C Drew - Street Artist Adventures

View of My Crime - Is this a Felony? (photo by Ron Grenko)

FIGHT THIS ATTACK ON FREE SPEECH

E-MAIL YOUR COMMENTS TO:

umcac@art-teez.org

with “comments” in the subject line. We are collecting comments on my being arrested for this felony while selling art as a test of the peddlers law (a misdemeanor), on the way it was reported, and on the trumped up felony charge of taping my own arrest. We will be posting your comments in a future art exhibit with the Art Patch Project designs. Please - please express your opinion!

SUNTIMES ARTICLE 12/3/09
Peddler charged with taping cops during his own arrest
December 3, 2009

BY ROSEMARY SOBOL Sun-Times Media Wire

A Rogers Park neighborhood man was charged with felony eavesdropping after allegedly taping conversations  — including  the voices of officers who arrested him — without permission while selling art for a $1 Wednesday afternoon in the Loop.

Christopher Drew, 59, of the (my street address), was charged with felony eavesdropping, according to police. He was also cited with two city charges for not having a peddler’s license and peddling in a prohibited area.

Drew was arrested at 103 N. State St. at 1:15 p.m. after officers saw him wearing a red poncho with a sign on the back and front that  said, “Art for Sale, $1,’’ according to a police report.

Officers informed him that the area was restricted for peddlers and asked him to stop peddling, as he also did not have a license to sell the art. Drew was taken into custody after telling officers he would not stop, according to the report.

Inside several pockets of the poncho officers found his items for sale and an Olympus digital voice recorder which was recording at the time of the incident without the consent of the responding officers, according to the report.
Belmont Area detectives are investigating.

Related Blog Posts
(from Afghanistan)
Terrorist Attacks On Military Officers, Main ‘Facilitator’ Arrested

(From India News)
The Problems with Tasers and Arming Police Officers with Them
END OF SUNTIMES ARTICLE

E-MAIL YOUR COMMENTS TO:

umcac@art-teez.org

with comments in the subject line. We are collecting comments on my being arrested for this felony while selling art as a test of the peddlers law (a misdemeanor), on the way it was reported, and on the crime of taping my own arrest for posting in a future art exhibit with the Art Patch Project designs. What is your opinion?

Nami wrote:

Hello Chris,
I’m currently living in France so I won’t make it on Friday, but I have been following your story.  This felony charge is absolutely ridiculous!  But it looks like it is getting some good media attention.

I wish you strength and courage in fighting the bogus charge and in the continuation of the movement!

1/2/10 posted on c-drew.com/blog

Robert Lederman wrote:

Sorry to hear you had such a lengthy and miserable arrest.
The upside of it, is that if you eventually win a lawsuit,
that prolonged jail stay will dramatically raise the
damages you will get. They used to put me through
the system as a special punishment to dissuade
me from continuing. Take it as proof that you are getting
to them.

dated 12/22/09 - posted  1/1/09 on c-drew.com/blog

C Drew wrote:

From cop-watch website analysis of several segments of the Illinois Eavesdropping statute.

http://www.copwatch.com/actionalert

(720 ILCS 5/14-3)
Sec. 14-3. Exemptions. The following activities shall be exempt from the provisions of this Article:
(i) Recording of a conversation made by or at the request of a person, not a law enforcement officer or agent of a law enforcement officer, who is a party to the conversation, under reasonable suspicion that another party to the conversation is committing, is about to commit, or has committed a criminal offense against the person or a member of his or her immediate household, and there is reason to believe that evidence of the criminal offense may be obtained by the recording;

If you can find any criminal law, (local, state, or federal), that the cops broke (or seemed likely to break) in refusing to give you a complaint form and/or threatening and arresting you, then you may have been entitled to record the conversation without their consent.

(720 ILCS 5/14-4)
Sec. 14-4. Sentence.
(a) Eavesdropping, for a first offense, is a Class 4 felony and, for a second or subsequent offense, is a Class 3 felony.
(b) The eavesdropping of an oral conversation or an electronic communication between any law enforcement officer, State’s Attorney, Assistant State’s Attorney, the Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General, or a judge, while in the performance of his or her official duties, if not authorized by this Article or proper court order, is a Class 1 felony.

NOTE: No wonder Chicago has a well-deserved national reputation for corruption. This section is absolutely indefensible. It imposes exceptionally harsh penalties on anyone who has the temerity to record the activities of the errand-boys of Chicago’s ward bosses (cops, prosecuting attorneys, and judges).
12/25/09 Posted on c-drew.com/blog

Sandra Posadas wrote:

THANK YOU! Its just so interesting…I try to alwas go about it the “right way”
but it costs so much to participate in street fairs and what not, AND you need a tax id no., and this then that, ..it is really discouraging if you want to sell  your art. You have to be a corporation so ..thank you for doing all you do to gain attention to the fact that its all about money ….artists can’t really get ahead…the thing is artist don’t have money….we try to make  a little money from art but seriously…..it sucks!

12/25/09 Posted on c-drew.com/blog

Monica Brown Wrote:

12/23/09 Posted on c-drew.com/blog

Charles Lewis Wrote:

I’ve also had problems with the police when peddling WITH A LICENSE. The cop lied to the judge, and if I had a recording he would have been exposed. What would have happened to Rodney King without video proof? We need to protect ourselves from a few bad apples.

12/23/09 Posted on c-drew.com/blog

Nancy Bechtol Wrote:

Hi Chris, I saw this and thought you would appreciate the view.

Hope you are holding up ok. Peace through Justice - Nancy

Willing to Experience our Suffering by Charlotte Joko Beck

[Listen to Audio! <http://www.ijourney.org/audio.php?op=play&tid=670>   New!<http://www.ijourney.org/pics/perm/new2.gif> ]

<http://www.ijourney.org/pics/weekly/670.jpg>  A few weeks ago someone gave me an interesting article on suffering, and the first part of it was on the meaning of the word – “suffering”. I’m interested in these meanings; they are teachings in themselves. The writer of this article pointed out that the word “suffering” is used to express many things. The second part “fer”, is from the Latin word “ferre,” meaning “to bear.” And the first part, “suf” is from sub, meaning “under.” So there’s a feeling in the word “to be under,” “to bear under,” “to totally be under” – “to be supporting something from underneath.” [...]

