October 22, 2010
For Immediate Release
Contact: C. Drew (day) 773/561-7676
(Evening) 773/973-1863
e-mail: umcac@art-teez.org
Cook County States Attorney Anita Alvarez
Strikes Hard to Silence Outspoken Artist
How serious is the Office of Cook County State's Attorney, Anita Alvarez, in pursuing the extreme charge (class 1 felony eavesdropping) against artist C Drew, arrested in 2009 for selling art in public for $1? We now know.
Friday, October 22nd, in the court room of Judge Stanley Sacks, Attorney for Chris Drew, Josh Kutnick argued his motion to suppress the audio-evidence against Mr. Drew in a case of national interest that exposes the unconstitutional Illinois eavesdropping law. There is no Federal First Amendment case law on whether citizens are able to audio-record policemen in public while they are on duty. In 46-47 of the 50 States it is legal to do so but Illinois, Massachusetts and Maryland have been pressing this issue by arresting citizens on felony charges for audio-recording police in action in public.
The State's Attorney argued that Mr. Drew lacks standing to bring the motion because he intended to be arrested for selling art for $1 in Chicago to test the City's peddling ordinance as applied to artists and First Amendment vendors. Josh Kutnick argued that Mr. Drew's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches was violated because he was arrested for selling art and they searched his audio-recorder without a warrant later charging him with felony eavesdropping. At the end of the day Judge Stanley Sacks smiled and agreed with Mr. Drew's attorney, Josh Kutnick, that the case has interesting nuances and he set the date for his ruling at November 22, at 1:30.
Mr. Drew was arrested December 2nd, 2009 and his exploits are well documented on Youtube and his blog. Bloggers, well aware that Mr. Drew's case defends their rights to gather information on public officials in public, have reported this story far and wide but the national media (with the exception of National Public Radio) has yet to tell this unfolding story.
It is significant because in the last ten years cell phone usage has penetrated to 90% of our population. The ability of cell phones to gather audio and video evidence has exploded. Citizens now have the power to watch their police and other public officials in public like never before. How will our society react to this change? This case is exploring that question. Will the use of technology to facilitate the democratic oversight by citizens of their public servants be permitted or will it be punished. Will we tend further toward a democracy or further toward a police state?
The artist sees himself as defending the rights of Illinois citizens to gather audio-evidence of what police say to them in public. He feels this evidence should be available to the public and admissible in court. Even if he wins the motion and the State's case falls apart he and his lawyers have vowed to press forward to create case law on this important issue.
For 23 years as the Executive Director of the Uptown Multi-Cultural Art Center, Mr. Drew has advocated for artists'. He has watched emerging artists struggle to survive and too often give up in Chicago where there is not a single open-air arts market where artists can freely sell their work in public. Art is protected by the First Amendment as speech. This gives artists the right to sell their art in public. "As a nation with a First Amendment, and our unique respect for freedom of speech, we should provide artists more public opportunities than other nations," Mr. Drew says. "But Chicago ranks behind many other cities nationally and internationally in the public forums it provides its artists to sell their work. We even rank behind Moscow," Drew claims.
Many people in Chicago think that Mr. Drew's long time criticism of the City's policy toward artists' vending rights and his intended challenge to the peddlers license are the real reasons Cook County State's Attorney, Anita Alvarez, is charging the artist with this extreme 1st class felony for audio-recording his own arrest.
The eavesdropping law has rarely been enforced against citizens for audio-recording police in Illinois and when it is, the arrests often appear to be politically and/or racially motivated. Consider the cases of Hindi, an animal rights activist, arrested for audio-recording a policeman at the Illinois State Fair in 2000 when he was speaking out to advocate for animal rights. Also, in 2004 two African American activists in Champaign, Illinois, Thompson and Miller, were charged for audio-recording police while working on a documentary comparing police stops of African American teenagers with police treatment of college students. Mr. Drew appears to the the test case for both citizens and the State. Will the State expand its use of this law to limit the greater public in an attempt to neutralize the cell phone's powers in the hands of citizens to oversee their police in public?
Edolphus Towns, Congressman from New York, has proposed a Sense of Congress Resolution, H.Con.Res.298, stating that governments should not use wiretapping laws to charge citizens for audio or video recording police in public when they do not interfere with the officers work. Maryland has dropped the eavesdropping charges against the man, Anthony Graber, charged with felony wiretapping for recording his traffic stop in Maryland and posting it to Youtube. The county judge ruled on-duty police have no privacy to protect in public.
The ACLU has filed suit against Anita Alvarez in federal court for enforcing this unconstitutional law against Mr. Drew and others. We learned how the ACLU's action influenced Mr. Drew's case at this court appearance. The State aggressively attacked Mr. Drew's motion to suppress its evidence holding five policemen ready to testify for their cause. They came fighting like a wounded lion. Beware, this is your right they are demanding.
|
