The court never set a distance marker in this or any other case. 10 ft was simply mentioned as to how far someone was in situ at that moment and it doesn't make that distance into a recommendation or standard....max or min, much less does it make case law...see Internet Guru. Basically in a nutshell...no pun intended...the case simply is a reaffirmation of what was already decided years ago....that a citizen....can record a public official in a public place.
The 10 ft mentioned was in dissertations of the justices on their reasoning in judging this case, as is their mentioning that this applies to everyone ,since government employees do enjoy a higher standard of protection due to their qualified immunity than the average person does. These dissertations are also used to argue and judge precedence and relevance in further cases to determine whether a ruling applies and what it's intention were. Most important, the dissertations show which preceding laws and rules were used in their decision-making and how they were applies in the various parts of the case in question.
I didn't get this stuff from one or two oddball websites- it comes cross-checked and verified from several well-respected sites and from official US government sites where it is in the official public resort. I spent somewhere aroused 20 hours doing research in this one case dear child, so if that makes me an"internet guru" then U'll takec that as compliment even though you thought you were disparaging me with that term
For a number of years, a close friend of mine was a paralegal and gave me access to Westlaw online through their law firm which is
THE standard research reference used by every lawyer in the USA. Among my friends (and sometimes enemies too) have been Judges, Lawyers, Paralegals, Legal secretaries, LE Officers at all levels incliding US Marshalls, and Legislators at various levels.
Unless you are employed in a Law-related field I can promise you that I've spent more time in the courtroom, in studying law and how it is applied, and in researching law than you ever will.
@Daleg, if there is an uninformed individual here it is
you, not
me, for I am extremely well-informed on what I speak of here and of many other aspects of US law.
To show this why don't you tell the people here why the Illinois law which you claim was struck from the books was never a Law and could not be applied to start with? That is one of the most basic tenets of US law and anyone with any depth of legal knowledge will know it.And expound on that ruling with some references to the preceding laws and rules to explain why that happened the way it did. I dare you
I double-dare you. And if you want to really prove yourself, tell me what the confiscation of a car had to do with the Glik ruling (remembering that all the parties in the Glik case were on foot and cars were not involved in any way whatsoever).
It was a very relevant part of the Glik ruling
For the rest of you folks I say look into this yourself. Read the rulings and references as I have. You will find I am completely correct and completely accurate in all that I've said regards this. You may also discover that researching law can be an interesting and sometimes humorous pastime. And if you go deep enough you'll discover some very scary things too.
Only those who know the law and know their rights and exercise those things are truly free.
Phil