So (remembering the definition of the word “suffer”) until we bow down and bear the suffering of life, not opposing it, but absorbing it and being it – we cannot see what our life is. This by no means implies passivity or non-action, but action from a state of complete acceptance. Even “acceptance” is not quite accurate – it’s simply being the suffering. It isn’t a matter of protecting ourselves, or accepting something else. Complete openness, complete vulnerability is (surprisingly enough) the only satisfactory way of living our life. […]

Our practice throughout our lifetime is just this: At any given time we have a rigid viewpoint or stance about life; it includes some things, it excludes others. We may stick with it for a long time, but if we are sincerely practicing our practice itself will shake up that viewpoint; we can’t maintain it. As we begin to question our viewpoint we may feel struggle, upset, as we try to come to terms with this new insight into our life; and for a long time we may deny it and struggle against it. That’s part of practice. Finally we become willing to experience our suffering instead of fighting it. When we do so our standpoint, our vision of life, abruptly shifts. Then once again, with our new viewpoint, we go along for a while – until the cycle begins anew.

Once again the unease comes up. And we have to struggle, to go through it again. Each time we do this – each time we go into the suffering and let it be – our vision of life enlarges. It’s like climbing a mountain. At each point that we ascend we see more; and that becomes broader with each cycle of climbing, of struggle. And the more we see, the more expansive our vision, the more we know what to do, what action to take.

–Charlotte Joko Beck, from “Everyday Zen: Love and Work”

Nancy Bechtol

www.absolutearts.com/nancybechtol

www.artslant.com/global/artists/show/32212-nancy-bechtol

12/22/09 Posted on c-drew.com/blog

Bill D. MacKay Wrote:
In my view, (and I have met him, and he’s a great man) Mr. Drew is a model citizen. He is doing a lot of good by reminding us that he has, and we have, every right to provide our fellow citizens with art, and with messages of freedom.

I support his rights to be a public artist, and decry the waste of time and energy, not to mention the ill will, that the city is putting into the absurd case against him. Let freedom ring. Let C. Drew go free, and drop all litigation against him. Sincerely,
Bill D. MacKay / Chicago
12/21/09 Posted on c-drew.com/blog

C Drew Wrote:
To A Supporter with questions (published with permission later)
I never suggested I would accept a plea bargain. I asked the public if they thought I should. One hundred percent of the responses so far say I should not. I never would accept a plea bargain.

There is no misdemeanor on the table. Those charges were dropped. The felony eavesdropping charge is the only charge the State’s Attorney wants to pursue because this is a political trial. It is only a criminal trial because that is the technicality they are using to get me into their court system. I will not play their game the way they want me to play it. This is not a felony drug possession charge and I will not fight it as if it were. This is a political assassination and it needs to be fought out in the media and online. I have set myself a simple set of statements that are known as irrefutable fact that I will beat again and again. I am not divulging any other strategy. I am honing my message to the media.

Mark Weinberg is my lawyer. He is in touch with the ACLU. He has excellent criminal lawyers at his right hand as needed. We are going to make a change in this system using the art of the Art Patch Project. The public opinion is our target. This seems like a “distraction” but it is really an “attraction” if we, intelligently, make good use of it. We need to print and give away patches to reach the public and to demonstrate in public what this is all about. If we clam up and depend on playing the court game only in the State’s Attorney’s court room we will lose and they will marginalize our voices.

Your thoughts are echoed by many others because what we are doing is not the norm. Thank you for allowing me to answer your questions and concerns. I know you are trying hard to help me. We are artists and that is our strength. My goal is work with our strengths - not our weaknesses.

Your are powerful. Thanks for your support.
Chris Drew
12/21/09 Posted on c-drew.com/blog

M Wohadlo wrote:

Chris,
You and I know it is all very wrong, and we know what we ultimately want, but remember you nibble on the whale not eat it whole — your analogy or close to it. This is a major distraction, albeit a supremely important one. But is this the freedom-fighting campaign you want to set your vision on for X-number of years? Chris, as I said, felons are generally NOT free while awaiting appeals. Prisons are chock FULL of appeal-waiters, we know that. I’ve learned through my court/system dealings that what I believe in whole-heartedly, what I know is true and correct and valiant is NOT always what gets put forth in the court, the proverbial system. It’s a GAME, we know that. Play the game, consider a misdemeanor IF (1) it is expungeable, (2) you do not have money for an excellent criminal lawyer and (3) if the NLG or ACLU cannot take on your case for you. A plea bargain is NOT a guilty plea. Of course, we want you to win, but as I said, an “affirmative” defense is your best bet, and you need a criminal lawyer who can put that together. Consider that perhaps the police are different from Joe citizen in that they are public servants and perhaps without the same privacy (and necessary consent to recording) that you and I have — that’s only one angle. There are many sides, not just two, to the legal coin — the analogy would be better described as a dungeons and dragons 12-sided die. I’ll say no more.
With best intentions,
Jenny

12/22/09 Posted on c-drew.com/blog

Chris Drew wrote:
> Thank you for responding,
>
> I am repeating the same thing over and over again. I have the right to protect myself from police abuse. If that is not the case than we live in a police state and someone better shout that out to the public until they understand. They have my recorder. It was on. I do not dispute that. I am not talking about our strategy. I am talking about the irrefutable facts.
>
> I intend to pound away in the media about this. The court of public opinion is mine. Mark Weinberg is my lawyer. He understands where I am coming from. We will have a plan - already have a basic plan. Do not fear. I checked everything I wrote about again. I said nothing I haven’t already said many times. You would have me muzzle myself. I would simply go to the gallows silently like a lamb. No way! I’m going kicking and organizing.
>
> As always, I value your input and take seriously your advice even when I disagree. I do think greatly about what I am giving away. Thanks again for keeping me on my toes. Of course I will not plea bargain! That was to invite reaction. I got it.
12/22/09 Posted on c-drew.com/blog

C Drew Wrote:
Yes KTB, you can attend the December 30th court date. It is at 9:00am at the Cook County Court House at 26th and California.

