Hacker News Reader

Comment by malbiniak | Hacker News Reader

Why the question mark? If you live in Illinois, Massachusetts, or Maryland, the title reads "It is illegal to record an on-duty officer."

And not just sort of illegal. Class 1 felony punishable 4-15 years in prison illegal.

View on HN

This article clarifies the current state of affairs in Massachusetts:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010...

The key seems to be how evident it is that the person is recording. If it is at all not obvious to the police that a recording is being made, it is illegal. If you put a microphone or camera in their face however it is OK.

So the Rodney King tape would be illegal. In fact most police abuse tapes I can recall would be illegal, since people don't like to get very close to packs of violent officers.

I've been trying to find reliable sources that say one way or the other about Maryland (my current state of residence). Do you have any links? I did find this (http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/maryland.html) which says that MD state courts have interpreted the law not to apply in public.

Radley Balko: In Spite of State Law, Maryland Law Enforcement Officials Still Arresting, Charging People for Recording Cops: http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/29/maryland-cops-say-its-ille...

Excellent read, thank you.

I think the question mark serves to denote surprise/disappointment that this is a fact.

It will also end up being questionable considering USSC rulings on reasonable expectations of privacy in public settings. That is what surprises me considering this seems to fall squarely as 1st, 4th, 5th, 14th amendment issues.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com