Illinois Cops Threaten to Confiscate Man’s Camera for Recording Them


Police in Illinois threatened to confiscate a man’s camera because he chose to video record them inside a parking garage.

But Elliot W., who prefers his last name not be used, did not give in to their demands.

He also did not give in to their demands for identification, which obviously unsettled Moline police officer K. Briggs, but she did not go as far as trying to arrest him.

But she did spend a few minutes questioning him, obviously trying to find something she can arrest him for, but ended up giving up and walking away.

This is how Elliot W. explained it in his Youtube description:

Came out to parking garage after work, noticed a couple guys and a Moline Officer parked in the section below the parking area I was in, the officer was speaking with a woman in a minivan. Didn’t think too much of it, did think it was weird but I was in a hurry.  I noticed the officer open the side door of the minivan which I found highly unusual with the driver still in her seat.  This prompted me to get my video camera.  I walked up to the rail and started recording, almost immediately I was accosted.

One of the cops in plainclothes tried to assert that audio recording cops was illegal because they were in Illinois, but that argument died last year when the Supreme Court allowed a prior circuit court decision to stand that deemed the eavesdropping law unconstitutional.

Moline PD

About Carlos Miller

Carlos Miller is founder and publisher of Photography is Not a Crime, which began as a one-man blog in 2007 to document his trial after he was arrested for photographing police during a journalistic assignment. He is also the author of The Citizen Journalist's Photography Handbook, which can be purchased through Amazon.

Check Also

William Robocop Melendez convicted

Award-Winning Michigan Officer Known as “Robocop” Receives 13-Month Sentence for Vicious Beating Caught on Camera

The Michigan cop known as Robocop will spend at least 13 months in prison for …

  • Difster

    When will they learn?

    • Difdi

      I can think of only two sets of circumstances when they actually will learn.

      Either when the general public’s opinion of them drops to the point that they draw random gunfire just for being seen on the street…

      Or when they are held personally responsible for violating the law in error.

      Right now, most of the successful lawsuits against a cop get paid by insurance not the cop. Right now, a police department can usually get a lawsuit tossed out by claiming the officer acted in accordance with department policy (the court never actually considers that this should open the department up to the RICO Act). Right now, a private citizen who responds to an accusation of wrongdoing with ‘my bad, honest mistake’ goes to prison while a cop (who has the same training in the law that citizen does PLUS specialized law enforcement training) who says the same thing gets excused.

      Be honest: If nothing you did short of killing or sexually assaulting someone would have any consequences for you beyond a paid vacation, a 10 minute longer commute to work and/or a written reprimand that isn’t even read when you’re up for promotion…would you ever clean up your act?

      • crazyassmofo

        Can’t wait for the videos of circumstance number one.

        • Difdi

          You can get a preview. It’s the reaction US troops got when their boots first hit dirt in Iraq and Afghanistan.

          Just imagine, every trash can could conceal an IED, every window, rooftop and alley could have snipers in it, and we’d find out if those Bearcat armored cars can stop a rocket-propelled grenade.

          This is where being all tacticool and deploying SWAT to write tickets leads. Me, I’d rather be Officer Friendly who has citizens rushing to my aid if I ever need it than have every man, woman and child out for my blood but look awesome in my body armor…but I’m not a cop, what do I know?

  • JJ

    Idk guys, I think the female officer was well composed. Yeah she asked for ID without probable cause but she didn’t keep pushing the issue. The male plainclothes officers on the other hand were pretty comfrontational.

    • Elliott W

      Both of them were.

    • Tijuana Joe

      Plainclothes officers are generally foulmouthed dicks, probably because it’s a pain in the ass to ID them after they do something stupid.

    • Hank_Thoreau

      Yeah, totally composed, but she still attempted to intimidate the videographer, and succeeded in taking his attention away from whatever it was the pigs were up to that they didn’t want recorded.

      Also, whatever she said later, her exact words were “I need an ID please,” polite, but still an unlawful command (she tries to walk it back at 3:44, doesn’t change the facts). She follows by trying to bully him, trying to claim he’s the one causing the problem, then tells him that he should comply with LEO’s no matter what the law is. She’s just another pig doing her best to make sure there are no independent records of police activity.

      She didn’t violate his civil rights, but giving her credit for that is like giving someone kudos for NOT beating their spouse. If that’s you’re idea of a good cop, it just shows how low expectations really are.

      • harry balzanya

        I need an ID is not an order, its a statement of what she needs. If you obey it, it will be a consensual act .

        I need a donuts officer. Get me a donut officer.

