Dashcam law in Illinois?

dashcam1

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
178
Reaction score
15
Country
United States
I am in Chicago and honestly I don't see cars with dashcams on but I am sure there are many who have it installed like me. So if case of an accident. Just show it to the cop that someone else is reponsoble by playing the video at the scene or at the police station ? Also when a cop pulls you over on the road, do you have to turn off your car to stop recording or just let it on? Can the cop tell me to stop recording the video or audio ? Also is it same at the US border crossing ? Do you have to turn off? Thanks
 
Anywhere the USA when you are on public property, you are allowed to record video of anyone or anything visible from there including government officials at work- Glik v Cuniffe 1st Appeals 2011 & Taylor(I think) v Virginia, 9th Appeals 2017. This is Federal jurisdiction and no State has the authority to change that. Note that this does not cover audio, only video- audio is withing a State's jurisdiction. Note also that you are not allowed to record video where the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy (no 'peeping tom' recordings allowed), nor are you allowed to record video where it may interfere with national security or where it may knowingly put someone at risk for their safety (like filming spies or Secret Service operations). If you are recording Police with a portable camera you must remain at least 10 feet away from them as being closer can be considered to be interfering with their duties. Though not addressed directly, a dashcam in a car should not be considered as interfering with duties since it is essentially part of the vehicle, but only when the vehicle is being used legally on public property or on private property where you have permission to record video.

Look up the "Glik" case on any law review site for all the details, but a synopsis is posted on Wikipedia which covers most of this.

I'm not a lawyer, just someone who has researched this subject well, which I recommend that anyone owning video recording equipment do for themselves too ;)

Phil

(added links): http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1578557.html
This one focuses on the legal details- I recommend you also check out the other cases referred to here to better understand your rights as a US citizen.

https://www.aclu.org/news/appeals-court-unanimously-affirms-right-videotape-police
This one gives more background on the people and the situation and is an easier read.
 
Last edited:
Interesting, seems very similar to uk, but here we get plod getting arsey about being recorded on video or audio.
 
In the US the Police can request that you do anything including that you do not record their activities, but they cannot legally require that you do this. You can choose to honor their request or not. Of course a denial will affect their attitude, but it does not give them grounds to perform an arrest. If you agree to a police request even though it is within your rights to deny it, then you cannot later reclaim that right during that time so to maintain your legal rights it is important that you know what they are and refuse to allow them to be infringed in any way from the start :cool:

The Police here today are trained to attempt to get you to give up your rights this way and they know the law regards doing it, while most citizens do not understand the difference between a request and a demand nor do they know the law regarding their voluntary cessation of rights. And it appears that the Illinois legislature did not know the law either when they desired to take a legal power which wasn't theirs to begin with :eek:

You'd expect that the people tasked with creating or enforcing laws would know the law, but often they do not so it becomes the job of the citizens to keep them in line. Thus I have memorized the salient points of Glik v Cunnife both to protect myself and to educate those who do not know including the Police :D I do like being a helpful person!

Phil
 
SAWMASTER, I totally concur with your sentiments, whilst many cops might be good there are certainly a shed load that aren't, in the UK for example it is LAWFUL(legal) for a policeman to break the law in the process of gaining evidence, in court it is common practice for the crown prosecution system to with hold evidence that could be of benefit to any one defending themselves in theory no but in practice it happens.
 
So if case of an accident. Just show it to the cop that someone else is reponsoble by playing the video at the scene or at the police station ?

That's your decision...Emailing a link or copy is sufficient for most investigations and insurance issues. If there is a trial and your video is being used as evidence....then expect to get a subpoena....you basically have to show and say "yes I made the video on this date and time, it's mine and it has not been altered."

Also when a cop pulls you over on the road, do you have to turn off your car to stop recording or just let it on? Can the cop tell me to stop recording the video or audio ? Also is it same at the US border crossing ? Do you have to turn off? Thanks

Basically....painting with a broad brush here....You can record anyone in a public setting...not just the police.... as long as there is no right to privacy (within reasonable limitations of time, place and manner) A vehicle stop on the roadway....no right to privacy. The officer can tell you to stop recording but there again he can tell you that the sky is purple....you should know your rights. Most people think they do know their rights but actually haven't a clue...having learned on the net, urban legend or Internet Guru's. Want the facts....see General Statutes for your state.


