Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Be very, very careful. In several states, like my home state Illinois, two-party consent statutes allow you to be charged with a felony for recording on-duty officers; in others, recording on-duty officers is an overt and specific felony.

Some journalism student just got pegged with a felony charge, and failed in his attempt to get the charged dismissed, because he surruptitiously recorded an on-duty cop here. Not worth it.

View on HN

As I understand it that is usually (I don't know specifically about IL) about surreptitious recording. If the other party (the cop) is informed and continues the interaction, you are covered. As I have written before, the 2-party consent rules are specifically for the benefit of low-lifes. Nothing prevents one party reporting what transpired in a conversation, all the anti-recording laws do is to allow liars to get away with it by not preserving an objective record.

"Hey, sir, I just need to tell you that I'm recording this for my rec---"

"Turn it off. Now."

"But---"

"TURN IT OFF AND STEP OUT OF THE CAR."

You're right, but not in a relevant way.

(I have a very little bit of experience with this, though not with municipal police; a friend got assaulted because of this, too).

But you can still ask to record it right? And if for some reason the cop OKs it, then it should be all good?

In Illinois, I think you're OK if the cop consents (this is kind of an academic point, since they won't consent). But there are other states where, if I understand the statute correctly, consent isn't relevant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com