        I need you ID. Give me your ID. One is a order the other is a statement.

        You guys say I dont know grammer.

        • Hank_Thoreau

          Horseshit. If she had the RS she needed she would have arrested him for obstruction/resisting if he refused. A reasonable person would have thought they had to if they didn’t know better.

          There was absolutely nothing in her tone or words to suggest showing his ID was optional. She didn’t even go to the pig standard of “You got some ID/can I see some ID”
          In fact, if he had refused and been arrested, you’d be saying it was a lawful order and the guy deserved to get arrested.

          Try again bootlicker.

          • Proud GrandPa

            Harry is correct. Ask a lawyer. This is an easy matter of law.

          • Elliott W

            Based on her tone i felt it was a demand, as well as her later comments that basically said, I should have just done as I was told. Sorry, maam, I DON’T ANSWER TO YOU.

          • harry ballzanya

            Many people are tricked by verbal consent judo. Yes most reasonable people are tricked by the verbal legal judo. This is why you flip her back, I dont consent to this conversation leave me alone. If im not being detained i want to be left alone. I want to follow every lawful command as soon as you phrase it as such I will cooperate. Im not interested in your needs what about mine. I dont do requests. I dont fo favors Phrase it as a order or leave me alone. Verbally state i do not consent to your taking my id your use of coercion to take this id from my hands. Im not a boot licker I know my rights Therefore I have them, you dont know them you will be licking boots like it or not. Of course ask a lawyer im I could be wrong I doubt it,

          • harry ballzanya

            She might arrest you but the tape wont lie and free you later. I dont consent to this conversation, am I being detained if not leave me be your causing me stress alarm and duress your harrassing me leave me alone. On tape you have established you are not consenting. In my town her continued conversation would be illegal harrasment. Then sue the bitch for having hair like billy ray cyrus.

          • Difdi

            Tape? What tape? Oh, you mean the blank one found in the suspect’s camera? That was already blank when it entered our custody. Evidence? What evidence?

            Happens all too often.

          • harry balzanya

            Ok then give up and lick boots

          • Difdi

            Well, you obviously blew your Reading Comprehension skill check.

    • IcedTeaParty

      She should’ve never asked in the first place, and her language clearly reflects backpedaling when the photog nailed her on the legality of it.

  • rick

    Hey Mr. Jean and T-shirt, how about you identify yourself before barking orders at me?
    These are the same guys that will pounce on someone and later claim that they announced they were police and their badge was displayed but the suspect still violently resisted arrest.

    • Difdi

      A very good argument for always-on body cams for everyone is that they catch things that happen before it occurs to you that you need to be recording.

      • Proud GrandPa

        Just a legal reminder: Be sure to turn off the hidden camera when you go someplace where privacy is NOT assumed. In particular do not record in the locker room or public restrooms. While these may be open to the public at no charge, there are children present sometimes or adults who have an expectation of not being recorded. I think a photog would be defenseless for accidently making child photos under certain conditions. Likewise the photog could be sued for pics of adults in the same conditions. Just a word to the wise to head off future problems… and the police would take one’s camera as evidence too.

        • Voice-Of-Concern

          eye roll

        • Difdi

          When did I suggest a hidden camera?

          • Proud GrandPa

            You should have suggested a hidden one. In case you still don’t get it, the camera should be hidden to avoid loss.
            And the advice remains. Don’t use the cam in places where its use is really a crime. Just a word for the wise… and for the less perceptive too.

    • Gavin

      I agree with your sentiment 100%ly, but, I have to tell you, your syntax is $#%@ed up.

  • Fotaugrafee

    DISQUS IS BACK….yay!!

    He stood his ground well, and I don’t think she liked it very much, but she sucked it up like a good lil’ piggy. 😀

    • Elliott W

      Beyond the ID issue I thought she was OK, she was still trying to turn it back so that I was creating a disturbance.

      • Proud GrandPa

        Do you do anything to build rapport with local police and fire staff? I ask because they can help or hurt your career within legal limits. Curious…
        Any advice for other photogs or police beat reporters who want to promote good relations with some of the force?
        Thank you, Elliot.

        • Elliott W

          I was accosted within 3s of starting to record and demanded to stop by someone who never once even tried to identify themselves as a cop. Didn’t have time to build a rapport. Had they handled it differently I might have been receptive, but immediately being accosted by those guys negated any possible compromise. I knew I was within the law and I was prepared to get arrested for it.

          Their entire demeanor screamed questionable behavior to me.

