Illinois Supreme Court: law barring recording police is unconstitutional

An Illinois man was charged with a felony for recording police while being arrested. Today, a state judge ruled the eavesdropping law unconstitutional.

<a href='http://meincmagazine.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/illinois-supreme-court-law-barring-recording-police-is-unconstitutional.ars'>Read the whole story</a>

 

[Trodamus]

As an Illinois resident, all I can say is fucking finally. Let's just hope they don't narrow the scope of the law into constitutionality and keep the whole "can't record cops" thing.

 

[Tyler X. Durden]

Score one for the good guys.

 

[jdale]

Kind of a weak ruling, but at least it's in the right direction.

Also, the Sun-Times article notes: "State Rep. Elaine Nekritz (D-Northbrook) is the lead sponsor of a measure that would legalize the recording of conversations with police officers performing their duties in public places “if the conversation is at a volume audible to the unassisted ear of the person who is making the recording.”"

So that means no recording police with a parabolic mike from a distance, but normal microphones and camcorders would be ok. Should also legalize it anywhere the person doing the recording is legally permitted to be, in my opinion. "Public place" conceivably could mean you can record police on the street but not when they enter your own home. That would make little sense.

 

[Nagumo]

I never could figure how it was legal for police to record citizens (dash-cams, and now head-cams). Yet, it was illegal for citizens to do the same. What's the matter, afraid shit-kicker tactics don't play well when you've got cops beating cuffed citizens or shooting folks in the back who've surrendered? Being an agent of the law doesn't mean you're above the law!

 

[oldcoot60]

An Illinois judge ruling the law is unconstitutional? He certainly won't be getting his monthly envelope this month.

 

[crustytheclown]

To the SCOTUS I say!

Only then will these laws meant to protect citizen's rights against eavesdropping be removed from the government agent's immunity package. No longer should PEOPLE be scared to record actual events of the agents of the government.

 

[naphini]

The very idea that it would be illegal to record the police chills my spine.

 

[grendel_x86]

This makes me pretty happy. As a Chicagoan who will be attending and documenting the NATO / G8 summit in May, this is a big reassurance.

Chris Drew has fought pretty hard, glad he won.

This effects several large cases currently in trial here.

 

[crustytheclown]

This makes me pretty happy. As a Chicagoan who will be attending and documenting the NATO / G8 summit in May, this is a big reassurance.
Chris Drew has fought pretty hard, glad he won.

Little brother watching BIG BROTHER. I love it!

 

[sapphir8]

I don't agree with recording police activity if you are purposely hiding the equipment for some odd reason. For example if you are wired (without the other party knowing) and try to incite something....that's an issue.

Now if you have your device out in plain view, then there should be no problem with it at all.

 

[Dracorat]

If you tried to incite something, wouldn't that be on the recording?? What's the problem?

 

[mlubrov]

Glad to hear this. It's hard to understand how it's illegal to record the actions of a public servant performing their duty, especially as it pertains to their interactions with yourself. Private citizens, maybe, although as the judge pointed out, fleeting capture of a side conversation while you're trying to record your kid play soccer being punishable as just below that of trying to KILL SOMEONE is insane as well, but not being able to capture public officials in public? I honestly don't see how that's in the public interest to give any public official, especially the police, special protections against having their actions recorded. It seems unnecessary and more likely to end in tyranny than contributing to the public good those officials should be sworn to serve.

 

[xoa]

I don't agree with recording police activity if you are purposely hiding the equipment for some odd reason. For example if you are wired (without the other party knowing) and try to incite something....that's an issue.

Please explain why. When they are public servants acting in their official capacity they have zero expectation of privacy. One party consent should be the general rule anyway, but public agents acting officially interacting with the public in particular need to be recorded.

Really, it should be mandated that all police be fully wired at all times while actually on a case with something that signs remote uploads the audio/video in real time so it can't be messed with.

 

[mlubrov]

I don't agree with recording police activity if you are purposely hiding the equipment for some odd reason. For example if you are wired (without the other party knowing) and try to incite something....that's an issue.

Now if you have your device out in plain view, then there should be no problem with it at all.

Honestly what difference does it make? They are still responsible for their actions, and you are still responsible for yours. How does one party knowing that they are being recorded change that? I would assume you expect the police in this instance to be more restrained because they know they are being recorded. Wouldn't you WANT to see the unbiased result when someone incites something with the police? Especially if you live some place where the police are notorious for coming down illegally and immorally against people of specific minority groups (be they religious, racial, etc)? Wouldn't documenting that fact so that the problem is addressed be the moral thing to do?

I just don't get what you're getting at, or the moral justification, or the logic behind your statements.

 

[Tyler X. Durden]

If you tried to incite something, wouldn't that be on the recording?? What's the problem?