In Champaign, when they used this law to intimidate two African American activists the community rose up and defended them. The State’s Attorney who brought the charges was called on the carpet.

What is being done is absolutely wrong. If the citizens of Illinois can’t record the actions of their police in public then we have no protection from police abuse and we already live in a police state. The eavesdropping law is being abused. It should never be used in this manner. It should be changed. This is an attempt to make me a political prisoner. It is wrong but if the people of Illinois accept this - that artists who sell art for a dollar on State Street should be made felons for their actions misusing laws like this, then I have no hope.

There are no victims from anything I have done. There is no harm caused by anything I’ve done. But the powers that exist do not like my ideas. Only you, the public, can defend me. Help defend the art and the artists.

The Art Patch Project needs volunteers. We need people to give away the art we’ve printed. If you want to help - help print our screens on Sundays at 1630 W. Wilson Avenue from 3-6pm and help us plan to give the art away to educate the public. Help us educate everyone to what the City is doing by helping us to create and distribute the art. Talk about this. Tell your artist friends to submit a design to the Art Patch Project. Donate $10 to the Uptown Multi-Cultural Art Center. For three years I have told people how the City is crushing the life from the City’s potential art scenes. Now they are trying to jail the ideas and this artist who speaks up. If it is outrageous to you - act!
12/21/09 Posted on c-drew.com/blog

KTB Wrote:
It’s KTB from the peace fest meetings at the native american cultural center. What time is your court date on the 30th? Should I go to support you? How may I aid you in this effort?
Love,
KT
12/21/09 Posted on c-drew.com/blog

M Wohado Wrote:
Chris, in answer to your question about the felony —- (((no!))) never ever ever plea guilty to a felony. It will ruin you. Taking a plea bargain to a misdemeanor might be a good alternative but be sure it is one which can later be expunged. And, again, you basically proved the eavesdropping case FOR the prosecution today in your email! Can you be sure that did not go out to anyone who might know the authorities?! On the other hand, it is my understanding the you might be able to beat the felony on what is known as an affirmative defense. Do you have a criminal lawyer yet? Did you ask the NLG if they will take this? They MIGHT because eavesdropping is NOT what you set out to do that day. You set out to get arrested for peddling but not the eavesdropping. For that reason they might consider your case, don’t you think? It is worth asking. Or will the ACLU take it on?
Jenny
12/21/09 Posted on c-drew.com/blog

Nancy Drew Wrote:
I am afraid when I hear you talking about pleading guilty to a felony. I don’t think that is a good idea. I think this is a terrible thing that the county is doing to you. They want to scare you. Well it is working with me. I can see why you would wish to record your arrest, for your own protection. Cook county doesn’t have the best record in this regard. I don’t understand why it is OK for the video photographer to tape the arrest but not you. To say that it is a terrorist activity is absurd. If they are willing to go to this extreme to make an example of you I hope you can find a different way to annoy them. What does your lawyer say about this tactic? Have you been in touch with the ACLU, and what do they say? This is all very scary to think about. I do not like the idea of you going to jail for years.

I am sorry you will not be able to visit our family over the Christmas break since they have told you not to leave Chicago. We will miss you and Deb. Stay well, stay safe and keep in touch. You are in our prayers daily.
Love,
12/21/09 Posted on c-drew.com/blog

Michael Meranda Wrote:
I was not sure where or how to comment further — have you obtained legal advice re: the felony charge? IANAL …

What is the role of ignorance of the law (eavesdropping)? Was it the case that you thought you were within your rights?

Do we find the eavesdropping law to be unjust? Unjust on it’s face, or in it’s application?

Who is in charge of deciding whether to prosecute you? And who is that person’s boss? Should we be doing a petition? A call to legislators or other political person such as Attorney General?

That is — we ought to mount political pressure to deal with this law as well, no? Or at least this particular case? Or is it better to focus on the matter you have been working towards? (Understanding they dripped the charge on that…)

Have you contacted (or been contacted by) the ACLU? Where do they stand on these matters?
Regards,
Michael Maranda
12/21/09 Posted on c-drew.com/blog

Dennis Fredericks wrote:
You won’t spend a day in jail because you will win and next summer We will be selling our tee-shirts on the street freely and I will be playing my flute too.
12/14/09

Elizabeth Meadows wrote:
I think that artists should be able to sell their work on the streets of Chicago. It would make the city more vibrant and vital to hear from artists in the city on the streets and not just in galleries. I do not see why this is a problem.
12/12/09 Posted on c-drew.com/blog

David Greenfield wrote:
Can’t have artists expressing themselves willy-nilly, now, can we? Next thing you know they’ll setup “designated expression areas” so we don’t have to be burdened by outrageous notions of free speech.
12/12/09 posted on c-drew.com/blog

Homer Mearon wrote:
fight the power chris.
12/12/09 Posted on c-drew.com/blog

Sharon DeLaCruz wrote:
A man is due great honor is arrested like a stray-dog gone wrong.

Artist, Chris Drew arrested for selling his artwork for one dollar? This extremely future minded leader is selling art that is worth millions for a mere dollar.  But there is more than what appears. His efforts to support and stand-up for the entire nation of Artists who have yet to learn to stand up for themselves and are not aware they have a voice in our community!

History repeats itself, where a guiding light, an intelligent rational leader presses the boundaries of our restricting governing powers to exemplify what must be done to bring attentions to make fit our society that must allow creativity to flourish, rather than to suppress the Artists who evolve and sell in a natural way, a most valued resource of mankind. Rather than arrest, this man is due great honor.
12/12/09 posted on c-drew.com/blog

michael maranda wrote:
This “eavesdropping” law appears too broad to be valid. (Of course, I am not a lawyer…)

Strange days.

