Mr. Fife Posted March 2, 2012 at 07:59 PM Share Posted March 2, 2012 at 07:59 PM On Chicago Breaking News website, can't link from my phone browser right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrat Posted March 2, 2012 at 08:00 PM Share Posted March 2, 2012 at 08:00 PM http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-judge-rules-eavesdropping-law-unconstitutional-20120302,0,4122460.storyA Cook County judge today ruled the state’s controversial eavesdropping law unconstitutional. The law makes it a felony offense to make audio recordings of police officers without their consent even when they’re performing their public duties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneshot Posted March 2, 2012 at 08:01 PM Share Posted March 2, 2012 at 08:01 PM YES! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Gwinn Posted March 2, 2012 at 08:10 PM Share Posted March 2, 2012 at 08:10 PM Excellent. This follows news from Wednesday or Thursday that a local prosecutor would refuse to charge a man under the statute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samy12386 Posted March 2, 2012 at 08:44 PM Share Posted March 2, 2012 at 08:44 PM So what does this mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Posted March 2, 2012 at 09:07 PM Share Posted March 2, 2012 at 09:07 PM So what does this mean? you can't be charged for video taping/recording cops They never should have allowed the Chicago cretins to am this through the House and Senate anyways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted March 2, 2012 at 09:30 PM Share Posted March 2, 2012 at 09:30 PM Does this apply to the whole state right away, or do we need something from the IL Supreme Court before we can record our interactions with police? * I harbor no ill will towards LEOs in general. There are some really great ones out there, but there are some bad ones too. I would rather be able to record the encounter as an impartial witness. I am NOT bashing the cops. * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilessiuc Posted March 2, 2012 at 09:32 PM Share Posted March 2, 2012 at 09:32 PM Please note this only means that ONE circuit judge in Cook County ruled the law unconstitutional. His ruling has NO bearing over any other judge in the State--including Cook County. So please don't go out and starting audio recording the police, or else you will find yourself in jail charged with a felony. Wait until the Appellate Courts take it up!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xwing Posted March 2, 2012 at 09:35 PM Share Posted March 2, 2012 at 09:35 PM The court actually recognized (some of) our rights! About time... It was a terrible law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted March 2, 2012 at 09:37 PM Share Posted March 2, 2012 at 09:37 PM Excellent. This follows news from Wednesday or Thursday that a local prosecutor would refuse to charge a man under the statute.That must be a brave prosecutor because I have never heard of one to state that he would not charge agravated UUW to a FOID holder. The misdemeanor UUW is a whole different ball of wax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneshot Posted March 2, 2012 at 09:43 PM Share Posted March 2, 2012 at 09:43 PM "Judge Stanley Sacks, who is assigned to the Criminal Courts Building, found the eavesdropping law unconstitutional because it potentially criminalizes "wholly innocent conduct."Hmm, isn't carrying a loaded firearm when I have no criminal record and no intent to harm anyone "wholly innocent conduct" as well? Of course the judge wouldn't see it that way. After all, as we've discussed here, you can carry any sized knife you like, unless you intend to harm someone, then it was illegal to carry it if it was 3" or longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFC Posted March 2, 2012 at 10:02 PM Share Posted March 2, 2012 at 10:02 PM The federal courts decided this months ago, yet Illinois throws away more money to hear it again.Wow.... just wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFC Posted March 2, 2012 at 10:05 PM Share Posted March 2, 2012 at 10:05 PM So what does this mean? you can't be charged for video taping/recording cops They never should have allowed the Chicago cretins to am this through the House and Senate anyways Typically they use the eavesdropping statute then heap the "disorderly conduct," catch-all law on top of that.They will usually let you plea out on the eavesdropping, pay the fine and get court supervision on DC. Again... it's about money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted March 2, 2012 at 10:10 PM Share Posted March 2, 2012 at 10:10 PM Please note this only means that ONE circuit judge in Cook County ruled the law unconstitutional. His ruling has NO bearing over any other judge in the State--including Cook County. So please don't go out and starting audio recording the police, or else you will find yourself in jail charged with a felony. Wait until the Appellate Courts take it up!! That sort of answers my question. So, what do we have to do to get this settled for the entire state? It doesn't even affect all of Cook County? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilessiuc Posted March 2, 2012 at 10:20 PM Share Posted March 2, 2012 at 10:20 PM Please note this only means that ONE circuit judge in Cook County ruled the law unconstitutional. His ruling has NO bearing over any other judge in the State--including Cook County. So please don't go out and starting audio recording the police, or else you will find yourself in jail charged with a felony. Wait until the Appellate Courts take it up!! That sort of answers my question. So, what do we have to do to get this settled for the entire state? It doesn't even affect all of Cook County? The Illinois Supreme Court would have to rule the statute unconstitutional or the legislature would have to repeal it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vezpa Posted March 2, 2012 at 10:48 PM Share Posted March 2, 2012 at 10:48 PM Shocked to hear a judge in Cook County using his brain. Rock On ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted March 3, 2012 at 01:14 AM Share Posted March 3, 2012 at 01:14 AM The statute itself has nothing to do with recording police. I believe this has more to do with your right to record any conversation of a public official in the course of their official duties or others in public or public accessible locations were there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingWalleye Posted March 3, 2012 at 01:14 AM Share Posted March 3, 2012 at 01:14 AM Typically they use the eavesdropping statute then heap the "disorderly conduct," catch-all law on top of that.They will usually let you plea out on the eavesdropping, pay the fine and get court supervision on DC. Again... it's about money. "Disorderly conduct", a Police Officer's way of never having to say "I was wrong".Mike Royko When this gets dragged through the courts and rule as it should the bad cops will still use the DC charge to bully people into submission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.