Illinois judge rules state eavesdropping law unconstitutional

The Illinois law that prohibits (or prohibited !) citizens from recording police without their permission has been declared
unconstitutional by a Cook County, Illinois judge.

Good news ?

Friday, March 2, 2012 21:59 EST -- The Raw Story

The Occupiers who are planning to descend on Chicago in May to protest the G8 and NATO meetings can breathe a sign of relief today. The Illinois law which made it a felony to make audio recordings of police officers without their permission has been found unconstitutional by a state judge, who ruled that it could have the effect of criminalizing “wholly innocent conduct.”

As explained by the Chicago Tribune’s Megan Crepeau, “The whole thing hinges on the idea that police officers have an expectation of privacy as they perform a public, taxpayer-funded duty. This law, in effect, punishes the public for holding its officials accountable to a public standard. The original intent — to protect private conversations from being recorded — has nothing to do with that.”

The decision came in the case of an artist named Christopher Drew, who was arrested in December 2009 for selling art without a permit. According to Kevin Gosztola at FireDogLake, “Drew, who has a history of challenging the city’s restrictions on the selling of art, was peddling silk-screened patches for $1 in an act of civil disobedience. A First Amendment lawyer and a team of photographers filmed his arrest. The police let the filming go, and Drew was arrested. When it was time for Drew to face his charges, he found out he had been given a Class 1 felony charge for violating the Illinois Eavesdropping Act and filming his arrest. This meant he faced a possible sentence of fifteen years in prison.”

I Can Hear You Now !!


Related story - Chicago Tribune: ... Judge rules eavesdropping law unconstitutional

reply to post by xuenchen


This is certainly good news. How come police can record us without our permission and we cannot?

Great news. Surprised this came out of Illinois though!

By the way, did they call the people expected to protest the upcoming G8/Nato conference "occupiers" for a specific, propaganda-style reason?

Are they trying to tie the two together to make it easier for the public to handle when they get their brains smashed in by riot police?

We all know there will be more people protesting than just Occupy supporters.

Good job Mr. Judge from Illinois!

Now, if only the federal governments would use the same logic.

Kind of reminds me of certain state laws in Cali that allow certain things but the Feds always come along and bully the state laws.

Awesome news. Hopefully this has federal implications.

What I think we need are laws that require the police to tape all encounters and arrrests. Considering how cheap video technology is these days, it is the least they owe the public.

Video recording stops and encounters would be a fantastic tool to end police abuse.

Originally posted by poet1b

Awesome news. Hopefully this has federal implications.

What I think we need are laws that require the police to tape all encounters and arrrests. Considering how cheap video technology is these days, it is the least they owe the public.

Video recording stops and encounters would be a fantastic tool to end police abuse.

That's a good idea !

Make all police have a cam inside the radios they carry.

Survey the surveyors.

the police work for me!

and we certainly have the right to keep them on their toes and honest...

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by xuenchen

 

This is certainly good news. How come police can record us without our permission and we cannot?

because they don't want us to catch them screwing up, or screwing around. which they do quite a bit.

This is excellent news.

The police say if you're the good guys you have nothing to hide.

I guess the same doesn't work in reverse.

Originally posted by LonelyGuy

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by xuenchen

 

This is certainly good news. How come police can record us without our permission and we cannot?

because they don't want us to catch them screwing up, or screwing around. which they do quite a bit.

this is totally true specially when it comes to excessive fines which we have now even for minor infractions because the counties are so broke, but alot of times your freedom is at stake.

in the state of Virginia you are a criminal simply for not having enough money, but it's a commonwealth (one of only four in the country)

in Virginia if you lose your jub and your auto insurance is do, it might come to a point where you are applying for work all around and you are pretty much alone... you have limited money so you decide food may be most important to have this month. Well if you sign up for paperless billing it now only give the insurance company two weeks to notify you before cancellation.

In Virginia when your insurance is cancelled your license is suspended... to get your license back after suspension (a big bad word) there are $750 in fees you must pay for your infraction of not having $56 bucks at a given moment before a computer determines your fate...

this makes perfect sense, if you don't have $56 bucks you surely must have $750? perfect liberal train-you logic.

EDIT: the next time I don't have $56 bucks... I am most likely going to steal it!