Because it important for the police to know when they’ll have plausible deniability cover to mace/beat/shoot “inciters”.

 

[PeterWimsey]

This is good news, even though it's just a trial court. I think Illinois is the only state in the US where recording police is (was) still illegal.

 

[jimCA]

Kind of a weak ruling, but at least it's in the right direction.

On one hand, yes, you're right. I'd have preferred a clearer statement that anti-recording laws are a violation of due process as by removing the ability of an individual to retain evidence among other problems.
Is it a coincidence that the state that is synonymous with police corruption passed the most draconian anti-monitoring law?

However, at the same time, I think Judge Sacks was exercising prudence be limiting his decision to the scope of the law. When you look at kids who set their teachers up for bad looking videos, there's possibly room for some level of video recording to be criminalized if it takes the form of entrapment or is staged in such a way as to enter in to the realm of libel/slander. That would be about the only circumstance i can imagine at the moment. Recording LEOs conducting their duties seems to be part of a democratic society though.

 

[Personne]

This makes me pretty happy. As a Chicagoan who will be attending and documenting the NATO / G8 summit in May, this is a big reassurance.

Good luck, friend.

 

[Megalodon]

This makes me pretty happy. As a Chicagoan who will be attending and documenting the NATO / G8 summit in May, this is a big reassurance.

Chris Drew has fought pretty hard, glad he won.

This effects several large cases currently in trial here.

The thing about protests... I don't see how there is any expectation that any major event of that type will be anything other than massively recorded. Any legal theory based on an expectation of privacy should not apply.

 

[Sudoma bin Usri]

This makes me pretty happy. As a Chicagoan who will be attending and documenting the NATO / G8 summit in May, this is a big reassurance.

Hmm, grendel, chicago, interest in legal proceedings; you aren't by any chance AKA grendal in nanae, are you?

 

[Pariah]

I was born and raised in the Chicago area and I can tell you this as a fct. The Illinois law against recording police was put in place for one reason and one reason only: To protect crooked and abusive cops.
There is no other reason. Illinois government is tragically corrupt and this is simply one symptom of the larger problem.

 

[Bengie25]

Now we need a punishment for unconstitutional laws. If you back a law and it get's shot down for being unconstitutional, the public may vote for any punishment.

 

[z0phi3l]

This makes me pretty happy. As a Chicagoan who will be attending and documenting the NATO / G8 summit in May, this is a big reassurance.

Chris Drew has fought pretty hard, glad he won.

This effects several large cases currently in trial here.

Hope you plan on showing the full unedited footage, or will you only show the "innocent" protester getting handled roughly after instigating the issue?

 

[Ryanrule]

Considering the fact that the dual g8/nato summit is coming up in 2 months, this is VERY good to hear.

 

[Ryanrule]

This makes me pretty happy. As a Chicagoan who will be attending and documenting the NATO / G8 summit in May, this is a big reassurance.

Chris Drew has fought pretty hard, glad he won.

This effects several large cases currently in trial here.

Hope you plan on showing the full unedited footage, or will you only show the "innocent" protester getting handled roughly after instigating the issue?

Would you like some videos of POLICE DRESSING UP AND ACTING AS PROVOCATEURS from the last summit?

 

[Robot Dinosaur]

I don't agree with recording police activity if you are purposely hiding the equipment for some odd reason. For example if you are wired (without the other party knowing) and try to incite something....that's an issue.

Now if you have your device out in plain view, then there should be no problem with it at all.

Honestly what difference does it make? They are still responsible for their actions, and you are still responsible for yours. How does one party knowing that they are being recorded change that? I would assume you expect the police in this instance to be more restrained because they know they are being recorded. Wouldn't you WANT to see the unbiased result when someone incites something with the police? Especially if you live some place where the police are notorious for coming down illegally and immorally against people of specific minority groups (be they religious, racial, etc)? Wouldn't documenting that fact so that the problem is addressed be the moral thing to do?

I just don't get what you're getting at, or the moral justification, or the logic behind your statements.

Whether or not you incite the police to do something DOES make a difference. Just like it makes a difference if the police incite you to do something. When the police do it, it's called entrapment and means the defendant walks. Hardly seems fair for citizens to resort to tactics that police can't.

 

[leviathan3k]

Hardly seems fair for citizens to resort to tactics that police can't.

Like the arrest powers and general legally defendable violence police can use against regular citizens?

 

[Freetopia]

This is great news.

 

[crustytheclown]

Hardly seems fair for citizens to resort to tactics that police can't.

Like the arrest powers and general legally defendable violence police can use against regular citizens?

Many of the shocking things police are doing are not defendable under the Constitution. Many states have citizens' arrest statutes and self-defense is a valid legal defense in most locations.

 

[ashlabs]

Hardly seems fair for citizens to resort to tactics that police can't.

