Recording the Police. Now a Felony?

[ClosedCaption]

Earlier this year, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down a state eavesdropping law that made it a crime for citizens to record conversations with police or anyone else without the other person’s permission. The court held that the old law “criminalize[d] a wide range of innocent conduct” and violated free-speech rights. In particular, the court noted the state could not criminalize recording activities where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, including citizens’ “public” encounters with police.

Now the old law is back, with just a few changes, in a new bill sent to the governor’s desk by the Illinois Senate on Dec. 4. The bill not only passed, but did so overwhelmingly with votes of 106-7 in the House on and 46-4-1 in the Senate.

The new version is nearly as bad as the old one.

Under the new bill, a citizen could rarely be sure whether recording any given conversation without permission is legal. The bill would make it a felony to surreptitiously record any “private conversation,” which it defines as any “oral communication between 2 or more persons,” where at least one person involved had a “reasonable expectation” of privacy.

When does the person you’re talking to have a reasonable expectation of privacy? The bill doesn’t say. And that’s not something an ordinary person can be expected to figure out.

A law must be clear enough for citizens to know in advance whether a particular action is a crime. This bill doesn’t meet that standard, which should be reason enough for a court to strike it down if it becomes law.

But lack of clarity isn’t the only problem with this bill.

Although it appears to be designed to accommodate the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling striking down the old law, the bill actually is designed to continue to prevent people from recording interactions with police.

The bill says it would only be a crime to record someone where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, which should mean that recording public encounters with police would not be a crime, and the old law’s fatal constitutional flaw would no longer exist.

 

[bodecea]

There's only one reason the police would not want their conversations with you recorded.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If the rabid right gets their way, we will become police state.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I'd love to hear why the police are the only ones who cant be recorded from anyone right, left, middle etc

 

[teddyearp]

<SNIP>, we will become police state.

Become? Have you seen some of the vehicles they drive around? And send the SWAT team to serve most any warrant? And it is too bad that you are caught up in the delusion of 'right' and 'left'.

 

[MisterBeale]

It's funny how it took a couple minority deaths for the left to join the right in the realization that the STATE is not such a good thing.



During Waco and Ruby Ridge, well, the police were our friends. . . . .

 

[OKTexas]

Earlier this year, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down a state eavesdropping law that made it a crime for citizens to record conversations with police or anyone else without the other person’s permission. The court held that the old law “criminalize[d] a wide range of innocent conduct” and violated free-speech rights. In particular, the court noted the state could not criminalize recording activities where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, including citizens’ “public” encounters with police.

Now the old law is back, with just a few changes, in a new bill sent to the governor’s desk by the Illinois Senate on Dec. 4. The bill not only passed, but did so overwhelmingly with votes of 106-7 in the House on and 46-4-1 in the Senate.

The new version is nearly as bad as the old one.

Under the new bill, a citizen could rarely be sure whether recording any given conversation without permission is legal. The bill would make it a felony to surreptitiously record any “private conversation,” which it defines as any “oral communication between 2 or more persons,” where at least one person involved had a “reasonable expectation” of privacy.

When does the person you’re talking to have a reasonable expectation of privacy? The bill doesn’t say. And that’s not something an ordinary person can be expected to figure out.

A law must be clear enough for citizens to know in advance whether a particular action is a crime. This bill doesn’t meet that standard, which should be reason enough for a court to strike it down if it becomes law.

But lack of clarity isn’t the only problem with this bill.

Although it appears to be designed to accommodate the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling striking down the old law, the bill actually is designed to continue to prevent people from recording interactions with police.

The bill says it would only be a crime to record someone where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, which should mean that recording public encounters with police would not be a crime, and the old law’s fatal constitutional flaw would no longer exist.

Considering the IL supreme court has already ruled this:

Earlier this year, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down a state eavesdropping law that made it a crime for citizens to record conversations with police or anyone else without the other person’s permission. The court held that the old law “criminalize[d] a wide range of innocent conduct” and violated free-speech rights. In particular, the court noted the state could not criminalize recording activities where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, including citizens’ “public” encounters with police.

Why would you think the court would rule any differently on this law?

 

[PredFan]

Earlier this year, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down a state eavesdropping law that made it a crime for citizens to record conversations with police or anyone else without the other person’s permission. The court held that the old law “criminalize[d] a wide range of innocent conduct” and violated free-speech rights. In particular, the court noted the state could not criminalize recording activities where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, including citizens’ “public” encounters with police.