It would be great to get some legal commentary on this matter, for the education of the public.
12/9/2009 11:53 PM CST on suntimes.com

beloved wrote:
I’m still trying to figure out how one can eavesdrop on oneself…? thats silly; and then be charged and arrested for such? But it happened to Mr. Drew and it’s wrong. I’m sure the States Attorney had to dig deep in the books to find -720 ILS 5 14-2(A(1(A) and that effort at best is not even remotely applicable. But They will try to make it fit like a circle into a square. State’s Attorney is going to stand there and bluff through the proceedings; Yes bluff because this is a “Bogus Charge” on Mr. Drew; they know, we know, and those that don’t know need to be educated on it. Don’t be afraid of knowledge it’s freedom from ignorance. Long live Mr. Drew!
12/9/2009 11:45 PM CST on suntimes.com

c drew wrote:
Today in court, strangely, the court is pressing full steam ahead with the prosecution of me for the felony recording of an officer during my own arrest but they dropped the two charges they originally arrested me for regarding selling art in the Loop! Please help me understand how this works…?
12/9/2009 11:01 PM CST on suntimes.com

c drew wrote:
My apologies to the Reporter Rosemary Sobol and a thanks to her for publishing the news of my arrest at all. It is news to me and maybe to you, but in 1994 the State revised the law on Eavesdropping to make it illegal for you to protect yourself during an arrest by recording the conversation. It may well be that we are living in a police state. Welcome to the New America. Artists - you still have the right to fight for your speech rights. You may not have the right to record your fight. The outcome of my case may help determine that. Please stay tuned.
12/9/2009 3:21 PM CST on suntimes.com

screenprinter7 wrote:
This is outrageous. Both the story and how it’s been reported. The slightest bit of research could put this incident into perspective, but it’s obvious Rosemary didn’t even pick up the phone to call Mr. Drew. A quick google search would pull up his blog and that would show her what the real issue is here.

Furthermore, if our police are using some bogus felony eavesdropping law to put a 59-year-old man in jail for the “crime” of selling art to willing buyers, then much much larger problems abound for Chicago.
12/8/2009 9:30 PM CST on suntimes.com

c drew wrote:
Blame the Leaders – not the Cops
I was arrested and charged with a felony for taping my encounter with the police while selling art on State Street on December 2nd. My goal was to protest the peddlers license law.

Do not blame the police. They work for leaders, Mayor Daley and those on the City Council who write laws that keep artists off the street. These leaders know we have legal grounds for our claims. They want to stop us from educating the public about the First Amendment case law that speaks to our rights. It will not work. The laws, the cases the City has lost and our experiences on the street are online at c-drew.com/blog and the whole world is watching on YouTube. Blame the leaders who issue the orders - not the cops who follow them.

It is not against the law to video/audio tape officers in public on an enforcement stop. Broadcast media does it all the time, as Rosemary Sobol knows. The state does it all the time with video in squad cars. Citizens do it all the time (remember Rodney King!). The police and the Cook County States’s Attorney’s Office are stretching the law. They act as if I slipped into their offices and taped their official conversations without them knowing. Look it up – 720 ILCS 5 14-2 (A)(1)(A)

Their goal was to force me to spend time in Cook County Jail on a felony charge to intimidate me. The CPS PR Department used Rosemary Sobol to write that I am accused of being a felon as further intimidation. Our Free Speech Artists’ Movement threatens to change laws that would make Chicago more friendly to artists.
Land of the Free and the Brave – Land of Liberty – live up to your values. Chicago - allow artists to be a part of your street life – Chicago? Find us at Facebook/FreeSAM. Chicago has everything to gain and nothing to lose. We know responsible media will cover our activities responsibly at some point in the future. Printing this letter is a start!
Sincerely,
Christopher A. Drew/Executive Director – Uptown Multi-Cultural Art Center
12/8/2009 5:59 PM CST on suntimes.com

Mama Sandra wrote:
As I watched your video, I kept thinking you were asking 1 dollar to share your art as you parcticed your rights, but how much did it cost in police time to arrest you? I suspect that if we added up the time of the 6 or so officers to harass you and the car they sent to collect you, not counting the processing clerks, space in jail and now court time, wow! What an abundance of abuses.
12/8/2009 5:46 PM CST on suntimes.com

nathanp wrote:
Are there other cases where people have been charged for taping their arrest? Do the police feel that their rights are being denied? Is there a right to arrest people in secret, because to an extent, that is what such a law would amount to.
12/8/2009 5:41 PM CST on suntimes.com

sharpy wrote:
This is a clear misapplication of the law. He was taping himself in order to protect his rights, not in order to eavesdrop. Clearly the city is scared of Mr. Drew’s challenge to the unconstitutional peddlers license law and therefore is targeting him for harassment. Shame on the city and the police!
12/8/2009 9:58 AM CST on suntimes.com

rose12 wrote:
The police doubtless do not like Mr. Drew and are hoping this charge will get him out of their hair, inappropriate as it is. The underlying reason there is conflict is that the city laws do restrict artists’ freedom. I would like to see the Sun-Times write an article about that issue.
12/8/2009 9:44 AM CST on suntimes.com

michael maranda wrote:
Mr. Drew is undertaking a heroic effort to make our city better - not just for Artists, but for all of us. I want my city to be a vibrant cultural center, with artistic endeavor at every scale. The art he offers for sale is of the most humble and accessible form.

Art indeed is speech, and if Mr. Drew’s account of Supreme Court opinion on Commercial Speech is correct, then it is clear that the city’s peddler law is overly broad and therefore unconstitutional.

If the law were really about public convenience (i.e. for pedestrian traffic, etc.) why would seeking donations rather than a sale exchange make a difference? I’m not up to speed on the legal distinctions or constraints against regulating these other activities, so I’d love to be informed. Perhaps the Sun Times could do a bigger story, exploring the irony of the eavesdropping charge, along with the contrasts of civil rights and free speech pertaining to different classes of behavior and different public spaces.

This of course brings to mind the absurdity of specially designated “Free Speech Zones” established during large scale events. That’s something else that needs to be challenged.

12/8/2009 4:19 AM CST on suntimes.com

artistpres wrote:
Police officers routinely tape their interactions with the public. This protects them from false charges of abuse, as well as documenting what the defendant actually did.

