Massachusetts's wiretap statute declared unconstitutional - Suits under 42 us 1983

[Lucky225]

Folks it's been a very long while since I've posted on RDnet. But I think this needs to be shared.

Court says state law used to ban recording of police officers in public is unconstitutional | Universal Hub

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opin...-1764P-01A.pdf

Glik then brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that his arrest for filming the officers constituted a violation of his rights under the First and Fourth
Amendments. We conclude, based on the facts alleged, that Glik was exercising clearly established First Amendment rights in filming the officers in a
public space, and that his clearly-established Fourth Amendment
rights were violated by his arrest without probable cause. We therefore affirm.

[SteadySpeedin]

Great news! Now we just need Illinois political figures to pull their heads of out their asses!

[Lucky225]

Yeah, upon further review of the ruling though it doesn't address "secret" recording. However if you have the device in plain view you do not have to inform.

[Maestro]

actually this is the more important statement in my mind

federal appeals court said the officers could not claim "qualified immunity" because they were performing their job when they arrested him under a state law that bars audio recordings without the consent of both parties.

The qualified immunity is what protect police and DA from you going after them for wrong doing. As long as they claim they were doing their job as an officers of the courts even if it was wrong you can get go after them. The federal court said the police can not hide behind.

[JamSession]

Great news! Anything that brings the Gestapo-like police we have in this country down a notch or two is awesome for the American people.