Now the old law is back, with just a few changes, in a new bill sent to the governor’s desk by the Illinois Senate on Dec. 4. The bill not only passed, but did so overwhelmingly with votes of 106-7 in the House on and 46-4-1 in the Senate.

The new version is nearly as bad as the old one.

Under the new bill, a citizen could rarely be sure whether recording any given conversation without permission is legal. The bill would make it a felony to surreptitiously record any “private conversation,” which it defines as any “oral communication between 2 or more persons,” where at least one person involved had a “reasonable expectation” of privacy.

When does the person you’re talking to have a reasonable expectation of privacy? The bill doesn’t say. And that’s not something an ordinary person can be expected to figure out.

A law must be clear enough for citizens to know in advance whether a particular action is a crime. This bill doesn’t meet that standard, which should be reason enough for a court to strike it down if it becomes law.

But lack of clarity isn’t the only problem with this bill.

Although it appears to be designed to accommodate the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling striking down the old law, the bill actually is designed to continue to prevent people from recording interactions with police.

The bill says it would only be a crime to record someone where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, which should mean that recording public encounters with police would not be a crime, and the old law’s fatal constitutional flaw would no longer exist.

Hopefully that will be challenged and defeated in the courts again.

 

[PredFan]

If the rabid right gets their way, we will become police state.

Fuck off moron, we conservatives believe in the constitution and rights. It is you totalitarian statist left wing but jobs that want the government to control everyone.

 

[PredFan]

I'd love to hear why the police are the only ones who cant be recorded from anyone right, left, middle etc

I can't give you any reason why. We should be able to record them. It makes no sense at all.

 

[PredFan]

It's funny how it took a couple minority deaths for the left to join the right in the realization that the STATE is not such a good thing.



During Waco and Ruby Ridge, well, the police were our friends. . . . .

It won't last.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If the rabid right gets their way, we will become police state.

Are you suddenly AGAINST government, Pillowbite?

Nah, you're just too stupid to grasp the concepts at play.

 

[occupied]

It's funny how it took a couple minority deaths for the left to join the right in the realization that the STATE is not such a good thing.



During Waco and Ruby Ridge, well, the police were our friends. . . . .

Are you trolling? We have the stupid and destructive War on Drugs and the monstrous police/court/prison industry because of you people.

 

[g5000]

Now the old law is back, with just a few changes, in a new bill sent to the governor’s desk by the Illinois Senate on Dec. 4. The bill not only passed, but did so overwhelmingly with votes of 106-7 in the House on and 46-4-1 in the Senate.

That bill has nothing to do with recording the police when you are interacting with them. It outlaws bugging someone's phone or home. It clearly states that recording in a "surreptitious manner" is forbidden, and the very first group it bans from illegally recording someone is the police. The cops are banned from recording someone who has an expectation of privacy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Are you trolling? We have the stupid and destructive War on Drugs and the monstrous police/court/prison industry because of you people.

Suddenly you of the left oppose the Prison/Industrial complex?

Color me skeptical of your motives.

 

[MaryL]

An example of expectations of privacy? A dressing room/restroom, so called "upskirt" cameras, anything just for voyeuristic reasons. But I don't think police need fear cameras hidden or not. They are public employees and should welcome electronic surveillance, as they themselves use cameras to monitor high crime areas, for speed enforcement and other traffic infractions. So, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That bill has nothing to do with recording the police when you are interacting with them. It outlaws bugging someone's phone or home. It clearly states that recording in a "surreptitious manner" is forbidden, and the very first group it bans from illegally recording someone is the police. The cops are banned from recording someone who has an expectation of privacy.

Actually Jake5000, hitting record on your phone while the cop walks to your car would be considered a "surreptitious manner" under the law.

It will be thrown out, and never enforced.

It amuses me that all of a sudden some of the leftist feign support of civil liberties. It will never last.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I went to a Police concert in 1984, and as a matter of fact a guy sitting about five rows in front of me was indeed arrested for recording them. As it was, there were many bootleg Police albums out there, this guy just didn't happen to get away with making one.

 

[SwimExpert]

If I pay you to have sex with me, that is illegal prostitution. If I pay you to have sex with me while I record it, that is constitutionally protected speech.

I guess the police are exempt from the constitution.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

If I pay you to have sex with me, that is illegal prostitution. If I pay you to have sex with me while I record it, that is constitutionally protected speech.

I guess the police are exempt from the constitution.

I can't be bought that easily.