          What’s funny is that I don’t inherently have any issue with cops and especially firefighters. BUT I expect professional and lawful behavior from them, and I’m not willing to bend on that even slightly. The cops who patrol my neighborhood get waves and smiles. Act right and no problem.

          Ask, TRULY ask and I am FAR more willing to listen, if it sounds like ask but reads like demand, not a chance.

          • crazyassmofo

            They were obviously up to no good.

  • Prisoner416

    PLEASE remember to ask/demand badge numbers or names. All three were officers and all should have been IDed. The ones we really have to ID are the first two. The one that tells you to “get the fuck out of here” is REALLY out of line, as well as the one calling you an asshole. The female at least was calm and went by the book, even though she did try to get the id (which almost all of them do).

    • Elliott W

      Rookie error, I know, thought about it later.

      • aikimoe

        You got good pictures of them, though, and I’m sure next time you’ll ask. Still, I just want to thank you for doing this and giving a great example of how to keep cool while asserting your rights. Very inspiring.

        • Elliott W


          Got some good screen grabs of them.

          I think a large part of the calmness was that I knew that they were universally wrong, I knew how to counter their BS and I knew that all would be well in the end.

          The fact that neither of these “officers” ever identified themselves as such further bolsters my position.

          Working to get them identified, one of them was driving an Iowa truck, not sure about the other one.

          The one on the top was the primary aggressor, the one on the bottom is the one who called me an asshole I think.

          • Proud GrandPa

            So did you ever find out just what they were doing there? Did they have a warrant? My gut feeling is that they were doing something legal (no crime on their part), but they may have worried that you were a lookout for the bad guys.
            They rushed and flushed you to see how you’d react. You kept calm and asserted rights. No foul on you part.
            They are allowed to lie to you to secure evidence of a crime. You didn’t take the bait when they threatened to take your camera. At least they didn’t say it was a gun!
            Thanks for the video, EW.

          • Elliott W

            I’m still not sure, but I am planning on going over to PD on monday, its less than 500 feet from this parking garage. They may very well have been doing something that was legal, I don’t know. They didn’t want to talk about it and the whole situation looked very strange. Which is what lead to recording in the first place.

            And even if I was a bad guy, it wouldn’t have changed the legality..

            The two plain clothes guys NEVER identified themselves as police so inherently their orders were void, they were nothing more than citizens, not that I respond well to commands anyway.

            Had they said that it might be a gun I was ready with a comeback along the lines that you and I both know that’s a load and that if you REALLY believed that you would be acting VERY differently. So drop the shit.

          • Difdi

            “…and you might be a child rapist, but might doesn’t justify action.”

          • crazyassmofo

            Your gut feeling leads to you talking out of your ass.

  • Freedom_Fighter_of_America

    The law is still in effect Carlos. The Supreme Court refused to hear a case that declared it Unconstitutional as applied only to cook county and only to the Employees of the ACLU of Illinois. The case didn’t set any precedent and the law is still in effect.

    “We are pleased that the Supreme Court has refused to take
    this appeal. Now, we can focus on the on-going proceedings in the
    federal district court. We now hope to obtain a permanent injunction in
    this case, so that the ACLU’s program of monitoring police activity in
    public can move forward in the future without any threat of prosecution.
    The ACLU of Illinois continues to believe that in order to make the
    rights of free expression and petition effective, individuals and
    organizations must be able to freely gather and record information about
    the conduct of government and their agents – especially the police. The
    advent and widespread accessibility of new technologies make the
    recording and dissemination of pictures and sound inexpensive, efficient
    and easy to accomplish.

    While a final ruling in this case will only address the work of the
    ACLU of Illinois to monitor police activity, we believe that it will
    have a ripple effect throughout the entire state. We are hopeful that we
    are moving closer to a day when no one in Illinois will risk
    prosecution when they audio record public officials performing their
    duties. Empowering individuals and organizations in this fashion will
    ensure additional transparency and oversight of public officials across
    the State.”

    • Steve Wilson

      The Supreme Court refused to hear it which means the Seventh Circuit Court ruling stands. And of course we all know that ruling declared the wiretapping law as it relates to on-duty cops unconstitutional. An explicit ruling like the ACLU is working towards would be nice, but it isn’t needed. The court was perfectly clear – it is legal to record IL cops in public on duty.

