Federal appeals court bans enforcement of Illinois eavesdropping law

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
10
81
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-illinois-eavesdropping-law-20120508,0,2406008.story

A federal appeals court in Chicago ruled today that Illinois’ eavesdropping law “likely violates” the First Amendment and ordered that authorities be banned from enforcing it.

The ruling from the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago is the strongest blow yet to the law, which is one of the strictest in the country and makes it illegal for people to audio record police officers in public without their consent.

/snip


WOOOO!

IT never should be against the law to tape a officer on the street or a private home.

I am happy to have this ruling.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
It comes down to the reasonable expectation of privacy. You cannot record their phone calls, even if you do this from a distance and at a public phone booth...but you can record their traffic stop. No one can reasonably expect the traffic stop to be a private thing - with the flashing lights and all.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Good ruling. I have great respect for the police and the job they do, but as part of that job they have a lot of power. When any position with a lot of power is left unchecked, abuse is bound to occur frequently. Easy recording of video and audio is an easy check on some of that power, and I don't see how it interferes with any legitimate need or job of the LEO.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Federal appeals court bans enforcement of Illinois eavesdropping law

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...is-eavesdropping-law-20120508,0,2406008.story

A federal appeals court in Chicago ruled today that Illinois’ eavesdropping law “likely violates” the First Amendment and ordered that authorities be banned from enforcing it.

The ruling from the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago is the strongest blow yet to the law, which is one of the strictest in the country and makes it illegal for people to audio record police officers in public without their consent.

/snip


WOOOO!

IT never should be against the law to tape a officer on the street or a private home.

I am happy to have this ruling.

Just in time for the NATO summit.

They were planning on rounding up everyone recording with their cell phones etc and putting them in an abandoned jail in Joliet that doesn't even have running water or electricity.

I haven't seen an alternative so they still must be planning on shipping everyone they round up there.

PS

This ruling comes a day after the Boston guy got $170,000 in the case in Massachusetts where he filed civil suit for false arrest and won for recording officers.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
10
81
Just in time for the NATO summit.

They were planning on rounding up everyone recording with their cell phones etc and putting them in an abandoned jail in Joliet that doesn't even have running water or electricity.

I haven't seen an alternative so they still must be planning on shipping everyone they round up there.

PS

This ruling comes a day after the Boston guy got $170,000 in the case in Massachusetts where he filed civil suit for false arrest and won for recording officers.

BS.

IN fact they were suspending the wiretapping law FOR nato.

Also Lawmakers in IL were trying to pass a law making it legal to tape police. There have been a few people arrested over it and found not guilty and suing and winning.

IT should NEVER be against the law to tape a police officer (unless undercover). I hope this does not get overturned.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,401
6,078
126
I just want to add, since folk seem to want to agree on things, that I don't like government wasting money.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
It's about time!

If this does not get overturned it could be used as a model law for other states which either do not have this legislation in place or who don't allow audio taping of LEO's by citizens who have been stopped.

Law enforcement officials in most situations are professional and not looking to trip up an unsuspecting citizen or a citizen who is not fully aware of their rights. Laws like this will help rid the municipalities and states of LEO's who "push the envelope" just to get an arrest or more ticket fines for their PD or town council.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
If this does not get overturned it could be used as a model law for other states which either do not have this legislation in place or who don't allow audio taping of LEO's by citizens who have been stopped.

A similar law has already been overturned in maryland.
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,027
2,595
136
Nice. This law made me absolutely irate when it was passed. BTW, what exactly was the process leading to its repeal? Was it a grass roots movement? Or politicians in government finally getting their heads out of their asses and seeing the light?
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
You know this law has to suck ass and be a real nasty law to have so many people of such diverse views hate it.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,458
987
126
A similar law has already been overturned in maryland.

Every state that has had a law like this has been tossed by state courts. The lone exception to that was Illinois. Now it looks likes the law in Illinois is going to get tossed by the Feds.