Struck from the books shortly after...as it should have been and as expected.

If you are recording Police with a portable camera you must remain at least 10 feet away from them as being closer can be considered to be interfering with their duties.

You would do well to disregard the 10 ft statement and not bet your freedom on a yard stick or an internet post. 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.
 
We get a lot of arsey plod here telling you they don't consent to being filmed, simply respond get out of the public then, this is in England but Scotland/n.Ireland/Wales may be different, Scotland has a lower drink drive limit and other laws.
 
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 :eek: 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 :p 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). :whistle: It was a very relevant part of the Glik ruling :cool:

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
 
So, what is the best overall summary of what I can take away in 30 seconds? And I'll assume you are infallible in that summary and never besmirch your name. :)
 
In summation regards dashcam usage anywhere in the US, all video recording which is done while the car is being operated in public is legally permitted. The same applies in non-public situations if there are no legal prohibitions involved. About the only time you can be legally required to stop recording is when national security is involved. Audio recording is a separate issue with different laws applying.

Phil
 
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.

Uhhhhh.....no.

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.

I am Phil.....I seriously doubt you have and it's why I shake my head when you try to play Counsel.
Having friends that are police, judges, US Marshalls, etc. doesn't make one an expert at law or give you a JD or insight that law enforcement officers may have. No need to brag about all the important people you know to try to convince me or anyone else. I get it....you know some cops and have been in a courtroom more than once for whatever.....oh.....and you have read a bunch. Go Wiki!
 
Last edited:
Since I had a cop 'lose' key evidence in a traffic accident years ago, (I think he was mostly not that interested in doing anything), I think preserving the data file YOURSELF is primary. Since I always have a laptop in the truck, I'd copy the files to a separate location first. Unless a gun is pointed at me or a cop is ordering me to hand them the cam or memory card, I'm not going to willingly do it until I saved a copy of the file. I think most of the regulations about filming cops are due to the morons hover around sticking a video camera or a cellphone in the cops face. If you do stuff 'lower profile', you can get away with a lot more. :)
 
Trust no one with your original data but youself and always back up.
 
Cops/prosecutors "lose" loads of stuff, it happened to myself in a very serious crime that I could have got 15 years for if convicted, CPS(crown prosecution service) with held DNA evidence for 9 months that proved it was not myself, only after being forced to by a court did they hand over this titbit of info, as they were not relying on it as evidence they did not legally have to disclose it to my solicitor, I don't trust the average cop at all especially my two cousins who are cops I know how bent they are.
As stated above never ever give up evidence just a copy, and hide copies round mates etc as back up
 
@Daleg
I'm not going through an argument with you on this. You have yet to show were I'm wrong though you apparently think that I am :( Anyone here who, like me, wishes to do so can read the decision of Glik (or any other case) on any number of law-related and academic websites including that of the Government itself which one would hope and believe is accurate :D The many cases refereed to in the making of the decision(s) are annotated on many of those sites and are also easily read and easily understood.
The main reason I have my cams is to protect me from the problems I've previously suffered at the hands of the Law. Incompetence, favoritism, politics, and malfeasance abound in it from bottom to top, and an honest person has almost no chance for justice once you're in it's grasp :eek: Know your rights and obligations, and refuse to be another one of their almost innumerable innocent victims ;)

Phil
 
Phil.....Reddit...just so you know...is NOT a good legal resource.
I find that people who hold a general disdain for law enforcement, judges, etc. tend to be or have been on the wrong side of the fence at one time or another. Those who say they have suffered at the hands of law enforcement or the CJ system....over and over.... have generally been arrested, charged with a crime, etc. ... usually the problem is or was a self inflicted gun shot wound with a bullet made of their own poor judgement. It's like attorneys.....everybody says they hate attorneys....but they love to hire attorneys. You hate police, yet you call 911. Keep reading....keep giving out bad advice...after all, it's not you...it's always somebody else's fault isn't it?
 
Back
Top