      “By passing on the issue, the [Supreme Court] justices left in place a federal appeals court ruling that found that the state’s anti-eavesdropping law violates free-speech rights when used against people who audiotape police officers.”,0,686331.story

      • Freedom_Fighter_of_America

        Ya, it ruled it only as applied to the aclu and in cook county. It set no legal precedent. Just because the state supreme court refused to hear it, it left the decision in regards to the aclu in place. But it was not a case that set precedent for the rest of the state, hence the hope that it would have a ripple effect, you can still be arrested charged and successfully prosecuted leaving you to either give up or pay more and more money to get it overturned in a higher appeals court. This keeps getting misconstrued though that it’s completely overturned. It has not been. The blog you posted is wrong when it says the law was struck down. Again, this is a misconception that keeps getting spread. It merely struck down Alvarez’s appeal, not the law.

        • Elliott W

          Ever heard the phrase, “thats a pretty good hill to die on”..

          Also the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case, not the state supreme court.

    • Elliott W

      I’ve been thinking about the point here. I can see no rational legal argument that limits this to Cook county and the ACLU. This is a state law, HOW could it be Constitutional in one county and not in others? How would ACLU staff be distinguished from ANY other member of society on the street? Such a limited decision defies logic.

      Anyway, it doesn’t matter, an affirmative defense is that you thought the police might be acting illegally. Which is actually mentioned in the video. But as I said earlier this morning, I feel this is a pretty good hill to die on, no matter what happened I knew I would destroy them at trial and they had no other charges to use without lying which the video makes quite a bit more difficult..

      I destroyed their attempt at wiretapping. I destroyed their attempt at disorderly conduct. I destroyed the failure to ID. All in all I was not worried about getting arrested.

      • rick

        With the video you would “destroy” them at trial. What would happen if you were arrested and the camera video disappeared?

        The benefits of cameras and camcorders are high resolution and telephoto zoom. The major disadvantage is their memory can be removed quite easily. Keep a cellphone with the Bambuser app running at lowest resolution (more complete upload) in your pocket. At least you’ll have an audio record of any negative police interaction.

    • Gavin

      As a lover of language, here’s what I’d like to know: how does a person who uses Capitalization so well and so correctly, as you have done, then write “cook county”?

      • Freedom_Fighter_of_America

        Seriously, you’re going to resort to being a grammar Nazi? Don’t you realize that playing a grammar Nazi is a tired practice? Someone makes a small grammatical error and that’s all you can focus on instead of the issue at hand.

        • Gavin


          I do realize that playing a grammar Nazi is a tired practice – that’s why poor grammar continues to be used. Don’t -you- realize that poor grammar leads to poor mental habits which in turn lead to many other poor habits? I agree, I was a bit off the mark by not addressing your point itself, but, on the other hand, I stand by my observation. If I comment in the future, I agree to be less Nazi-ish. Is that fair? I do tend to overdo the grammar thing, so your feedback is helpful to me.


          • Freedom_Fighter_of_America

            Beleve it er not, sum peepole reed un articul reely kwik and tipe a commint soo fassed that thay make a misteak in they’re tie-ping.

            It’s not that I was using poor grammar. It was a simple typo. How about this, don’t be a grammar nazi period? If that is all you can do is make a stink about an uncapitalized word, then you shouldn’t be commenting period. It is a tired practice. I hate improper use of words as well such as their, there and they’re, but I don’t go correcting everyone and treating them like their some low life piece of shit beneath yourself because they made a typo. Get over yourself.

            Oh and quoting yourself:
            “Don’t -you- realize” Don’t you realize that dashes don’t go before and after a word, that’s poor grammar.

            “As a lover of language, here’s what I’d like to know: how does a person who uses Capitalization so well and so correctly, as you have done, then write “cook county”?
            After the word know, there should be a period not a “:” The word Capitalization in the middle of the sentence should not be capitalized. How should start a new sentence and the h should be capitalized.

            Need I continue any further? From now on, how about you stick to discussing the article and points made about the article at hand? It would be much appreciated. But you have the freedom to post what you like. Just remember, others have that freedom as well.

            And that folks, is how you deal with a grammar nazi.

          • Gavin

            FFOA –

            I’m going to swallow my pride. It’s just hard to do, for anyone (I think). You swept the floor with me, and I’ll concede. May we start over? I admit that I was wrong, and I promise not to do it again.

            By the way, you did a brilliant job of refuting me. Seriously.



          • Freedom_Fighter_of_America

            Welcome to PINAC Gavin. I don’t hold any grudges. :)

          • Gavin

            Thank you, my friend. Besides, I actually do have real Civil Rights issues. I guess that I turned my anger to you, when I should have turned it towards the enemy.

            My bad.


  • Unity Nowe

    Doesn’t everyone know that when “They” ask you to do something, you JUST DO IT ?