Given that Police already are not only equipped to record their interactions with the public AND required by law to have those recordings stored and shared with the court - why is it unfair for the average citizen to be able to rely on his or her fellow citizens who may have recorded evidence of the altercation outside of what the "official record" shows?

As someone who works with my state police on a nearly daily basis, they know full damn well that anything they do could be filmed. Don't tell me for a second that it should be a requirement to have any 'recording equipment' in full view - modern security cameras are designed to be as stealthy as possible. Nanny cameras are a perfect example. As far as I am versed with the law you are fully within your rights, as the property owner, to record any events that happen within your property - so yes, Police should enter a home and expect their conduct and conversations to be recorded just as they would at a bank, or other place of business. As far as in public - no one has a singular right to deny anyone the ability to record in plain sight. The Police already use this aspect for legal reasons and for most states so do the accused to counter accusations.

 

[lohphat]

Kind of a weak ruling, but at least it's in the right direction.

Also, the Sun-Times article notes: "State Rep. Elaine Nekritz (D-Northbrook) is the lead sponsor of a measure that would legalize the recording of conversations with police officers performing their duties in public places “if the conversation is at a volume audible to the unassisted ear of the person who is making the recording.”"

So that means no recording police with a parabolic mike from a distance, but normal microphones and camcorders would be ok. Should also legalize it anywhere the person doing the recording is legally permitted to be, in my opinion. "Public place" conceivably could mean you can record police on the street but not when they enter your own home. That would make little sense.

Cue the unmarked "safety freedom vans" used to conduct police "interviews".

 

[Digital Dud]

I don't see the point to privacy laws, totally unnecessary. If someone manages to sneak a recording device into your house, that's trespassing. And in public, obviously you can't have privacy.

 

[Argon Rackmar]

I don't see the point to privacy laws, totally unnecessary. If someone manages to sneak a recording device into your house, that's trespassing. And in public, obviously you can't have privacy.

What about a hotel room? Should the owner be allowed to secretly record you without your consent?

 

[Digital Dud]

I don't see the point to privacy laws, totally unnecessary. If someone manages to sneak a recording device into your house, that's trespassing. And in public, obviously you can't have privacy.

What about a hotel room? Should the owner be allowed to secretly record you without your consent?

Yes but that can be dealt with using contracts. Don't stay at a hotel that doesn't guarantee privacy when you sign-in, then if they broke their contract it's a crime.

 

[Robot Dinosaur]

Hardly seems fair for citizens to resort to tactics that police can't.

Given that Police already are not only equipped to record their interactions with the public AND required by law to have those recordings stored and shared with the court - why is it unfair for the average citizen to be able to rely on his or her fellow citizens who may have recorded evidence of the altercation outside of what the "official record" shows?

As someone who works with my state police on a nearly daily basis, they know full damn well that anything they do could be filmed. Don't tell me for a second that it should be a requirement to have any 'recording equipment' in full view - modern security cameras are designed to be as stealthy as possible. Nanny cameras are a perfect example. As far as I am versed with the law you are fully within your rights, as the property owner, to record any events that happen within your property - so yes, Police should enter a home and expect their conduct and conversations to be recorded just as they would at a bank, or other place of business. As far as in public - no one has a singular right to deny anyone the ability to record in plain sight. The Police already use this aspect for legal reasons and for most states so do the accused to counter accusations.

Oh, yeah, record all you want. I was specifically addressing the notion that you film yourself harassing or instigating an event with the police so you can record their response. You shouldn't be allowed to entrap the police any more than they can entrap you.

Put another way: You should be allowed to record the police. But you shouldn't act like a douchebag while doing so. And if you do, don't be surprised if the police respond unkindly - because while they shouldn't be able to stop you recording them, there are grounds under which they can stop you from being a douchebag.

 

[chimly]

A cynical person (who?!) would interpret this as a desperate attempt to keep authority over something they have no power to enforce anyway.

'OK, we'll "let" people record stuff.... I rule it's allowed!'

 

[tc17]

"I never could figure how it was legal for police to record citizens (dash-cams, and now head-cams). Yet, it was illegal for citizens to do the same."
--------------------

I agree. I also think the same thing about how cops somehow have the right to outright lie to someone, yet if you lie to them you are charged with a crime. It makes no sense, and is hypocritical, and unjust. It shows how poor our justice system really is.

 

[omegahelix]

"The very idea that it would be illegal to record the police chills my spine."

Add in a class 1 felony charge and my spine just curls up into the fetal position and cries.

 

[IrishMonkee]

IL law was suppose to be one of the nations toughest and other states undoubtedly have modeled their laws after it, I can see other cases following. It will almost have to go to SCOTUS to get further "clarification" and I can see this case being entertained by the justices.