Likewise, an artist in this position should be able to protect himself from false charges by the police by taping the confrontation. I routinely tape the police and use the tapes in my lawsuits.
See:
http://www.youtube.com/user/artistpres

Since these police have no expectation of privacy in a public place while publicly arresting or harassing someone, the charges will likely be dropped, and are just an excuse for harassment.

Apart from the absurdity of charging him with a felony for taping, isn’t it ironic that Chicago, home base of Pres Obama, has the most restrictions on free speech by artists of any major US city?
Robert Lederman, President of ARTIST
12/7/2009 6:40 PM CST on suntimes.com

mpls.jeni wrote:
This man was not blocking traffic - not asking for a handout (which would’ve been legal). Why would it be illegal to sell his patches for $1.00? After watching the video on you tube, I also wonder why seven (count ‘em, seven) policemen were standing around watching him even after he was handcuffed? He didn’t seem to be resisting arrest so I guess it was a slow crime day.
12/6/2009 6:43 PM CST on suntimes.com

bowerybetty wrote:
Ahh, Chicago. Just when I think I’ve heard it all. Don’t the cops have anything better to do with their time than bust this artist for doing something that should be legal anyway? I thought the Supreme Court ruled that conversations by public servants (i.e. POLICE) were not to be considered private? This situation is beyond being ridiculous.
12/6/2009 4:56 PM CST on suntimes.com

c drew wrote:
This news article is written as if the police themselves had posted it. This attempt to discredit me and my work to make Chicago more friendly to artists will backfire. It is evidence that the City is beginning to take our efforts seriously.

The fact is - there is no presumption of privacy for patrolmen on the street in public when involved in an enforcement stop. The patrolman already has consented to allow the State to video and audio tape them so their conversations are not considered to be private.

The City is interpreting my actions as if I were infiltrating and taping the police in their offices without their knowing. I predict a complete victory in court.

Still, I face serious charges and if made to stick the City will put me in jail on a class one felony for a long time. You should register, login and comment on this outrageous attempt to intimidate me and silence my speech.
12/5/2009 11:55 PM CST on suntimes.com

sharpstickintheeye wrote:
Also notice that they (cops) are standing around, they are awful quiet for cops, they seem to keep thier backs turned or otherwise avoid being filmed during thier shameful behavior
12/5/2009 12:09 PM CST on suntimes.com

sharpstickintheeye wrote:
ohh sorry that was a total of 7 cops to arrest an eldery man. why did they not beat and arrest the video recording person?? Good thing I don’t live down there anymore. Your little police state is growing by leaps and bounds and you all stand around with your finger up your nose watching it happen. You all need to wake up…
12/5/2009 12:07 PM CST on suntimes.com

sharpstickintheeye wrote:
I watched the video good thing they had 3-4 cops available to arrest the guy, it apparently takes that many of them, you know a gang is better than anything for being a bully.
12/5/2009 12:04 PM CST on suntimes.com

sharpstickintheeye wrote:
First of all do the police not record you without your consent all the time???
Pity your cops down there are such little sissy boys that they worrie they will be recorded or video made showing what louts they can be. The only reason they can stomp on you folks rights is you let them do it all the time. Poor little policeman got his voice recorded, well the only reason he would have to sieze the recorder is cause he said something shameful or improper on tape. If they were honest cops they would not need to worry about being recorded would they?? They made it against the law to save getting thier butts in a sling as they try to be big hard tough cops.
12/5/2009 12:00 PM CST on suntimes.com

beloved wrote:
Technically Mr. Drew is Not a peddler; He is an Artist whose expression is protected by the the U.S. constitution~1st Amendment.It’s high time Chicago take a serious look at the Peddler statute and rewrite it so it legally abides by the U.S. constitution honors the the People rights, And the City needs to respect Artists. So the man had a recorder…More people should record police encounters…Chris Drew is a ‘Hero’ as far as I’m concerned!
12/4/2009 10:20 PM CST on suntimes.com

multimedia wrote:
http://www.c-drew.com/blog/

Take a look at his blog,link above, he is a dedicated community activist/ artist and dedicated to the cause of freedom of speech and artist’s rights
12/4/2009 1:34 AM CST on suntimes.com

Houdyhowdy wrote:
Too bad he got caught with the voice recorder and its against the law to record police without there permission.It could be a good weapon against some of the lying cops out there.Yea they lie too.
12/4/2009 1:31 AM CST on suntimes.com

freedom isn’t free wrote:
P.S. Here’s the link to the YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72_ZzJCfESc By the way, those of you merciless souls who think the police are honest and fair, I’d had to pay for a jury to prove that an off-duty Chicago police officer verbally and physically abused me by pulling me out of my car for what he claimed was a red light violation. The witnessed proved 1) the Chicago Police officer was necessarily abusive (do they pull white women out of their cars for a alleged traffic violation?) 2) I had not run a red light (the police officer wasn’t even driving and could not describe critical details of the supposed traffic violation). I am a black women who defended herself in court pro se and won but Chicago does not refund the money you pay for a jury so I’ve been black and abused, ONCE AGAIN!
12/3/2009 10:06 PM CST on suntimes.com

freedom isn’t free wrote:
This whole scenario was videotaped and is now on YouTube. The Wall Street Journal has been covering Mr. Drew and a Wall Street Journal reporting was on site to witness the questionable conduct of the Chicago Police Department. Mr. Drew was practicing his Free Speech rights that are protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. ART IS SPEECH! The police are shown handcuffing Mr. Drew and Mr. Drew had no opportunity to discontinue the legal taping of his protest after he was handcuffed. Not to worry, Mr. Drew has an outstanding attorney who has won lawsuits against the City of Chicago for violating His Free Speech rights and those of others. The videotape does not lie, take a look at YouTube and stay tuned for Mr. Drew’s cable television show in January. This is a battle going on all across the country as municipalities try to deny artists their Free Speech rights. New York City lost the battle with artists years ago because artists selling their art in public is protected by the U.S. Constitution and the City of Chicago has also lost this battle several times but, in spite, refuses to change the peddler’s license.
12/3/2009 9:48 PM CST on suntimes.com

