Citizen ALMOST sentenced to life in prison for recording law enforcement.

[theangryamerican]

41-year old Illinois mechanic Michael Allison faces life in jail for recording police officers after authorities hit him with eavesdropping charges based on the hoax that it is illegal to film cops, a misnomer that has been disproved by every other case against people filming police officers being thrown out.
The state of Illinois is trying to charge Allison with five counts of wiretapping, each punishable by four to 15 years in prison.
Allison refused a plea deal which would have seen him serve no jail time but would reinforce the hoax that it is illegal to film police officers, as well as acting as a chilling effect to prevent other Americans from filming cases of police brutality.
Allison has chosen to reject the plea bargain and fight to clear his name via a jury trial, arguing, “If we don’t fight for our freedoms here at home we’re all going to lose them.”
A judge is expected to rule on when the case will go to trial over the next two weeks.

» Man Faces Life In Jail For Recording Police Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Allison’s legal troubles began when he recorded his conversations with local police officers who he claimed were harassing him. The officers were seizing old cars he was fixing on his front lawn in violation of a city ordinance, which then forced him to pay a fee to have them returned.
When Allison was brought into court for violating the ordinance, he requested a court reporter so that he could have a record of his trial. The court declined his request and Allison announced that he would record the trial himself.
When he showed up to the courtroom for his trial, the judge immediately asked Allison if he had a recording device and if it was on. He answered yes and the judge had him arrested on the spot for violating her privacy.
When police confiscated Allison's digital device, they found the other recordings. Allison was then charged with five felony counts of eavesdropping, each of which can carry a maximum 15-year prison sentence.

However, there is happy ending to this story. A different judge, apparently one with a great deal more common sense ruled that

the state’s eavesdropping law [is] unconstitutional as applied to [Allison]...

“A statute intended to prevent unwarranted intrusions into a citizen’s privacy cannot be used as a shield for public officials who cannot assert a comparable right of privacy in their public duties,” the judge wrote in his decision dismissing the five counts of eavesdropping charges against defendant Michael Allison.
“Such action impedes the free flow of information concerning public officials and violates the First Amendment right to gather such information,” he wrote.

RCFP: Strict eavesdropping law ruled unconstitutional in Illinois case

While I score this as another victory for citizen's rights, it's still absolutely despicable that some public officials are willing to browbeat law abiding citizens into quiet submission and make public examples of those who attempt to stand up for their rights. There is no reason that it should be illegal to record public officials in the commission of their public duties. If I were Mr. Allison, I'd be levelling a nasty civil suit against the city and state.

 

[tessaesque]

The final ruling was apt. I have to say, however, that the article makes Mr. Allison sound like a raging asshole. If he behaved as he comes across in the article I am not surprised that the police and original judge took the missteps they did. They were wrong, of course, but if the man had been less confrontational in making his point perhaps he would not have received such a reaction.

 

[theangryamerican]

The final ruling was apt. I have to say, however, that the article makes Mr. Allison sound like a raging asshole. If he behaved as he comes across in the article I am not surprised that the police and original judge took the missteps they did. They were wrong, of course, but if the man had been less confrontational in making his point perhaps he would not have received such a reaction.

That may be the case, but a person's disposition still doesn't permit the state to violate their rights. They were wrong and there is no justification for that. Law enforcement and justice are not about being vindictive to people simply because they have a bad attitude.

 

[Ikari]

» Man Faces Life In Jail For Recording Police Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!




However, there is happy ending to this story. A different judge, apparently one with a great deal more common sense ruled that



RCFP: Strict eavesdropping law ruled unconstitutional in Illinois case

While I score this as another victory for citizen's rights, it's still absolutely despicable that some public officials are willing to browbeat law abiding citizens into quiet submission and make public examples of those who attempt to stand up for their rights. There is no reason that it should be illegal to record public officials in the commission of their public duties. If I were Mr. Allison, I'd be levelling a nasty civil suit against the city and state.

Did the DA actually push to charge him with this? If so, he should be fired.

 

[Tigger]

If I were Mr. Alison, I'd be going out of my way to ensure that I never needed police assistance. There might just be a very long wait for help should he ever need to call 9-1-1.

 

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

If I were Mr. Alison, I'd be going out of my way to ensure that I never needed police assistance. There might just be a very long wait for help should he ever need to call 9-1-1.

Do you feel that a police department should have the right to deny protection or aid to a citizen because that citizen taped prior encounters? If so, I have to wonder just what it would take for you to consider a citizen's rights to have been violated.

 

[theangryamerican]

Did the DA actually push to charge him with this? If so, he should be fired.

It would appear so. He was charged with five counts of wiretapping.

If I were Mr. Alison, I'd be going out of my way to ensure that I never needed police assistance. There might just be a very long wait for help should he ever need to call 9-1-1.

It is a mistake for anyone to rely on police assistance, Mr. Allison included. The police have no duty to protect the individual citizen, so assuming that help is only three button pushes away when you need it is naive, at best. Far better, to ensure your own safety and well-being, to the best of your ability.

