Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: Illinois just made it illegal to videotape LEO

  1. #1
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    1,923

    Illinois just made it illegal to videotape LEO

    Illinois for ya. Recording LEO is now a Felony.

    http://thefreethoughtproject.com/ill...-media-silent/
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    16,172
    It passed by a huge margin .. veto is not likely.

    I don't think it does what people think it does.

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,546
    Personally do not think this will hold water......we shall see.
    Better to not open your mouth and be thought the fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    2,495
    I believe the Illinois Supreme Court ruled backed in March 2014, that the law against filming, recording, Government Employees, police officers, etc

    was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    My .02

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    16,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/20/il...nimously-overt
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,6684656.story

    Nothing prevents cockroaches from legislating as they will tyranny. Remember that the president is from Chicago, Illinois.
    Correction: POTUS from Kenya....

  6. #6
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    11,728
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    I believe the Illinois Supreme Court ruled backed in March 2014, that the law against filming, recording, Government Employees, police officers, etc

    was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    My .02

    CCJ
    The law repeats private conversation several times, but that does not mean the law will not be abused. I got a headache reading it, repetitive and overly long. But if I comprehend it properly recording police in the line of duty is legal.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,546
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The law repeats private conversation several times, but that does not mean the law will not be abused. I got a headache reading it, repetitive and overly long. But if I comprehend it properly recording police in the line of duty is legal.
    Wish it were so, but I read it the other way.

    +1 on the headache
    Better to not open your mouth and be thought the fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  8. #8
    Regular Member DeSchaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    537
    Disclaimer: I am SO not a lawyer.

    Directly from: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/98/S...1342ham006.pdf

    Sec. 14-1 (g)
    For purposes of this Article, "surreptitious" means obtained or made by stealth or deception, or executed through secrecy or concealment.
    Everything in Sec. 14-2. Elements of the offense, uses that word. Just make it almost completely obvious that you're recording, and it shouldnt be an issue. If it is, take it BACK to the SC and have them toss it, AGAIN.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    2,495
    Let's send ONUS off to Illinois to get the record straight.

    Go to Illinois ONUS for us.

    Regards

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    11,104
    Do not go to Ill-annoyed.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    16,172
    If I recall, common law has, for telephone recording & other, that if one suspects fraud or an illegal act is imminent then you can record regardless of the eavesdropping statue.

    I can't remember the case though ... anyone has recollection on this aspect?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    2,495
    Since police are considered on duty 24/7 or so they like to say, I would argue that they are subject to be recorded 24/7, no permission needed, provided you are recording, filming them and only them...

    My .02

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,061
    The law, like most similar laws in the country only prohibit intercepting/recording/whatever you want to call it, "Private Conversations" (similar terminology in other states).

    This law defines a private conversation thus:
    For the purposes of this Article, "private conversation" means any oral communication between 2 or more persons, whether in person or transmitted between the parties by wire or other means, when one or more of the parties intended the communication to be of a private nature under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation. A reasonable expectation shall include any expectation recognized by law, including, but not limited to, an expectation derived from a privilege, immunity, or right established by common law, Supreme Court rule, or the Illinois or United States Constitution.
    The article, like most, is biased and as such, hyperbolizes portions while completely ignoring others, in this case, specifically the portion in red.

    I think they are more infuriated that the penalty is greater if it's a LEO being recorded. But if you think of it rationally without a preconceived LEO hating thought process, you will see that it makes since.

    That is the key phrase in all of these laws.

    Plus it only prohibits surreptitious recordings of "Private Conversations". So that is another portion of the article that in solely meant to inflame.
    Last edited by notalawyer; 12-11-2014 at 12:52 AM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    830
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    It passed by a huge margin .. veto is not likely.

    I don't think it does what people think it does.
    Doesnt need a veto. It isnt law. in fact it is banned from being law and from what I can see illinois should face a contempt of court charge.

    The Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts a medium of expression commonly used for the preservation and communication of information and ideas, thus triggering First Amendment scrutiny. Illinois has criminalized the nonconsensual recording of most any oral communication, including recordings of public officials doing the public’s business in public and regardless of whether the recording is open or surreptitious.
    http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/150619395.html

    Not to mention the Constitution trumps any and all other laws and nullifies any that are contradictory and in this case the First Amendment nullifies this so-called 'law' as had the 7th circuit court, yet they tried to pass the law anyway. Contempt ruling
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,200
    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    The law, like most similar laws in the country only prohibit intercepting/recording/whatever you want to call it, "Private Conversations" (similar terminology in other states).