american4ever wrote:
GOD BLESS THE CHICAGO POLICE!
12/3/2009 7:17 PM CST on suntimes.com

edmond wrote:
Police,’this is shy town, go and stop crime.
12/3/2009 6:27 PM CST on suntimes.com

don jefferson wrote:
Wake up and see that you do not live in a free society. The almighty dollar purchases the chains that bind to slavery those that do not have great abundance of money. Chicago police are only following the orders of the special interests that are in control.When was the last time you heard about a true hero but there is plenty of hate out there and your masters see this and say it is good.
12/3/2009 5:34 PM CST on suntimes.com

wise guy wrote:
I think I’ll go talk to the trees, Maybe even record them, see if they talk back.
12/3/2009 4:55 PM CST on suntimes.com

wise guy wrote:
Well Joe the Chicagoan, I would have licked the plate clean since I was eating Cake and Ice Cream but I didn’t know 31 flavors had a flavor called Motor Oil. As for the T.V. I turn it around facing the wall cause my eyes are sensitive to light.
12/3/2009 4:49 PM CST on suntimes.com

dvan wrote:
OK, following are excerpts from the actual statute. As a preliminary matter, let me say that the law covers a cellphone video or regular video whenever it picks up conversations in a public place. If you video part of a Cubs game and pick up the conversations of people sitting in front of you, you have violated the law, ditto a party, a street demonstration, etc., etc. The law is amazingly broad (overbroad I would say).

Following are portions of the statute:

720 ILCS 5/14-1.
Sec. 14-1. Definition.
(a) Eavesdropping device.
An eavesdropping device is any device capable of being used to hear or record oral conversation or intercept, retain, or transcribe electronic communications whether such conversation or electronic communication is conducted in person, by telephone, or by any other means; Provided, however, that this definition shall not include devices used for the restoration of the deaf or hard-of-hearing to normal or partial hearing.

(b) Eavesdropper.
An eavesdropper is any person, including law enforcement officers, who is a principal, as defined in this Article, or who operates or participates in the operation of any eavesdropping device contrary to the provisions of this Article.

720 ILCS 5/14-2. Elements of the offense; affirmative defense
Sec. 14-2. Elements of the offense; affirmative defense.
(a) A person commits eavesdropping when he:
(1) Knowingly and intentionally uses an eavesdropping device for the purpose of hearing or recording all or any part of any conversation or intercepts, retains, or transcribes electronic communication unless he does so (A) with the consent of all of the parties to such conversation or electronic communication or (B) in accordance with [exceptions that don't apply to the art peddler][Police are explicitly permitted to use video and audio recordings from dashcams during stops and video/audio and a lot of other police-type interactions with citizens]

There are lots of exemptions. I will only include the statutes that may apply to the peddler.

720 ILCS 5/14-3. Exemptions
Sec. 14-3. Exemptions. The following activities shall be exempt from the provisions of this Article:

(c) Any broadcast by radio, television or otherwise whether it be a broadcast or recorded for the purpose of later broadcasts of any function where the public is in attendance and the conversations are overheard incidental to the main purpose for which such broadcasts are then being made; [maybe if you're recording something to put up on Youtube and the public is in attendance, the broadcast exemption might cover you]

(i) Recording of a conversation made by or at the request of a person, not a law enforcement officer or agent of a law enforcement officer, who is a party to the conversation, under reasonable suspicion that another party to the conversation is committing, is about to commit, or has committed a criminal offense against the person or a member of his or her immediate household, and there is reason to believe that evidence of the criminal offense may be obtained by the recording; [This exemption might be gold if the peddler has good reason to believe that the police are illegally arresting him, although we're talking criminal offense, not civil offense to bring the exemption into play.]
12/3/2009 4:47 PM CST on suntimes.com

vgl58 wrote:
I mean some people just have to complain the the freaking time. You know what it sucks that all cops are not the straight shooters that we hope for. But you have to take the good with the bad. You people just dont stop whining about the cops. You know what I am grateful for them, cause they dont get enough respect that they should. They put their neck on the line for good people and even some of you dirt bags. Like theiz said “go get a real job”. Their are plenty out there, just get off your b*** and start looking.
2/3/2009 4:27 PM CST on suntimes.com

theiz wrote:
Hahahah. Quit crying you liberal tards! You think I want some scum-bag hippy trying to sell his cr-ap art near my home??? I got an idea get a real job, oh thats right the MULE Obama has destroyed the economy. Law enforcement once again does the right thing.
12/3/2009 4:18 PM CST on suntimes.com

chris edgell wrote:
Yeah, this makes me kinda’ sick that I am not allowed, that it’s ILLEGAL to tape what is happening to ME. That’s truly police state power!
2/3/2009 4:18 PM CST on suntimes.com

elg wrote:
this is such BS. you gotta tell them that you are recording them? how the heck do we bust the crooked ones then….i guess we don’t. gotta love the Daley Goon Squad. i guess they make them up on the fly.
12/3/2009 4:05 PM CST on suntimes.com

big whip wrote:
COPS DO NOT LIKE IT WHEN YOU RECORD WHAT THEY ARE DOING. They know the value of good evidence.
12/3/2009 4:02 PM CST on suntimes.com

wwmd wrote:
Hey little blue jodies - ever wonder why people hate you, mistrust you, despise you and your pathetic lives? Hassle more artists, you little whining crying no contract bunch of cop-roaches. Love, schro
12/3/2009 3:54 PM CST on suntimes.com

mike e wrote:
Yet, if I’m on the street with a video recorder I could have taped the whole incident, video and audio, and not have to get anyone’s permission because it was out in public. Weird.
12/3/2009 3:47 PM CST on suntimes.com

dtechba wrote:
Just because Illinois law says both parties must give consent to recording a conversation does not mean every recording is illegal. First, there needs to be some expectation of privacy. If this incident occurred in public and in plain sight or hearing of passers by it is very unlikely the cops had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Even a bad lawyer should be able to get the charge tossed.
12/3/2009 3:36 PM CST on suntimes.com

