"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" --George Orwell
Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
Posted on 09/28/2011 8:07:14 AM PDT by Kaslin
On Jan. 13, 2009, Michael Allison brought a digital recorder to the Crawford County Courthouse in Robinson, Ill., where he was contesting a citation, because he had been told there would be no official transcript of the proceedings. He was immediately confronted by Judge Kimbara Harrell, who accused him of violating her privacy and charged him with eavesdropping, a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison.
Because Allison had recorded conversations about his legal situation with police and other local officials, he soon faced four more eavesdropping charges, raising his possible sentence to 75 years. The case against Allison vividly shows how the Illinois Eavesdropping Act, the target of a constitutional challenge that was recently heard by a federal appeals court, undermines transparency, civil liberties and legal equality.
The law's double standard is clear. It allows police officers to make audio recordings of their encounters with citizens but forbids citizens to do the same without permission. Recording police, prosecutors or judges is a Class 1 felony with a maximum sentence of 15 years, while recording anyone else is a Class 4 felony with a maximum sentence of three years.
The law seems deliberately designed to shield police from public scrutiny. In a 1986 case involving a motorist who recorded the conversation between two officers while he was being detained in their patrol car, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that eavesdropping occurs only in "circumstances which entitle (the parties) to believe that the conversation is private and cannot be heard by others." The Illinois legislature responded by amending the eavesdropping statute to eliminate that requirement.
Under current law, anyone in Illinois who records cops -- even in public, even while they are performing their official duties -- can be charged with a felony. Whether charges are brought may depend on how embarrassing the recording is.
In August, for instance, a former stripper named Tiawanda Moore was tried for eavesdropping after she used her Blackberry to record a conversation in which she said two internal affairs investigators encouraged her to drop a sexual harassment complaint against a Chicago police officer. "I think it's something we can handle without having to go through this process," one investigator says in the recording. The jury acquitted Moore.
Moore's prosecution is one of the cases that the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois cites in its challenge to the eavesdropping law. It is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to rule that "the First Amendment protects people from criminal penalty for openly audio recording the conversations of police officers in the performance of their official duties in public places and forums, while speaking at an ordinary volume -- that is, conversations where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy."
The ACLU says this standard, which the vast majority of states have adopted, is required by the First Amendment. Last month, in an eavesdropping case involving a man who recorded an arrest on the Boston Common because he believed the police were using excessive force, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed that "a citizen's right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment."
Fortunately for Michael Allison, a Crawford County judge found that argument persuasive. "A statute intended to prevent unwarranted intrusions into a citizen's privacy cannot be used as a shield for public officials who cannot assert a comparable right of privacy in their public duties," Circuit Judge David Frankland wrote two days after the Seventh Circuit heard the ACLU's arguments against the eavesdropping law. "Such action impedes the free flow of information concerning public officials and violates the First Amendment right to gather such information."
Although Frankland dismissed the charges against Allison, prosecutors are expected to appeal, lest uppity citizens get the idea that it's OK to document the public performance of public officials.
violating her privacy and charged him with eavesdropping,
speaking of privacy rights, what ever happen to the gubmint union stooge who released Joe the Plumber’s private records?
she still has her job ,right?
Members if the Fourth Estate, nota bene.
I remember in the early 70’s I was communist countries and dictatorships that people could not clearly photograph anything. It was beyond my comprehension of what individual freedom meant. I was also part of a generation that was still taught about the constitution and the foundational beliefs that led to its creation.
And with that background, I am even more appalled at this. That these government officials, can say with a straight face, that it is reasonable to expect “privacy” when performing their job in public is not only an affront to every one else’s personal freedom, but it is also “newspeak”. Public action is private? What are they smoking?
I wonder if I’m allowed to record construction workers, or the guy in the dancing bunny suit trying to get me to turn off to buy his company’s mattresses.
Sheesh!
With nonsense like this going on is it any wonder that Illinois politicians fear an armed citizenry?
I can see the value of laws against eavesdropping on, or recording, conversations that the recording party is not a legitimate participant of. I can also see where people might not like to have their drunken activities at a party recorded and uploaded to youtube.
I can see NO legitimate societal value to barring the recording of a public official in the public performance of his duties.
You don’t think protecting crooked cops attempting to intimidate a witness from testifying against a third corrupt cop is a societal value?
;)
It’s not eavesdropping if they know that you are doing it. This judge is behaving in a criminal manner!
Lping
The purpose of this law is obviously to facilitate criminal wrongdoing by Illinois law enforcement personnel and judges.
A police officer who is doing his job WANTS as many audio and video records as possible from as many people as possible. Suppose for example that the cop shoots a suspect who turns out to be unarmed, and is accused of murder or manslaughter. Suppose also that a bystander has recorded the shooting, and has a video and audio recording in which the suspect said, “I’m gonna blow your brains out, pig!” while making a suspicious move—thus making the shooting both reasonable and necessary. Well, if it’s a felony punishable by 15 years to “eavesdrop” on that officer, the bystander might just decide to erase that video rather than be caught with it—or maybe not make the video in the first place, if he knows the law.
Alternatively, suppose the officer is NOT doing his job. There is a video of an Ohio cop screaming at a driver he has stopped and then threatening to “execute” him. Does the state of Illinois want to say with a straight face that it is a felony to record that? (In this case, the abusive cop was so stupid that he did it in front of his own car’s video camera.) That sounds like obstruction of justice to me, i.e. Illinois legally mandates obstruction of justice, destruction (or non-production) of evidence, and so on.
In any event, this leads to the need to know your right and duty as a juror to refuse to enforce laws like Illinois “eavesdropping” law. See http://www.fija.org.
Circulate the above as widely as possible.
The movie “Strange Days” underscores why a tiny minority of police and other officials might not want their activities recorded by bystanders.
This is not limited to Illinois, or courtrooms. People across the country have been charged with eavesdropping for recording police. One recently was found not guilty (the motorcycle cam). This is an abomination, and one more effect of the police state we live in.
Illinois is America’s East Berlin.
Nope.
Democratic Gov. Strickland suspended her (with pay) for two months and later accepted her resignation.
Strickland lost to Republican John Kasich in 2010.
good.
thanks.
Oh My GOD! Repent! The end is near! I am in agreement with the ACLU!!!!!
Don’t worry, it’s that stopped clock thing. :-)
....That’s right, ease up, you can go back into hate mode later... /sarc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.