4 ms·

Why the question mark? If you live in Illinois, Massachusetts, or Maryland, the title reads "It is illegal to record an on-duty officer." And not just sort of

Why the question mark? If you live in Illinois, Massachusetts, or Maryland, the title reads "It is illegal to record an on-duty officer." And not just sort of illegal. Class 1 felony punishable 4-15 years in prison illegal.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jbarciauskas 16y ago
This article clarifies the current state of affairs in Massachusetts: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/12/police_fight_cellphone_recordings/ http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010... The key seems to be how evident it is that the person is recording. If it is at all not obvious to the police that a recording is being made, it is illegal. If you put a microphone or camera in their face however it is OK.
- georgieporgie 16y ago
  So the Rodney King tape would be illegal. In fact most police abuse tapes I can recall would be illegal, since people don't like to get very close to packs of violent officers.
vollmond 16y ago
I've been trying to find reliable sources that say one way or the other about Maryland (my current state of residence). Do you have any links? I did find this (http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/maryland.html http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/maryland.html) which says that MD state courts have interpreted the law not to apply in public.
- hga 16y ago
  Radley Balko: In Spite of State Law, Maryland Law Enforcement Officials Still Arresting, Charging People for Recording Cops: http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/29/maryland-cops-say-its-illegal http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/29/maryland-cops-say-its-ille...
  - vollmond 16y ago
    Excellent read, thank you.
k33n 16y ago
I think the question mark serves to denote surprise/disappointment that this is a fact.
- pwhelan 16y ago
  It will also end up being questionable considering USSC rulings on reasonable expectations of privacy in public settings. That is what surprises me considering this seems to fall squarely as 1st, 4th, 5th, 14th amendment issues.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

jbarciauskas 16y ago

This article clarifies the current state of affairs in Massachusetts: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/12/police_fight_cellphone_recordings/ http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010... The key seems to be how evident it is that the person is recording. If it is at all not obvious to the police that a recording is being made, it is illegal. If you put a microphone or camera in their face however it is OK.

georgieporgie 16y ago
So the Rodney King tape would be illegal. In fact most police abuse tapes I can recall would be illegal, since people don't like to get very close to packs of violent officers.

vollmond 16y ago

I've been trying to find reliable sources that say one way or the other about Maryland (my current state of residence). Do you have any links? I did find this (http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/maryland.html http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/maryland.html) which says that MD state courts have interpreted the law not to apply in public.

hga 16y ago
Radley Balko: In Spite of State Law, Maryland Law Enforcement Officials Still Arresting, Charging People for Recording Cops: http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/29/maryland-cops-say-its-illegal http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/29/maryland-cops-say-its-ille...
- vollmond 16y ago
  Excellent read, thank you.

k33n 16y ago

I think the question mark serves to denote surprise/disappointment that this is a fact.

pwhelan 16y ago
It will also end up being questionable considering USSC rulings on reasonable expectations of privacy in public settings. That is what surprises me considering this seems to fall squarely as 1st, 4th, 5th, 14th amendment issues.