* Recording officers creates a permanent record of their identity which causes problems for undercover operations.
* Bystanders who record the police frequently interfere (directly, physically) with police actions and can put themselves or others in danger.
* Recorded video is frequently edited to create misleading narratives and spurs nuisance claims against the police.
* The police are themselves required to jump through all sorts of due process hoops to surveil people, so they should benefit from the same protections while on the job.
(Incidentally: all these reasons are probably true; they're just wildly insufficient to restrict video recording).
2) Frequently is a nice general word. I would argue, that it's not nearly enough times to cause an impact on enforcing the law while recording the police has resulted in many outings of abuse of power.
3) If anyone honestly thinks that's a problem, then they shouldn't ever set foot in a court room. Court is all about editing and sculpting the evidence as much as you possibly can to support your case. And again, the benefits of recording the cops hugely outweigh the (theoretical) negatives.
4) It's impossible for a civilian to get a warrant to spy on a police officer. I don't see your point.
So why were these laws enacted? Basically to protect privacy. State legislatures decided that surreptitious recording of one's one phone calls was an invasion of the other person's privacy. I personally am against these laws, but that's the rationale behind them. It's not about protecting cops in particular.
No one is prosecuted for corruption in Illinois unless they become a roadblock in some way to someone with more clout (after which they resign and charges are quietly dropped), or the Feds come to town.
But if there weren't these laws, surely every time you use the phone to anyone (e.g. your wife), you'd have to treat everything you say as if it were public. Because the other party could be recording you and could then make the recording public, and there'd be nothing you could do about it.
Surely that's not a thing you'd want?
First... this guy is gonna be a hero with a capital H if they send him to prison for recording the cops. Hero with the left and the libertarian right. Hero with the other prisoners... probably beyond that whole black-white gang thing. He will be untouchable.
Anyway...
I would also like to try to get an idea of the reasoning behind making it illegal to record the police, or indeed ANY public servant, in the execution of their duties. Suppose I make a phone call to, let's say, a public school. During this call I inquire about something erroneous that they may have been telling my child... as I understand this, it is illegal for me to record that call to use as documentary evidence of the challenges the child may face in that school.
I am wondering why that is the case? There must be some 'bad' way that can be used, so they don't allow it. I just can't see what 'bad' thing it s the government is worried about. Any lawyers out there able to address that quickly?