Illinois just made it illegal to videotape LEO

[The Truth]

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.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

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)

 

[blahpony]

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.

 

[Therrito]

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_case?case=4027403108062769854&q=aclu+v+alvarez&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-police-officers-and-public-officials
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/illinois-police-recording_n_2191800.html
http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/2/28...s-to-an-end-after-51-years-130109?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/...t-illinois-eavesdropping-act-cook-county-jail
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/20/illinois-eavesdropping-law_n_5003308.html
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...g-law-illinois-supreme-court-cook-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.

 

[Therrito]

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

 

[ccwinstructor]

So a police supervisor calls an officer into his office for a private, oral reprimand

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.

I think you are simply wrong. There is a big difference between a police supervisor privately reprimanding a police officer in an office with the door closed, and an officer talking to a citizen on the street.

 

[marshaul]

I think you are simply wrong. There is a big difference between a police supervisor privately reprimanding a police officer in an office with the door closed, and an officer talking to a citizen on the street.

Is there? I wasn't aware that the people, as the police's employers, were required to grant their employees private cuddle time while on the job.

No. You are "simply wrong". As with any job, if you desire privacy from your boss, don't show up to work. What you do on the clock is his business, period.

I don't give a crap if reprimands are public. Might be a good incentive not to be reprimanded, now that I think about it.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

lol like the school bully that nut punches you and steals your lunch money is your employee

 

[davidmcbeth]

Is there? I wasn't aware that the people, as the police's employers, were required to grant their employees private cuddle time while on the job.

No. You are "simply wrong". As with any job, if you desire privacy from your boss, don't show up to work. What you do on the clock is his business, period.

I don't give a crap if reprimands are public. Might be a good incentive not to be reprimanded, now that I think about it.

I'm my own boss...now what????

 

[Grapeshot]

Is there? I wasn't aware that the people, as the police's employers, were required to grant their employees private cuddle time while on the job.

No. You are "simply wrong". As with any job, if you desire privacy from your boss, don't show up to work. What you do on the clock is his business, period.

I don't give a crap if reprimands are public. Might be a good incentive not to be reprimanded, now that I think about it.

I'm my own boss...now what????

Go cuddle yourself. :lol:

 

[marshaul]

marshaul - in your last post, there is a problem.
Technically, cops are NOT our "employees", they are the employees of the governmental agency for whom they work.
WE may pay their salary through our taxes, but it where their benefits come from that determines their "employer".

We, the citizenry, employ every government agency and, by extension, all its employees.

 

[OC for ME]

Do not inform the cop(s0 that you are recording them. When/if they go nuts after the discover this fact and charge you with a unconstitutional law file criminal charges against those cops, the prosecutor that proceeds with those charges and the judge that entertains the prosecution in his courtroom for official misconduct. Then sue all of them into a cardboard box under a RR bridge down by the river.

 

[WalkingWolf]

What this law sadly did not do was make it a felony for the interference of legal recording. That would include cops, prosecutors should be mandated to prosecute. Then there is no need to secretly record them. All this law does is make it possible for some bad officers to destroy evidence without repercussions.

 

[johnfenter]

A slight correction...

Then sue all of them into a cardboard box under a RR bridge down by the river.

Actually, it's "eating government cheese and living in a van down by the river".... Chris Farley, http://www.hulu.com/watch/4183

 

[sudden valley gunner]

marshaul - in your last post, there is a problem.
Technically, cops are NOT our "employees", they are the employees of the governmental agency for whom they work.
WE may pay their salary through our taxes, but it where their benefits come from that determines their "employer".

Great so the public "we" can stop having our funds appropriated by force to pay their salaries?

 

[Primus]

Great so the public "we" can stop having our funds appropriated by force to pay their salaries?

If I own shares in Apple are the kids working in China my employees? His much of my money would gave to go directly to their pay check before I could say they are my "employees"?

 

[marshaul]

Well, if cops don't work for me, that makes them even more like an extortion racket than they were before.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

If I own shares in Apple are the kids working in China my employees? His much of my money would gave to go directly to their pay check before I could say they are my "employees"?

Why do you keep repeating this fallacy argument. Its a false comparison of public to private.

If I don't like what the kids in China are getting paid by my shares of Apple, I can choose to opt out........ Oh and if I own enough shares in Apple I can directly effect what actually happens in Apple.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Well, if cops don't work for me, that makes them even more like an extortion racket than they were before.

+1

Yet some believe there is a magic that makes extortion, theft, murder by the state somehow not extortion, theft or murder.

 

[Aknazer]

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?

I understand it. Personally I am not a fan of being recorded (or talking into electronic devices in general, especially around others). It has been something that I've had to overcome given that my job regularly has me talking on radios/headset, but I'm still not a fan of it.

Of course if I was an LEO I wouldn't be against it even if I personally didn't like it. Just as how I picked my current job even knowing that it required me to talk on headset.