Woman Acquitted of Secretly Taping Police

A jury acquitted 20-year-old Tiawanda Moore of eavesdropping charges. Moore, whom the Sun-times for some reason felt the need to point out was "a former stripper," admitted she used her Blackberry to record two Internal Affairs officers who were trying to pressure her to drop sexual harassment charges against a third officer.

Moore's recording of the officers ran afoul of an obscure state law that prohibits citizens from taping anything in public or private without all involved parties consenting. The ACLU has been fighting that law, citing that police squad cars are equipped with cameras that are mandated to record continuously during an officer’s tour of duty makes for a double standard.

Moore said she was unaware of the law and flipped on the recording device on her Blackberry because she felt the two officers were "stalling, intimidating and bullying her," said her attorney Robert Johnson. She alleges a police officer fondled her and asked for her phone number while responding to a domestic battery call at a residence she shares sometimes with her boyfriend.

Assistant State's Attorney Mary Jo Murtaugh argued that the issue at hand wasn't what Moore recorded, but that she recorded it. Moore's attorney said she was allowed to record the IAD officers under an exemption to the statute that allows such recordings if someone believes a crime is being committed or is about to be committed. The jury evidently agreed, taking less than an hour to find for acquittal. Juror Ray Adams indicated to the Tribune what was on the recordings swayed them.

"The two cops came across as intimidating and insensitive. Everybody thought it was just a waste of time and that (Moore) never should have been charged."

The case also is a black eye for the Police Department's Internal Affairs division, which is charged with investigating misconduct within the department. At the very least, what Moore recorded didn't reflect the division's motto of Professionalism, Obligation, Leadership, Integrity, Courage, and Excellence.

ACLU of Illinois spokesman Ed Yohnka said the verdict "reflects a repudiation of the eavesdropping law in Illinois." Chicago Fraternal Order of Police spokesman Pat Camden said the union supports the law because it prevents people from making baseless accusations against officers by recording them and then releasing snippets that don't reveal the full context of the incident.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@chicagoist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Chuck Sudo in News on August 25, 2011 1:40 PM

Comments [rss]

Byron Rivers

The difference in your experience, Sarah, is that you are not able to put anyone in jail based on your credibility.

I believe any official whose duties include collecting evidence to be presented in court should be fair game for taping whenever they are on duty.

snoopoz

How about some discussion on the merits of this particular law? I, personally, think it is absurd that it's a felony to video record the police. It certainly helps to keep in check some abuses of power, which, I think, will benefit both the public and the police. However, I also don't like seeing videos of "police brutality" where there's dozens of people standing around cops, cell phone in hand, basically goading the cop to do something.

Sarah Kathleen

I actually have some experience with this law that was really positive for me - a few years ago I moved and had a really terrible experience with a moving company. I raised a big stink with them and spoke to a bunch of people on the phone, and everything went really well. Then they changed their tune and their attorney told me that they had me on tape harassing and threatening the owner of the company. I freaked out until a) I realized that I hadn't done those things, and b) I could press charges if they had those recordings since I didn't consent to it.

So I like the law (although I understand that my experience is really different from most peoples').

BlueFairlane

A journalistic observation: Chicagoist simultaneously expresses dismay that the Sun-Times reveals Moore's former profession while revealing Moore's former profession. The instinct that Moore's former profession has nothing to do with the story is a good one, but aren't you then merely perpetuating the problem?

ChicagoD

Her former profession is part of the story to the extent it helps explain why the original cop sexually harassed her, and why the later police tried to get her to drop the case. To the extent they all felt like they could push her around because she was a stripper, it is also part of why a jury pushed back and refused to convict.

Hard to imagine why any idiot ASA would have brought this case . . .

Nicholas

I'm inclined to agree that the S-T probably thought it was relevant for any or all of these reasons. If Chicagoist had simply criticized the S-T for publishing her "former profession," wouldn't people just go to the S-T site and see what they were talking about? As I said, once it is out, it is out.

ChicagoD

Meh. I personally like strippers, so I might not be the best person to ask.

Nicholas

Once it was in the Sun Times, it is out there. Chicagoist is not revealing anything that has not already been revealed in their just criticism of the Sun Times. Steve Rhodes at the Beachwood Reporter did the same.

BlueFairlane

I see the point, but I'm not sure I completely agree, especially in the context of this story where the criticism was leveled at the Sun-Times almost as an afterthought. The questions for me are, one, how much value are you adding to the story by offering this criticism (or, how much of my purpose in relaying this story is to criticize the Sun-Times and their stupid reporting), and B, can this criticism be leveled without perpetuating the act?

As far as the first question goes, compare Chicagoist's off-hand mention of it with Rhodes's piece. Criticizing the Sun-Times is the purpose of Rhodes's story, and he does a good job of pointing out exactly why Moore's occupation is irrelevant. Chicagoist is just making an off-the-cuff dig.

As for the second question, I'm conflicted. Rhodes could not have made his point without mentioning the occupation. I think Chicagoist would have been perfectly fine dropping it.