Police discourage audio, video recording

As multiple individuals have been dealt criminal charges for recording law enforcement in recent months, there seems to be a growing debate regarding the legality of recording on-duty officers.

Citizens, such as Illinois resident Michael Allison, argue First Amendment rights protect recording public officials. Some of the officials themselves, however, contend such recording violates eavesdropping laws.

Allison learned the all-too-real laws that protect law enforcement officers in some states firsthand.

When law enforcement officials discovered Allison recorded audio of interactions with police offers and the proceedings of his own ordinance hearing, they arrested him on five counts of eavesdropping — a class one felony in Illinois. He is now facing 75 years in prison.

The fact this case is being taken seriously contradicts the seemingly unanimous opinion of top lawmakers.

Courts have repeatedly dismissed similar instances of citizens breaking outdated recording laws.

In the case of Glik v. Cunniffe, the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the First Amendment protects citizens’ right to record law enforcement.

And in June, Rochester, N.Y. prosecutors dropped charges against a woman who allegedly recorded officers interrogating a man in her own backyard. The woman reportedly believed the three white officers were racially profiling the African-American suspect.

In a joint statement, Rochester Mayor Thomas S. Richards, City Council President Lovely A. Warren and Police Chief James Sheppard explained the ruling.

“We want to make clear that it is not the policy or practice of the Rochester Police Department to prevent citizens from observing its activities — including photographing or videotaping — as long as it does not interfere with the safe conduct of those activities,” the announcement stated.

The same standards of accountability should be applied to Allison’s case.

Put simply, if officers have something to hide, they shouldn’t be officers.

Police officers have the innate responsibility to uphold the law they are paid to defend. Whether arresting suspects or conducting routine traffic stops, law enforcement officials should behave in an appropriate and civil manner.

If individuals entrusted with the safety of the public and the discretionary use of a firearm cannot be trusted, our police system has failed tremendously.

There is also the issue of taxpayer rights.

We, as American citizens, pay the salaries of government employees. Just as we have the right to obtain government records, we should also have the right to record government activities.

Of course, if the act of recording jeopardizes an officer’s ability to enforce the law, or undermines the security of undercover officer, exceptions must be applied.

But in Allison’s case — and most others, for that matter — neither of the caveats could even loosely be considered.

What should be considered are the rights of the citizens these officers defend.

No occupation should be protected from accountability.