 

[Tigger]

It is a mistake for anyone to rely on police assistance, Mr. Allison included. The police have no duty to protect the individual citizen, so assuming that help is only three button pushes away when you need it is naive, at best. Far better, to ensure your own safety and well-being, to the best of your ability.

Which is exactly the road I take, personally. Should anyone happen to mistakenly break into my apartment, they had best hope that one of the animals dials 9-1-1 because none of the three human beings will until there's a body to be collected. However, that is NOT the route that most people take in these things.

 

[Tigger]

Do you feel that a police department should have the right to deny protection or aid to a citizen because that citizen taped prior encounters? If so, I have to wonder just what it would take for you to consider a citizen's rights to have been violated.

It doesn't matter what I think, or what the rules say. What matters is how those officers and their brethren are going to react upon realizing whose home they're going to. Somehow I forsee a couple of bathroom breaks and at least one Donut shop stop along the way.

I'm going to be on the Cop's side of things 99/100 times. It's just that simple.

 

[stsburns]

It's a sad day in our country when a citizens rights to record in a public place are less than that of Officers job to investigate someone they think is suspicious. Seriously this is a tech world filled with cameras, their being unreasonable.

 

[1Perry]

He wasn't almost charged with life in prison.

 

[theangryamerican]

He wasn't almost charged with life in prison.

You're right. He was charged with five counts of wiretapping. He could have been sentenced to 15 years in prison for each count. When you're in your forties, 75 years pretty much amounts to life in prison. :shrug:

 

[1Perry]

You're right. He was charged with five counts of wiretapping. He could have been sentenced to 15 years in prison for each count. When you're in your forties, 75 years pretty much amounts to life in prison. :shrug:

They were going to not jail him for even one day.

 

[theangryamerican]

They were going to not jail him for even one day.

He was jailed... and if the charges had not been dismissed by a different judge, would have been jailed much longer. The time served however is irrelevant to the actual point here, which was the gross misuse of the law in an attempt to silence a dissenting voice and potentially cover the wrong doings of both law enforcement and the first judge. There is a rapidly growing trend involving law enforcement attempting to avoid public scrutiny while they ride roughshod over the rights of others. Public officials, in the commission of their public duties do not have the right to expect the same level of privacy that an average citizen has in their personal lives. Do you disagree?

 

[1Perry]

He was jailed... and if the charges had not been dismissed by a different judge, would have been jailed much longer.

Allison refused a plea deal which would have seen him serve no jail time

The time served however is irrelevant to the actual point here, which was the gross misuse of the law in an attempt to silence a dissenting voice and potentially cover the wrong doings of both law enforcement and the first judge. There is a rapidly growing trend involving law enforcement attempting to avoid public scrutiny while they ride roughshod over the rights of others. Public officials, in the commission of their public duties do not have the right to expect the same level of privacy that an average citizen has in their personal lives. Do you disagree?

Right, the jail time, which there would have been none was irrelevant so the false claims of him almost spending his life in prison should have been left out.

 

[lpast]

You have to love people that pull a single incident or two and make lots of hay about how bad the Police are....there are thousands upon thousands of police on duty every minute of every day. Hundreds upon hundreds of people per day and their loved ones are "SAVED" by the police...one would think there would be at least as many video tapes of heroism as mistakes, but of course there isnt.
No one is harder on bad cops than other cops...and many police mistakes that people make lots of hay over are decision based mistakes...making instant decisions is not easy and theres lots of room for things to go bad swiftly.
Every police officer has known the joy of a tearful thank you and hug from a mother, or a strong handshake and a pat on the back from a husband or father...thats our reward.
To all the people that hate the police and believe they are so terrible...hopefully you never find yourself in a situation where your helpless to help yourself and you "NEED" the police...trust like many a cop hater before you...you will eat your words and become a convert.

 

[1Perry]

I'm not sure how you equate this with hating police. I support the police. We do have to stop the idea that's it's unlawful to video tape them though.

 

[theangryamerican]

Allison refused a plea deal which would have seen him serve no jail time

Allison responded that he had no idea it was illegal to record public officials during the course of their work, that there was no sign or notice barring tape recorders in the courtroom, and that he brought one only because his request for a court reporter had been denied. No matter: After Harrell found him guilty of violating the car ordinance, Allison, who had no prior criminal record, was hit with five counts of wiretapping, each punishable by four to 15 years in prison. Harrell threw him in jail, setting bail at $35,000.

You were saying...?

The plea deal was after he'd already been jailed and to cop to the plea would've upheld the charges and reinforced the idea that police are immune to public scrutiny.

Right, the jail time, which there would have been none was irrelevant so the false claims of him almost spending his life in prison should have been left out.

Your insistence on the fact that he was actually not convicted of any of the charges does nothing to lessen the impact of what Judge Harrell was attempting to do by browbeating him in to submission for seeking to protect his own rights and setting a a dangerous precedent that would've had other citizen's afraid to stand up for themselves as well. :shrug: Had Judge Harrell had her way, he would've been serving the time in prison on the wiretapping charges, hence the "ALMOST" in the subject line.

You insist on crying "Dishonesty!" when there is none.