    • Difdi

      Doesn’t everyone know that you’re not obligated to obey an illegal order?

      • Unity Nowe

        Doesn’t anyone know sarcasm when they read it?

        • blackbellamy

          I know sarcasm, I’ll answer this one! Difdi’s reply was just as sarcastic. Do you know what happens when you say things like “Sorry officer, I don’t have to obey your illegal order?” You get tased, your ribs get broken, and then you get to argue about whether the order was legal or not in front of the cousin of the guy who arrested you.

          • Unity Nowe

            Yep, I know all too well what happens when you don’t bend over and take it from cops.

        • Rail Car Fan

          I caught it, but I wish we had the ability to post “emoticons” here. It would make statements like that easier for some to understand.

          Carlos… Emoticons. What about it?

          Rail Car Fan

  • Friday Foster

    Why do people keep falling for the old banana in the tailpipe? Their goal was to keep him from filming that illegal search and they succeeded. Smh! That’s why you should always film without engaging these pigs in any type of conversation.

    • Proud GrandPa

      If you have a target activity, bring multiple photogs so that if cops or security guards pull one aside, the others can (secretly) keep photoging the target. In a related way lawyers for street evangelists advise the same tactic. When the cops want to pull aside a lawful preacher or public speaker, he complies or refers them to a non-preaching authorized spokesperson ready to answer questions. Another speaker takes over and the target audience is reached. In similar manner, let another photog continue if the primary is detained.
      Banana up the tailpipe? Good one!

      • Elliott W

        Keep in mind I literally walked into this situation and even though it looked weird I was in a hurry, up until the cop opened the van door. For me that took it beyond just weird and into the very questionable range.

      • Difdi

        Just don’t try that in Massachusetts, since secretly recording someone is a felony there. The Glik decision only overturned the legal ban on openly recording.

        • Elliott W

          If you are openly AND secretly you are in the clear, the cops tried this tactic with the cop block boys. The cops argument was and IS absurd. The basic position is they knew they were being recorded by the open recorder so any hidden recorder was unimportant.

          • Difdi

            I’d be wary of that. If the open recorder serves as notice they are being recorded, and the secret recorder stays on after the open one is switched off or seized, the fact remains that the secret recorder is secret.

          • Elliott W

            As I’ve said before, “that’s a pretty good hill to die on”.
            They would have had notice they were being recorded..

          • Proud GrandPa

            Yes, it is a good issue for a test case. I believe a civil rights attorney would prevail in federal court on appeal, even if state court first ruled against the photographer.

          • Difdi

            And then right after they would have had notice that they were no longer being recorded. That’s the problem with two recorders in a place where secret recording is illegal.

          • Elliott W

            I’d love to have a jury hear such a case..

      • crazyassmofo

        Multiple photogs and the cops will try to arrest you for inciting a riot.

  • harry balzanya

    Very good police deflection while the very elequant calm and assertive videographer was consensually led to another place the undercovers successfully searched a car illegally off camera. Notice the nod we got what we want.

    • Proud GrandPa

      Yeah, noticed it too. I wondered what that nod meant.
      I thought it could mean, “We’re outta here. YOU can talk to this guy. Our shifts are over.” I had a laugh thinking about that. Your suggestion, however, is the more likely interpretation.
      Now what if the cops were up to no good? Or weren’t real cops? They’d have yet more reason to fear photography. And that would be another good reason to keep taking photos.

      • Elliott W

        I don’t think you could hear it on the video, but I think I heard those guys say we are taking off. I noticed the cop shut the van door before she came over to me.

  • steveo

    Every time a citizen, like this videographer, records police activity, it causes shock waves across the system. If you have an opportunity to record police activity, do it. The why is not important. The overall affect is what is important. Now, police think in their sub-conscience that maybe someone is recording this. I better not do this shit. This above activity to the uninformed, doesn’t immediately make sense, but the overall outcome is desirable.

  • Herbert Napp

    The guy in the jeans and Tshirt just needs a fucking mullet to be Kenny Powers. Only not as awesome.

  • Proud GrandPa

    Sounds pretty good to me. Of course I am highly optimistic.
    What we have here are three officers of the law surprised by the new reality of (a) citizen’s right to photograph LEOs in public, and (b) citizen’s option concerning providing name when no crime has occurred or is likely to occur. They talked awhile and then went away. No harm done.
    Had this been two years ago or had the LEOs not been informed of last year’s court ruling then they might have detained the photog. In fact they were probably trying to detect alcohol or drugs in the photog’s breath or eyes etc. or test him to see if he’d threaten them or start yelling Ollie Awkbar or whatever. He passed that secret test, so they left him alone. A win for everyone…
    Am pleased neither the photog nor the LEOs used foul language nor insulted one another. There may have been some insults I missed as the sound was poor. It sounded as if it had been recorded in a parking garage… Oh wait, it was. Well if there were insults, I did not dwell on them. I congratulate the photog for standing his ground and congratulate the police for respecting his rights. This was a win for everyone.