    This law defines a private conversation thus:

    The article, like most, is biased and as such, hyperbolizes portions while completely ignoring others, in this case, specifically the portion in red.

    I think they are more infuriated that the penalty is greater if it's a LEO being recorded. But if you think of it rationally without a preconceived LEO hating thought process, you will see that it makes since.

    That is the key phrase in all of these laws.

    Plus it only prohibits surreptitious recordings of "Private Conversations". So that is another portion of the article that in solely meant to inflame.
    I disagree. The legislation intentionally dilutes legal protection for the right to record police, by declaring (contrary to established precedent) that it's somehow possible to "eavesdrop" on a police officer "while in the performance of his or her official duties", or that it is possible for an officer to even have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" "while in the performance of his or her official duties", when indeed it is not.
    Last edited by marshaul; 12-11-2014 at 11:46 AM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    2,495
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I disagree. The legislation intentionally dilutes legal protection for the right to record police, by declaring (contrary to established precedent) that it's somehow possible to "eavesdrop" on a police officer "while in the performance of his or her official duties", or that it is possible for an officer to even have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" "while in the performance of his or her official duties", when indeed it is not.
    +1

    ccj
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    16,172
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I disagree. The legislation intentionally dilutes legal protection for the right to record police, by declaring (contrary to established precedent) that it's somehow possible to "eavesdrop" on a police officer "while in the performance of his or her official duties", or that it is possible for an officer to even have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" "while in the performance of his or her official duties", when indeed it is not.
    Exactly....there is no expectation of privacy when it comes to cops performing their duties in public (or in private IMO)...so recording of cops in public can continue even with this new law.

    Sure, cops will say you can't. They continue to say this today even in all 50 states.

  18. #18
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    1,923
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I disagree. The legislation intentionally dilutes legal protection for the right to record police, by declaring (contrary to established precedent) that it's somehow possible to "eavesdrop" on a police officer "while in the performance of his or her official duties", or that it is possible for an officer to even have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" "while in the performance of his or her official duties", when indeed it is not.
    +1

    <3 u marshaul
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Kopis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    674
    i was talking to an LEO in memphis about a month ago at starbucks. We discussed several recent news articles regarding police. He seemed to be fairly supportive of conservative topics until I asked why the big fuss about recording LEOs and he became furious. he said " i just dont like it, it makes me uncomfortable" i tried to respond that it could protect him from someone making false claims but i quickly dropped the subject. I thought to myself, you're just out in public, if you're not doing anything wrong, why the fear of being recorded?
    Last edited by Kopis; 12-12-2014 at 10:23 AM.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    16,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Kopis View Post
    i was talking to an LEO in memphis about a month ago at starbucks. We discussed several recent news articles regarding police. He seemed to be fairly supportive of conservative topics until I asked why the big fuss about recording LEOs and he became furious. he said " i just dont like it, it makes me uncomfortable" i tried to respond that it could protect him from someone making false claims but i quickly dropped the subject. I thought to myself, you're just out in public, if you're not doing anything wrong, why the fear of being recorded?
    why did you drop it? was he reaching for his guns? One to shoot you with and one to plant on you? lol

    You did tell him that he could get a different vocation, right?

    You should have pulled out your recorder right there.

  21. #21
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    1,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Kopis View Post
    i was talking to an LEO in memphis about a month ago at starbucks. We discussed several recent news articles regarding police. He seemed to be fairly supportive of conservative topics until I asked why the big fuss about recording LEOs and he became furious. he said " i just dont like it, it makes me uncomfortable" i tried to respond that it could protect him from someone making false claims but i quickly dropped the subject. I thought to myself, you're just out in public, if you're not doing anything wrong, why the fear of being recorded?
    Whenever I hear of something like this, meet a cop like this, or see a video of a cop that uses the "because I said so" response, I have to wonder, how big of a piece of $%@# was his father? Gotta be some serious Daddy/authority issues going on.
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  22. #22
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,326
    I personally like the idea. There are far too few protections for our blue clad saviors.
    More laws I would like to see:
    Illegal to make non-flattering eye contact with LEO
    Illegal to stand in any line in front of LEO
    Illegal to not pull over and let LEO pass regardless of status of emergency lights.
    Illegal not to answer questions asked by LEO
    Perhaps a law to requiring bowing to LEO if you encounter them on the sidewalk or inside a building.
    A national "submission day" where each school quarter in grades 8-12 the school brings in cops to teach children how to behave during police encounters. (Each child SHALL be handcuffed for a few minutes)
    Last edited by twoskinsonemanns; 12-13-2014 at 03:33 AM.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Leesburg VA
    Posts
    153
    So this is OK:

    Officer: I need to search your car

    Person: I don't consent to that

    Officer: If you don't have anything illegal in there, why are you worried?

    Bu this is not OK:

    Person: I'm recording you

    Officer: You can't do that

    Person: If you aren't doing anything illegal, why are you worried?


    Funny how that shoes fits differently on the other foot.

  24. #24
    Newbie Therrito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    3
    On May 8th, 2012 the Seventh U.S. Court Courts of Appeals have recognized the First Amendment right to record the police and/or other public officials.
    See ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 595 (7th Cir. 2012) ("The act of making an audio or audiovisual recording is necessarily included within the First Amendment's guarantee of speech and press rights as a corollary of the right to disseminate the resulting recording.").

    Here are 6 links to verify these facts:
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...en&as_sdt=2,22
    http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/reco...blic-officials
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2191800.html
    http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/2/284...09?news=846699
    http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/01/07/53686.htm

    On March 20, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously declared the Illinois Wiretapping law unconstitutional in People v. Melongo and People v. Clark.
    Therefore, making an audiovisual recording of the police and/or any other public official, during the course of their duties, is now legal in Illinois, as long as you do so in a public place or on your own property and as long as said recording is not interfering with the duties of the official(s).

    Here are some additional links to verify these facts:
    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...ok-county-jail
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5003308.html
    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...ok-county-jail

    It would be wise to Google the Illinois County and local ordinances to see if they may have any laws or regulations regarding the making of an audiovisual recording of public officials during the course of their duties as their interpretation of the law may differ slightly.
    As always, when filming the police, inform them immediately that they are being recorded and above all else be polite. An attitude will only dig you a deeper hole for them to throw you into.

    I hope that this clarifies any doubt as to the legality of making an audiovisual recording of the police when/if you are approached by the police in Illinois.

  25. #25
    Newbie Therrito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    3
    This is a direct quote from the pdf file acquired from a link posted by DeSchaine in a previous comment.
    I removed the words that were stricken out of the document so that it would make more sense.

    (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 or she knowingly and intentionally:
    (1) Uses an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner, for the purpose of overhearing, transmitting, or recording all or any part of any private conversation to which he or she is not a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all of the parties to the private conversation;
    (2) Uses an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner, for the purpose of transmitting or recording all or any part of any private conversation to which he or she is a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all other parties to the private conversation;
    (3) Intercepts, records, or transcribes, in a surreptitious manner, any private electronic communication to which he or she is not a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all parties to the private electronic communication;
    (4) Manufactures, assembles, distributes, or possesses any electronic, mechanical, eavesdropping, or other device knowing that or having reason to know that the design of the device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious overhearing, transmitting or recording of private conversations or the interception or transcription of private electronic communications and the intended or actual use of the device is contrary to the provisions of this Article;

    Merriam-Webster dictionary defines surreptitious (in part) as: done, made, or acquired by stealth

    If you inform the police that you are recording them, the audiovisual recording is NOT done in a surreptitious manner.
    If the bill passes with the aforementioned wording, any Illinois citizen can still record the police BUT WE MUST INFORM THEM IMMEDIATELY before anything else is said or done.
    I would do so in this manner: "Good day/evening to you, sir. Before we go any further, I must inform you that I am making an audiovisual recording of our encounter for your safety and mine. This recording is NOT done in a surreptitious manner which means my actions are of a lawful and legal nature. How may I help you, sir?"
    By immediately informing them of your actions you are protected under the First Amendment right to record during a traffic stop or any other encounter with the police.

    DISCLAIMER: This is my interpretation of the pdf file and should not be used as any legal advice
    Last edited by Therrito; 12-19-2014 at 10:19 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •