Federal appeals court bans enforcement of Illinois eavesdropping law

Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by waggy, May 8, 2012.

  1. waggy

    waggy No Lifer

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2000
    Messages:
    68,159
    Likes Received:
    7
    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.
     
  2. cybrsage

    cybrsage Lifer

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2011
    Messages:
    13,021
    Likes Received:
    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.
     
  3. Moonbeam

    Moonbeam Elite Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 1999
    Messages:
    60,126
    Likes Received:
    575
    Damn, the decision will be overruled 5 to 4.
     
  4. JEDIYoda

    JEDIYoda Lifer

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    24,457
    Likes Received:
    67
    I`m sorry I didn`t mean to eavesdrop on this thread.......
     
  5. PokerGuy

    PokerGuy Lifer

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    13,652
    Likes Received:
    197
    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.
     
  6. Jaskalas

    Jaskalas Lifer

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    24,472
    Likes Received:
    637
    I approve of this ruling.
     
  7. dmcowen674

    dmcowen674 No Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 1999
    Messages:
    54,859
    Likes Received:
    14
    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.
     
  8. waggy

    waggy No Lifer

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2000
    Messages:
    68,159
    Likes Received:
    7
    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.
     
  9. Texashiker

    Texashiker Lifer

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    18,288
    Likes Received:
    34
    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.
     
  10. Moonbeam

    Moonbeam Elite Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 1999
    Messages:
    60,126
    Likes Received:
    575
    I just want to add, since folk seem to want to agree on things, that I don't like government wasting money.
     
  11. monovillage

    monovillage Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2008
    Messages:
    8,445
    Likes Received:
    0
    This ruling by the 7th Circuit Court has my stamp of rightie approval.
     
  12. alzan

    alzan Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,861
    Likes Received:
    1
    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.
     
  13. Texashiker

    Texashiker Lifer

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    18,288
    Likes Received:
    34
    A similar law has already been overturned in maryland.
     
  14. hal2kilo

    hal2kilo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,844
    Likes Received:
    356
    Wow, a real win for real peoples first amendment rights.
     
  15. Sunburn74

    Sunburn74 Golden Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,858
    Likes Received:
    328
    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?
     
  16. monovillage

    monovillage Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2008
    Messages:
    8,445
    Likes Received:
    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.
     
  17. Wreckem

    Wreckem Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    8,424
    Likes Received:
    1
    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.
     
    #17 Wreckem, May 8, 2012
    Last edited: May 8, 2012
  18. Wreckem

    Wreckem Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    8,424
    Likes Received:
    1
    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.
     
  19. Craig234

    Craig234 Lifer

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    36,278
    Likes Received:
    107
    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?
     
  20. Craig234

    Craig234 Lifer

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    36,278
    Likes Received:
    107
    I do.

    I prefer they burn it, as long as the smoke is not allowed in the atmosphere.
     
  21. piasabird

    piasabird Lifer

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    16,962
    Likes Received:
    31
    The people in Illinois think they know better than the US Constitution.
     
  22. cybrsage

    cybrsage Lifer

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2011
    Messages:
    13,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  23. cybrsage

    cybrsage Lifer

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2011
    Messages:
    13,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is this what they are talking about?


    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.
     
  24. xeemzor

    xeemzor Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,601
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.