    • Elliott W

      The only insults were where the 2nd idiot called me an asshole..

      And the first one threatened to steal my property..

      • crazyassmofo

        Gramps has a bit of senility and fails to see such glaringly obvious violations of individual’s rights at the hand of police.

    • IcedTeaParty

      I seriously don’t understand how you consider this a “win for everyone” when the only way this should transpire is that the police should ignore people who are not breaking the law, and shouldn’t approach them with the attitude that these are unreasonable people who somehow have to explain why they are taking video in public.

      If you think this is a reflection of “respect” on the amount of cops, then clearly my posts are quite respectful as well.

      You might be a nice guy, but I’m going to step right out and say it; your apologetics and excuses for the police disgust me.

      Please note that I didn’t insult you or use “foul language.”

      • Proud GrandPa

        Thank you for clean language when disagreeing. Your arguments are strengthen and you earn my respect.


        I must disagree with this statement (and admit I may be wrong). You wrote, “the police should ignore people who are not breaking the law, and shouldn’t approach them with the attitude that these are unreasonable people [for phtography].”
        That is true if the specific reason is photography or any other lawful activity such as political or religious discussion. On the other hand, what if the real reason is not photography but testing the citizen who seems interested in their activity and out of place? In that case the cops are allowed to be rude and annoying. I don’t like it and maybe it will change.
        Police are trying to give a citizen a change to obey or to violate the law. If the latter, the police will have a reason to detain. If the photog or college evangelist remains calm as in this video, we have no further reason for the encounter and all is well. I just wish the cops would be more open about their behavior later.
        Question for the day: Do drunks or drug addicts have the ability to remain calm under pressure?
        See my reply to the post below. Again I could be wrong and future courts may change things, but for now in the USA this police behavior is lawful.

        • IcedTeaParty

          As usual, you couldn’t be more wrong. Such games by the police are entirely inappropriate and put the police in a condition where they don’t deserve an ounce of our respect.

          When you understand that the REASON for the photography is entirely irrelevant, and that the ONLY thing that matters is the rule of law and the Constitution, then you might be one step toward understanding why you consistently walk on the wrong side of this issue.

          It’s not the job of the police to “give a citizen a chance to obey or violate the law,” and the fact that you even consider this behavior by police to legitimate adds to my disgust.

          • Proud GrandPa

            I am right, BP. The courts allow the police to play such games as part of their investigations. Don’t like it? There is nothing you can do.
            As for the word ‘appropriate’ the term is meaningless. Using the wrong fork at a formal dinner is also inappropriate. Both that and police games are lawful. That is the only test which matters.

          • Proud GrandPa

            And the police don’t give citizens a chance to obey the law. They give em a chance to provide probable cause to investigate. Try to read up on law or ask our PINAC lawyer members.
            You write you are disgusted by certain police tactics? That carries little value. Nobody cares about how you or how anyone on PINAC ‘feels’. The only thing that counts is what the law requires and how judges interpret the laws. Hope this helps clarify for you.

          • IcedTeaParty

            No…pretty much means nothing.

            Go ahead and be an armchair cheerleader while the rest of us make the world right.

            You’ve been exposed.

          • IcedTeaParty

            YOu are totally wrong. Using your logic, slavery was OK because it was “lawful” and “there was nothing we could do about it.”

            Your babble about the word “appropriate” is only meaningless to people who don’t understand the word “context.”

    • crazyassmofo

      The male cop referred to the photog as an asshole, the photog repeated the words of the cop back to him using the word asshole a second time, and the cop told him to get the fuck outa’ here…wrong again about the profanity gramps.
      Try those in-the-ear-canal devices from Siemens. A bit costly, but worth every penny.

      And I don’t remember when standing and filming with my phone was reasonable suspicion of my having been drinking, using drugs or being a muslim terrorist whereby an officer would now engage me in my lawful activity to be subjected to secret tests.

      These cops were up to no good.
      See my previous lengthy analysis posting as to why that is gramps.
      You are blind as well as deaf.

