-called ?lone wolf? provision, enacted in 2004, allows FISA court warrants for the electronic monitoring of an individual even without showing that the person is an agent of a foreign power or a suspected terrorist. The government said Tuesday it has never invoked that provision, but said it wants to keep the authority to do so.
?The basic idea behind the authority was to cover situations in which information linking the target of an investigation to an international group was absent or insufficient, although the target?s engagement in ?international terrorism? was sufficiently established,? Weich wrote.
The American Civil Liberties opposes renewing all three provisions, especially the lone wolf measure.
Michelle Richardson, the ACLU?s legislative counsel, said in a telephone interview, ?The justification for FISA and these lower standards and letting it operate in secret was all about terrorist groups and foreign governments, that they posed a unique threat other than the normal criminal element. This lone wolf provision undercuts that justification.?
The committee hearing is set for 10 a.m. Sept. 23 and will be webcast live.
See Also:

Lumi · Oct 1, 2011

Lumi · Oct 1, 2011

I will wait for the usual brainwashed hacks to stumble in here and rationalize the Storm Troopers Behavior.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WO2ZviOAEIM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Lumi · Oct 1, 2011

Lumi · Oct 1, 2011

Lumi · Oct 1, 2011

Lumi · Oct 1, 2011

Search

Search

Something for Pauly Shore, uhhh GW

Lumi

LOKI

gardenweasel

el guapo

ImFeklhr

Raconteur

Lumi

LOKI

Lumi

LOKI

Lumi

LOKI

Lumi

LOKI

Lumi

LOKI

Lumi

LOKI

Lumi

LOKI

Lumi

LOKI

Lumi

LOKI

We value your privacy