• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Illinois just made it illegal to videotape LEO

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
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
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
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.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,341
Location
Valhalla
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 :(
 

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
Disclaimer: I am SO not a lawyer.

Directly from: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/98/SB/PDF/09800SB1342ham006.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.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Let's send ONUS off to Illinois to get the record straight.

Go to Illinois ONUS for us.

Regards

CCJ
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
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?
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
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
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
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:

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
830
Location
Seattle WA
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
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,200
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
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
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,969
Location
Henrico
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
 

Kopis

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
674
Location
Nashville, TN
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:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
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.
 
Top