      • Proud GrandPa

        Sometimes I am glad the batt’ry runs low. Now where’s the number for Miracle Ear?
        See my post to BP above. You don’t have to like it for it to be legal. Cops can annoy innocent citizens and even lie to them as part of an investigation. And they don’t have to explain why later. Just a word to the wise to stay cool when falsely accused.
        For the faithful who recall Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount, this comes as no surprise. Blessed are you when people shall revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake. This helps keep innocent religious people calm under fire in the US and especially in hostile regimes. For those who don’t view life from a faith perspective, good luck. But stay calm anyway and don’t say or do anything to get arrested. It may be a police test, not a sincere accusation. Or it may be a police trick to provoke you to talk in general. Keep cool under fire.

        • crazyassmofo

          The point is that you cannot hear the words asshole and fuck spoken by the cops, nor can you hear the photog repeating the word asshole after the cop called him that which is clear on the audio.

          Nor can you hear the male cop walking to the van say to the female cop…that this fucking guy is filming you.

          Meaning…you are proven to be an unreliable witness and interpreter of the video.

          You are dismissed from the jury.

          • crazyassmofo

            Post three links to your alleged anti-cop websites gramps.
            Put up or shut up.
            Otherwise you are talking out of your ass.

  • Joey Menendez

    People feel threatened to be recorded fearing that they are going to get caught doing something wrong. If you are not doing anything wrong I wouldn’t worry about any recording me. If you dont like to be viewed in public don’t be in public. If police don’t like to be recorded dont be a police officer.

    To add a bit of generalization, police officers that generally work in plain clothes or undercover usually feel that they are above the law and will act accordingly. They tend to display behavior that is outside of policy of their department and often tend to violate the constitutional rights of civilians because they think they can.

    • Difdi

      That sort of behavior could result in a citizen’s arrest in quite a few states.

      I bet a cop who gets arrested by a citizen will still be hearing about it 20 years later.

  • JustaVetSailorfromPennsylvania

    There is no deal when your constitutional rights are involved. You do not have to talk to the police especially after you saw how respectful they were of you!.

    • Difdi

      Just be sure to explain that your silence is you exercising your rights, otherwise it can be held against you. And don’t forget that saying ANYTHING to the cops has been considered to be waiving your right to remain silent on more than one occasion.

      Hmm, does this mean we no longer have the right to remain silent?

      • JustaVetSailorfromPennsylvania

        Ok, without speaking at all, suggest that you have printed statement prepared for the Badged Uniformed Fascist Thugs. Here is the one that I carry:

        As a citizen of the United States of America, I hereby invoke and refuse to waive all of the following rights and privileges afforded to me by the U.S. Constitution under the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

        Do believe that this covers it very well. Only problem with this approach is that it presumes that BUFT’s are capable of:

        1. Reading

        2. Understanding the statement.

        3. Know anything about the Constitution.

        4. Are willing to honor the oath that they took.

        These are the chances one must take.

        “Perfect freedom is as necessary to the health and vigor of commerce as it is to the health and vigor of citizenship.” – Patrick Henry

  • stupidamerkin

    These drones look pretty stupid, apathetic and thuggish when they try to confront someone who hasn’t been drinking the fluoride. Real sad and totally pathetic,

  • Gavin


    I don’t know if this is your site, or if you’re just a contributor, but I’ve seen admired your work. It makes me sick to see these egregious (and illegal) behaviors committed by the pigs.

    Before you raise an eyebrow, I use the term “pig” only to refer to the ones who act like that particular animal. I’m a combat veteran, so I have no problem with authority, per se.

    Pigs seem to operate under the erroneous impression that they are not civilians…they are. Military men and women are not civilians. Pigs are not military. The military has the UMCJ; when they create a separate legal jurisdiction for pigs, I’ll consider them as other-than-civilian.

    They have no more authority than I do. It’s in the Constitution, to defend which I swore an Oath and honorably upheld. Can they say as much? Judging by this kind of behavior: NO. Resoundingly, no.

    Keep up the great work, and know that I, and others, are starting to awaken from our Orwellian dream-state.

    Your friend,

    SGT (Ret.) Gavin

  • Gavin

    I apologize for the typographical errors, especially UMCJ where I meant UCMJ.

  • harry balzanya

    Shes ove4 18 and theres no victim here.
    I think they were doing something very shady, why would her being over 18 be relevent what were they doing to her.probably a quazi rape diguised as a police search.

    • crazyassmofo

      You are most observant and quite correct.

      First, the male officer with the backwards baseball cap was real nervous about someone filming. Real nervous. They did not want this on tape.

