Illinois for ya. Recording LEO is now a Felony.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/illinois-felony-citizens-record-police-media-silent/
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/illinois-felony-citizens-record-police-media-silent/
http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/20/illinois-supreme-court-unanimously-overt
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...rt-eavesdropping-law-20140320,0,6684656.story
Nothing prevents cockroaches from legislating as they will tyranny. Remember that the president is from Chicago, Illinois.
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.
For purposes of this Article, "surreptitious" means obtained or made by stealth or deception, or executed through secrecy or concealment.
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.
It passed by a huge margin .. veto is not likely.
I don't think it does what people think it does.
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.
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.
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 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 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?