 

[Mason66]

The final ruling was apt. I have to say, however, that the article makes Mr. Allison sound like a raging asshole. If he behaved as he comes across in the article I am not surprised that the police and original judge took the missteps they did. They were wrong, of course, but if the man had been less confrontational in making his point perhaps he would not have received such a reaction.

How many times will you be targeted by the police before you start acting like an asshole.

If they removed his property and charged him to get it back time and time again, he has every right to act like an asshole.

 

[Mason66]

» Man Faces Life In Jail For Recording Police Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

This part doesn't make sense

"When he showed up to the courtroom for his trial, the judge immediately asked Allison if he had a recording device and if it was on. He answered yes and the judge had him arrested on the spot for violating her privacy."

Since when is there an expectation of privacy in an open courtroom? This judge needs to be removed from the bench and every case she was involved in investigated. Who knows what other crap she has pulled.

Isn't wire tapping using a wire? Telephone or telegraph.





However, there is happy ending to this story. A different judge, apparently one with a great deal more common sense ruled that



RCFP: Strict eavesdropping law ruled unconstitutional in Illinois case

While I score this as another victory for citizen's rights, it's still absolutely despicable that some public officials are willing to browbeat law abiding citizens into quiet submission and make public examples of those who attempt to stand up for their rights. There is no reason that it should be illegal to record public officials in the commission of their public duties. If I were Mr. Allison, I'd be levelling a nasty civil suit against the city and state.[/QUOTE]

 

[Paschendale]

Allison refused a plea deal which would have seen him serve no jail time

Because the thing he was accused of doing wasn't actually a crime!! Why is this so hard to understand?

Let me ask you this, would you like a felony conviction? Want to lose your right to vote permanently? Want to lose the right to sit on a jury? Want to have to put that down on every job application from now on? All because you didn't take a plea bargain for something that isn't against the law?

 

[Caine]

You were saying...?

The plea deal was after he'd already been jailed and to cop to the plea would've upheld the charges and reinforced the idea that police are immune to public scrutiny.

Why do you keep throwing this on the police? It was the JUDGE who didn't want HER "privacy" violated. The recorded phone conversations with police became known after the "evidence" (tape recorder) was taken. Recording a phone conversation without one's knowledge is completely different than recording in public. But, as the discovery of recorded phone conversations was made when the recorder was seized pursuant to an unlawful seizure (original arrest by judge's order) the evidence of the subsequent charges was "fruit of the forbidden tree" so to speak.

Is everyone following?

You insist on crying "Dishonesty!" when there is none.

You insist on pinning this on the police in this case... THAT my friend, is dishonesty.

When you are in law enforcement and a judge tells you to arrest someone, you do it.



EDIT: I just noticed that I apparently read something that wasn't there the first time I looked over the OP, and that the "other" recordings he was being charged with were not phone conversations, but just "conversations". My bad!

 

[Caine]

How many times will you be targeted by the police before you start acting like an asshole.

If they removed his property and charged him to get it back time and time again, he has every right to act like an asshole.

So... he has a right to violate the law?
The city ordinance was against parking on lawns.....As ignorant as I or you may believe this law is... it is the law in that city.
Do you think that if someone continues to violate the same law again and again that they somehow gain immunity from that law and that any repeated attempt to enforce it is considered "being targeted"???

So if one continues to violate a law and continues to have to deal with the consequences of that law, then they have "every right" to act like an asshole because they put themselves in the position to deal with the consequences?????

 

[lpast]

I'm not sure how you equate this with hating police. I support the police. We do have to stop the idea that's it's unlawful to video tape them though.

Ok ill go for that..as long as the police or someone can videotape you all day long doing your job and everyone else.

 

[theangryamerican]

Why do you keep throwing this on the police? It was the JUDGE who didn't want HER "privacy" violated. The recorded phone conversations with police became known after the "evidence" (tape recorder) was taken. Recording a phone conversation without one's knowledge is completely different than recording in public. But, as the discovery of recorded phone conversations was made when the recorder was seized pursuant to an unlawful seizure (original arrest by judge's order) the evidence of the subsequent charges was "fruit of the forbidden tree" so to speak.

Is everyone following?



You insist on pinning this on the police in this case... THAT my friend, is dishonesty.

When you are in law enforcement and a judge tells you to arrest someone, you do it.



EDIT: I just noticed that I apparently read something that wasn't there the first time I looked over the OP, and that the "other" recordings he was being charged with were not phone conversations, but just "conversations". My bad!

I apologize if you got the impression that I was blaming the specific officers who performed the arrest. I'm not. The reason I included the police, in general, AND the judge was because only one of the wire tapping charges was for allegedly violating the judge's privacy. The other four counts were recorded public conversations with the police. The myth that needs to stop perpetuation is that law enforcement cannot be recorded in the commission of their public duties. This was not an indictment against any specific officer involved. Hopefully, I've made that distinction more readily apparent now.

Ok ill go for that..as long as the police or someone can videotape you all day long doing your job and everyone else.

Sure. I'm already recorded any time I interact publicly with law enforcement. I have no problem with this, just like the officer should have no problem with me doing the same for my own records. Thank you for showing just where you stand on police accountability though.