In March of this year, the Illinois Supreme Court killed
the Illinois "eavesdropping law." This controversial law, which required someone recording a conversation to obtain permission from all parties being recorded, was ostensibly in place to protect citizens' private conversations. Instead, it ended up protecting the police and lawmakers
from citizens recording their interactions with them.
For example, in 2009, Chicago resident Christopher Drew was charged with a felony for recording police as they arrested him for selling his artwork on State Street without a permit.
In 2010, Bridgeport resident Michael Allison was charged with a felony for carrying a tape recorder into his own court hearing – which he did because the court wouldn’t provide him with a court reporter. “You violated my right to privacy,” the judge told him in open court.
Luckily, the Illinois Supreme Court determined the law was too broad and violated the First Amendment rights of individuals who were recording interactions in public places.
But now, apparently, the law has been revived and has been passed by both the Illinois House and Senate, tacked on as an amendment to an existing unrelated bill.
Under the new bill, a citizen could rarely be sure whether recording any given conversation without permission is legal. The bill would make it a felony to surreptitiously record any “private conversation,” which it defines as any “oral communication between 2 or more persons,” where at least one person involved had a “reasonable expectation” of privacy.
The language makes interpreting the law a difficult task. What is a "reasonable expectation" of privacy and how is that defined? How are "public" versus "private" encounters determined? And while you'd think interactions with the police would be considered public, the bill has clear parameters in place to prevent citizens from recording interactions with law enforcement.
The bill would also discourage people from recording conversations with police by making unlawfully recording a conversation with police – or an attorney general, assistant attorney general, state’s attorney, assistant state’s attorney or judge – a class 3 felony, which carries a sentence of two to four years in prison. Meanwhile, the bill makes illegal recording of a private citizen a class 4 felony, which carries a lower sentencing range of one to three years in prison.
There’s only one apparent reason for imposing a higher penalty on people who record police in particular: to make people especially afraid to record police. That is not a legitimate purpose. And recent history suggests it’s important that people not be afraid to record police wherever they perform their duties so that officers will be more likely to respect citizens’ rights, and officers who do respect citizens’ rights will be able to prove it.
Here's hoping the First Amendment prevails and Gov. Pat Quinn vetoes this bill.