southsideone wrote:
Funny how Chicagos finest has time to harrass and molest a man selling art for a dollar and lets not forget the other charge. I under stand that the law is the law but with all the laws being broken in Chicago and not being upheld. These officere were probably being verbaly abusive as they always are so the man taped them. Unfortunatly for him he didnt know the law, and i am surprised the officers knew the law. Next time they need to hang out at city hall and arrest a real crock Mayor Daley.
12/3/2009 3:28 PM CST on suntimes.com

lees773 wrote:
You can photograph people in public. We are videotaped uncountable times a day. But you can’t record city sounds that include random conversations you have? If someone is trying to get evidence of a crime they only need one of the party’s involved to give permission… that’s how they wiretap and record calls… How is this different? My question is… what did the police say that they don’t want heard?
2/3/2009 3:19 PM CST on suntimes.com

davsim wrote:
Contrary to the belief in “life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness” it is a felony to record a conversation, without the CONSENT of all parties involved, even in a public setting. Just informing them of the recording is not enough. Video, without sound is treated as a different entity, by law. Expect law enforcement, who can record without consent. That’s the laws we have. Now, all we need is the swastika added to our flag.
2/3/2009 3:18 PM CST on suntimes.com

come from the street of chi wrote:
Wait police put devices on gang leaders in prison without any permission,police even put devices on visitors to see gangleaders without there permission so wwhats right ???IS THIS A RIGHT YOU HAVE TO BE A POLICE TO GET??
12/3/2009 3:08 PM CST on suntimes.com

cirpos wrote:
Can someone help me with what is legal here? Would it have been legal for him to record had he made it known to the cops that he had a recorder and was recording? Was it only illegal because he didn’t make it known to them that he was doing so?
It seems like a good idea. If it’s legal and I’m ever pulled over by the cops, I’d definitely make it known that the conversation is being recorded on my cell phone. As crooked as the cops are in Chicago, citizens have to protect themselves as much as possible. We’ve already seen several instances where seemingly onverwhelming video tape evidence has been overturned by the corrupt system. Maybe some audio along with it would help citizens from the crooks that are cops.
1/3/2009 3:08 PM CST on suntimes.com
joe the chicagoan wrote:

wise guy wrote:
“…using microwave in artificial telepathy? These devices are used on unsuspecting citizens by the F.B.I. the C.I.A. and even a Special Police unit right here in Chicago, Special Units who pose as Win dow washers scaling your condominium so they can plant tiny hidden audio and visual devices within your window sills and air condition duct, using satelites in an empty apartment upstairs or next door to eaves drop on so much as a wisper?”

Why didn’t you clean your plate when eating dinner last night? And do you really think you should be watching so much TV?
12/3/2009 2:45 PM CST on suntimes.com

joe the chicagoan wrote:

tom anderson wrote:
“If I was on a jury deciding this case, I would not consider the evesdropping laws to cover a conversation that included the individual doing the recording.”

If you are ever called for jury duty on such a case, please make sure to disclose your unwillingness to apply the law as it is, but rather that you would make your decision based on what you think the law should be. A fair trial requires such a disclosure.
12/3/2009 2:42 PM CST on suntimes.com

cccc wrote:
dumpdaley please don’t give daley any more ideas on how to rob us.
12/3/2009 2:34 PM CST on suntimes.com

cccc wrote:
one dollar for his art and they’re mad. You know daley don’t want anyone to make a dollar if he ain’t in on it. I wonder how much is the peddlers license and for how long.

maybe the police had something to hide, violating his rights.
1/3/2009 2:33 PM CST on suntimes.com

dumpdaley999 wrote:
I say we should have a denver boot for people. If they don’t pay the fines, put a boot on their legs.

Think a/b it: More revenue!
2/3/2009 2:22 PM CST on suntimes.com

justanotheropinion wrote:
I actually think the cops did a smart thing here. Obviously the cops did nothing wrong or they would not have used the guys own tape against him. The tape, which has the guy verbally refusing to stop illegally selling items has to now be entered into evidence due to the eavesdropping charge and will then be played in court. Had the cops done anything wrong on that tape, it would not be entered into evidence and the guy would not be charged with those charges. Basically this guy is felony stupid.
12/3/2009 1:29 PM CST on suntimes.com

don jefferson wrote:
The man arrested is an artist and activist. He has been protesting Chicago’s unconstitutional laws that ban the selling of art in public for years. He is a freedom fighter against the machine that would enslave us all. I hope this case will open some eyes to the corrupt government that serves only the interest of the insiders that pay to play.
12/3/2009 12:59 PM CST on suntimes.com

hersheykiss1995 wrote:

working-too-late wrote:
That’s crazy.

When you get pulled over by the cops they have their dash cams on taping not only the audio but the video.

Where’s the felonies for them for recording without the consent of the motorist?

Evidently you don’t know the law. Recording done during the commission of a IVC violation (i.e. traffic stop) does not require the consent of the motorist. That’s an Illinois law. Audio recording is allowed on 99% of all traffic stops. Any other audio recording requires the consent of all parties.
12/3/2009 12:33 PM CST on suntimes.com

west side cop wrote:
working too late: The cameras on top of the dash cams were brought about by community activists who thought the police were too brutal and out of control so they wanted cameras. If the cameras were taken out of the squad cars,there would be complaints on how the police have something to hide but now there are complaints about the cameras.

12/3/2009 11:57 AM CST on suntimes.com

chris morton wrote:
It is almost invariably places where the police have a LOT to hide that “all party” consent is required. I’m surprised that Karolyna OBrycka and the bar where she worked aren’t being prosecuted for recording that fat coward Abbate trying to beat her to death.

Ironic isn’t it how cops claim that if you have “nothing to hide” you should consent to a search any time they ask? Dr. Mengele, heal thyself.

2/3/2009 11:26 AM CST on suntimes.com

working-too-late wrote:
That’s crazy.

When you get pulled over by the cops they have their dash cams on taping not only the audio but the video.