The only states that had these laws were two party consent states, and only Illinois ever made it explicitly illegal. The rest were very liberal interpretations of the two party consent statutes by overzealous police/da's which were thankfully struck down State Supreme Courts.
 
Last edited:

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,458
987
126
It's about time!

If this does not get overturned it could be used as a model law for other states which either do not have this legislation in place or who don't allow audio taping of LEO's by citizens who have been stopped.

Law enforcement officials in most situations are professional and not looking to trip up an unsuspecting citizen or a citizen who is not fully aware of their rights. Laws like this will help rid the municipalities and states of LEO's who "push the envelope" just to get an arrest or more ticket fines for their PD or town council.

It would never have been a model law in the overwhelming majority of other states. These laws sprung up from two party consent statutes in the handful of two party consent states that are left. The rest of the two party consent states have already solved this issue.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Nice. This law made me absolutely irate when it was passed. BTW, what exactly was the process leading to its repeal? Was it a grass roots movement? Or politicians in government finally getting their heads out of their asses and seeing the light?

It says in the linked story you can thank the ACLU.

Who here has donated to them?

I have a question, though: which party introduced the law and how did each party vote?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
No it does not.

It comes down to freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

The people have the right to know what the government is doing.

Your everyday person is not the press. The courts have ruled on this long ago, and more recently in saying a Blog is not "the press" for protection purposes.

If you are specifically talking about the press, then yes, but since this is aimed at your common person who records a traffic stop, then no.

Freedom of speech is not freedom to record what others are doing...so that one does not apply.


So it goes back to the reasonable expectation of privacy. This is why you can be filmed walking through a public park without being able to stop the person from filming you. If they are following you around, sure, but if they are filiming the park and you happen by, then no. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public park.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Is this what they are talking about?


(720 ILCS 5/14-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 14-2)
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 Article 108A or Article 108B of the "Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963", approved August 14, 1963, as amended; or

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

(h) Recordings made simultaneously with the use of an in-car video camera recording of an oral conversation between a uniformed peace officer, who has identified his or her office, and a person in the presence of the peace officer whenever (i) an officer assigned a patrol vehicle is conducting an enforcement stop; or (ii) patrol vehicle emergency lights are activated or would otherwise be activated if not for the need to conceal the presence of law enforcement.
For the purposes of this subsection (h), "enforcement stop" means an action by a law enforcement officer in relation to enforcement and investigation duties, including but not limited to, traffic stops, pedestrian stops, abandoned vehicle contacts, motorist assists, commercial motor vehicle stops, roadside safety checks, requests for identification, or responses to requests for emergency assistance;
(h-5) Recordings of utterances made by a person while in the presence of a uniformed peace officer and while an occupant of a police vehicle including, but not limited to, (i) recordings made simultaneously with the use of an in-car video camera and (ii) recordings made in the presence of the peace officer utilizing video or audio systems, or both, authorized by the law enforcement agency;
(h-10) Recordings made simultaneously with a video camera recording during the use of a taser or similar weapon or device by a peace officer if the weapon or device is equipped with such camera;
(h-15) Recordings made under subsection (h), (h-5), or (h-10) shall be retained by the law enforcement agency that employs the peace officer who made the recordings for a storage period of 90 days, unless the recordings are made as a part of an arrest or the recordings are deemed evidence in any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding and then the recordings must only be destroyed upon a final disposition and an order from the court. Under no circumstances shall any recording be altered or erased prior to the expiration of the designated storage period. Upon completion of the storage period, the recording medium may be erased and reissued for operational use;

Reading this, it appears that if you have an in-car camera, you can use it to record the police during a routine traffic stop. I could have the wrong law, though.
 

xeemzor

Platinum Member
Mar 27, 2005
2,599
1
71
It's great that this law was overturned. Especially after HB3944, a bill that would allow the recording of police officers, was defeated in the state house 45-59. I'm still amazed that state reps voted for a law that pretty much every court has declared unconstitutional.