      Then they had to threaten to take the phone as evidence to compel the photog to stop filming. When they realized the photog wasn’t going away, then they had to quickly stop whatever nefarious activities were going on at the van with the female cop.

      The male cop walks over to the van to tell the female officer to stop what she is doing because someone is filming. She did not have to stop what she was doing at all…if it were on the up and up. They did not want whatever was happening in this parking garage to be filmed. She had to stop what she was doing for fear of being found out.

      Once alerted, the female cop does not then walk straight to the photog to confront him, but goes to the side and around the concrete column to then lure him from the scene at the van and then talks to him. They don’t want further revelations as to what is going down in the van.

      And the cop’s irrelevant and defensive statement about the person in the van being over the age of 18 and and adult had absolutely nothing to do with the actions of the photog and everything to do with what these slime ball cops were really doing with this girl.
      Finally, look at the face of this female cop during her questioning of the photog…she looks fucking guilty as sin. And after making a pseudo-display of concern regarding the photog…she makes a hasty getaway.

      Quasi-rape is a good theory.

      • Difdi

        Well, cops ARE arrested for sexual assault three times as often (per 100,000 individuals) as the general public is…

        • crazyassmofo

          …and I think I see some vag juice and pubes on her upper lip.

  • kyle

    I have read your comments, and let me add this: That female cop has a sweet little ass…

    • Bob

      Are you sure that’s not just your bowlegged, cob-up-the-a55 walk fetish?

  • John Redman

    I’m thinking about an old fashioned looking device with a clunky looking memory in an obvious place and a hidden memory that keeps recording when the cops mess with the obvious one and variations on that.

  • Ray

    Very nicely handled by Elliot, by the cops not so much, mostly trying to throw around non-existent legal weight.
    Illinois law says that if you’re driving you must present your license on request. If you are not driving you are required to give your name, address, and what you are doing. This is, after all Illinois, where you can’t have a police state without the State Police.

    • Elliott W

      What Illinois law says has zero effect on the ID issue. Let me explain, SCOTUS has set the minimum standard and NO state law may set it below that. That standard is reasonable suspicion of a crime in stop and ID states. Which not even an idiot could claim here. Also SCOTUS flat out ruled that demands to explain what you are doing are unconstitutional under the 5th amendment. Which makes complete sense.

      Also even if you are driving it isn’t so clear that ID can be demanded. And I hadn’t driven yet so even that wouldn’t apply.

      Also, what statutes in particular are you discussing.

      • Ray

        Elliot: I don’t know that I’d want to argue that with cops that are incompetent enough to

        1. not know the law

        2. make up their own.

        I’d hope that this kind of conduct would embarrass a chief but that’s probably just dopey optimism.

        Here’s what it says and the applicable statute:

        (725 ILCS 5/107-14) (from Ch. 38, par. 107-14)

        Sec. 107-14.
        Temporary questioning without arrest.

        A peace officer, after having identified himself as a peace officer, may
        stop any person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the
        officer reasonably infers from the circumstances that the person is
        committing, is about to commit or has committed an offense as defined in
        Section 102-15 of this Code, and may demand the name and address of the
        person and an explanation of his actions. Such detention and temporary
        questioning will be conducted in the vicinity of where the person was

        • Elliott W

          Your argument died at: “A peace officer, after having identified himself as a peace officer, may stop any person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably infers from the circumstances that the person is committing, is about to commit or has committed an offense as defined in Section 102-15 of this Code”.

          The second section is predicated on the first. She already admitted I was not suspected of a crime. Boom, DONE. As I said many times here, I wasn’t worried.

          They had nothing and were gonna get nothing from me. Also the first two guys can’t do shit, they NEVER identified themselves as anything and I’m not obligated to make inferences that they ARE cops. Not that that would have changed anything.

          They want to make up law, FUCK ‘EM, they can answer to the courts and the local news. I’m done with her, but the two idiots and the whole situation, not even close.

  • Tom

    We need more people like this guy.. Its these hero’s that save us from the corruption of the Scumbag Police…

  • crazyassmofo

    Get the fuck outa’ here!!!
    You’re an asshole!!!

    Such courtesy shown towards law-abiding citizens.

  • James Morgan

    Unfortunately, the restraining order that prevents prosecution of people for audiotaping the police in Illinois extends Only to members of the ACLU.. At least that’s what the State Attorneys will say. There are STILL open cases on the Illinois docket Despite the Fact that The US Supreme Court Affirmed the Seventh Circuit’s finding that the law is unconstitutional.

  • crazyassmofo
    • TheFlashingScotsman

      Some peoples are more specialer than others.