Where’s the felonies for them for recording without the consent of the motorist?
12/3/2009 11:11 AM CST on suntimes.com

2a supporter wrote:
Why should it be illegal to record someone who supposedly works for us, but legal for them to record? Are they hiding something here?
2/3/2009 11:08 AM CST on suntimes.com

tom anderson wrote:
If I was on a jury deciding this case, I would not consider the evesdropping laws to cover a conversation that included the individual doing the recording. It’s only when the individual is recording other people conversing between themselves that it should be a crime.
2/3/2009 11:02 AM CST on suntimes.com

minggnim wrote:
“In Illinois, an eavesdropping device cannot be used to record or overhear a conversation without the consent of all parties to the conversation. 720 Ill. Compiled Stat. Ann. 5/14-1, -2. An eavesdropping device is defined as anything used to hear or record a conversation, even if the conversation is conducted in person.

In addition, it is illegal to disclose information one knows or should have known was obtained with an eavesdropping device. Violations of the eavesdropping law are punishable as felonies, with first offenses categorized as lesser felonies than subsequent offenses. 720 Ill. Compiled Stat. Ann. 5/14-4. Civil liability for actual and punitive damages is authorized as well. 720 Ill. Compiled Stat. Ann. 5/14-6. However, not disclosing the contents of the illegally obtained communication is an affirmative defense to the charge.

Standard radio scanners are not eavesdropping devices, according to a 1990 decision from an intermediate appellate court. Illinois v. Wilson, 554 N.E.2d 545 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990). A camera is not an eavesdropping device. Cassidy v. ABC, 377 N.E. 2d 126 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978).

It is also illegal for any person to “videotape, photograph, or film another person without that person’s consent in a restroom, tanning bed or tanning salon, locker room, changing room or hotel bedroom,” or in their residence without their consent. 720 Ill. Compiled Stat. Ann. 5/26-4(a).

The eavesdropping provisions do not prohibit private citizens from electronically recording the proceedings of any meeting subject to the Open Meetings Act.

Under Illinois law, when communications with individuals acting as agents or representatives of a company are taped in violation of the Illinois eavesdropping statute, claims under the eavesdropping statute belong to the company. International Profit Associates, Inc. v. Paisola, 461 F.Supp.2d 672 (N.D. Ill. 2006)”
In other words, use a small camera (with audio recording) to record the Chicago Gestapo or any other city, state or federal funded criminal organization.
12/3/2009 11:00 AM CST on suntimes.com

philo wrote:
So what happens to the recording device?

Does it get confiscated, since it contributed to the crime?

Or does the personal property get returned to it’s rightful owner?

Isn’t the recording of the conversation also personal property?

I guess that CPD will have to submit the recording as evidence in the trial, so I guess we should be privy to the details of the conversation.

I wonder if the person that recorded Rodney King’s beating was charged with felony eavesdropping.
2/3/2009 10:51 AM CST on suntimes.com

joshrayborn wrote:
We are worried about some guy selling art at the side of the road, lets get our priorities straight.

Overall, Chicago is on pace to top 500 murders for the year, the highest since a particularly violent 600+ murders in 2003. The number of “aggravated batteries with a firearm” also increased over the same time period from 2007 with 1,153 being reported so far this year, 245 more than last year.
1/3/2009 10:31 AM CST on suntimes.com

joshrayborn wrote:
The law should go both ways. I do not consent to having efin cops tape me during a traffic stop. I like what the doctor once said…. F the police! I hate how they are portrayed as these heroes, but really they are just a bunch of douches who are drunks. They have nothing better to do than pick on some guy trying to make a living. This is nonsense.
12/3/2009 10:26 AM CST on suntimes.com

exquisite_lyn wrote:
“felony easedropping?”

Didn’t know such a law existed.
12/3/2009 10:07 AM CST on suntimes.com

rayg wrote:
and can someone tell me something,….

i go to home chicago bear games at soldier field….

why are there multiple ILLINOIS STATE TROOPERS there? the media there has them recorded on video and still pictures pacing the sidelines on the field watching the game with no eyes doing police business (i see no need for them to be there as that cost the state money, a broke state, when they could be out writing tickets like they should be especially since the bears have their own security there, and there are loads of chicago police already there)

so, does this mean that the Illinois State Police will now press charges against the citizens in the stands capturing photos of the state troopers enjoying the game in uniform? and how about all the media people?

i say, let’s do it!! it would be a boom for criminal defense lawyers!!
12/3/2009 9:59 AM CST on suntimes.com

kj78 wrote:
felony eavsdropping? cmon man. the cpd should get over itself. i bet the tape has some juicy details if cpd is trying to railroad this guy for taping the arrest.
2/3/2009 9:56 AM CST on suntimes.com

justray wrote:
Peddling? He was arrested for riding a bicycle? Yes. Let’s see how many charges we can pile on because this guy made us mad. OK. Felony eavesdropping, misdemeanor bad breath, thinking in a no thinking zone, bad haircut, humming popular songs in violation of the US Copyright act, and trying to make a living in a non-making a living zone.
12/3/2009 9:53 AM CST on suntimes.com

rayg wrote:
this is one of the best stories i have read in a long time….

imagine that, a citizen setting up a cop!! usually, it is the other way around with cops - usually the feds with the fbi, irs, cids, atf, dea, etc– setting up honest citizens with crimes that are make believe

in this case, this guy needs a good lawyer as there are statutes, federal, that permit one way recordings, and hope he gets off

and by the way what does the cpd have to hide that can’t be recorded? i should be able to record my traffic stop, my encounter with the cpd, it is well documented (see many stories, local and national) that the chicago police are a bunch of vigilantees who prey on citizens, shaking us down, harming and hurting, even killing us, stealing…..wouldn’t you want evidence? the cpd doesn’t want you to have it, hence, this test case!!

and now does this mean that cpd is going to now file charges against office abbatte’s victim? i can see that coming as her beating by the chicago police is well documented and was played all over tv….
12/3/2009 9:53 AM CST on suntimes.com

aalan wrote:
Always remember, the cops do not work for you, the citizens. They are an entity unto themselves, and you are there as a taxpayer so that they can get their money.
12/3/2009 9:06 AM CST on suntimes.com