Eavesdropping Laws Mean That Turning On an Audio Recorder Could Send You to Prison

New York Times ^ | January22, 2011 | Don Terry

[lbryce]

Christopher Drew is a 60-year-old artist and teacher who wears a gray ponytail and lives on the North Side. Tiawanda Moore, 20, a former stripper, lives on the South Side and dreams of going back to school and starting a new life.

About the only thing these strangers have in common is the prospect that by spring, they could each be sent to prison for up to 15 years.

“That’s one step below attempted murder,” Mr. Drew said of their potential sentences.

The crime they are accused of is eavesdropping.

The authorities say that Mr. Drew and Ms. Moore audio-recorded their separate nonviolent encounters with Chicago police officers without the officers’ permission, a Class 1 felony in Illinois, which, along with Massachusetts and Oregon, has one of the country’s toughest, if rarely prosecuted, eavesdropping laws.

“Before they arrested me for it,” Ms. Moore said, “I didn’t even know there was a law about eavesdropping. I wasn’t trying to sue anybody. I just wanted somebody to know what had happened to me.”

Ms. Moore, whose trial is scheduled for Feb. 7 in Cook County Criminal Court, is accused of using her Blackberry to record two Internal Affairs investigators who spoke to her inside Police Headquarters while she filed a sexual harassment complaint last August against another police officer. Mr. Drew was charged with using a digital recorder to capture his Dec. 2, 2009, arrest for selling art without a permit on North State Street in the Loop. Mr. Drew said his trial date was April 4.

Both cases illustrate the increasingly busy and confusing intersection of technology and the law, public space and private.

[WayneS]

...and THAT’S a bad thing how?

[WayneS]

...and all that is not mandatory is forbidden.

[SoCal Pubbie]

If I understand the details of this story correctly, the incident took place on a public street, with an official conducting his duties as a public official, and in the course of those duties made an arrest, which would be placed in the public record. There is a generally accepted doctrine that there is no expectation of privacy in public places. This should not be considered a private conversation. Furthermore, the potential sentence is absurd even if you accept the validity of the law.

There was a recent story of an ex Chicago cop sentenced to 4 1/2 years in prison for along string of abuses in torturing suspects. There is a clear double standard when cops in the very same State can routinely get away for years of outrageous abuse of power, and the common citizen is powerless to document said abuses by these ridiculous laws. If you cannot see that then frankly I think you are on the wrong forum.

[Dead Corpse]

Mr. Drew was charged with using a digital recorder to capture his Dec. 2, 2009, arrest for selling art without a permit on North State Street in the Loop. Mr. Drew said his trial date was April 4.

Take it up with your beloved enforcers of arbitrary law.

[SeeSac]

I didn’t post that. You must have hit the wrong post.

[spodefly]

Mark Donahue, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said his organization “absolutely supports” the eavesdropping act as is and was relieved that the challenge had failed. Mr. Donahue added that allowing the audio recording of police officers while performing their duty “can affect how an officer does his job on the street.”

I bet it does, thug.

The only police affected by a citizen recording their activities are the ones doing something they shouldn't be doing.

[apoliticalone]

I visited MD on the way to DC and got one of them too. They call them photo speeding tickets. You get them weeks after the offense in the mail. You never even see them coming.

Seems that the locals all know about it. A friend just told me about this website. http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/ They say they will soon have a photo of you and your passenger. That could be quite embarrassing if your significant other opens the mail and sees someone you shouldn’t have as a passenger.

But that’s not an invasion of privacy for the serfs?

[redgolum]

Is this the same guy who said anti gang cops should not have their bank accounts studied?

[Dead Corpse]

You implied he was a t-shirt vendor. I quoted from the article. You might wanna read it.

[Graybeard58]

If you cannot see that then frankly I think you are on the wrong forum.

Do you know how tired that line is? How banal (look it up) How trite? How inane? Sophomoric? It tells me so much about your character.

[Graybeard58]

I'm not defending the damn'd law to begin with, merely showing that other states have similar laws concerning clandestine audio recordings

I could tell you, "reading comprehension is your friend" but I shy away from banalities.

[Elsie]

Selling art without a permit? WTF???

Your papers; please...

[Elsie]

“Make everyone criminals...”

[Emperor Palpatine]

I was always under the impression that these proscriptions only apply to the police.

Anything a private citizen drecords or discovers during a search is admissable.

I could be wrong though.

[SeeSac]

You implied he was a t-shirt vendor.

I didn't imply.

[Dead Corpse]

Art? These dudes are T-shirt vendors.

Whatever...

[Paladin2]

"But that’s not an invasion of privacy for the serfs?"

That's why they make and sell 0bama and Wookie masks.

[Utah Binger]

I think we are becoming Nazi Germany or the old Soviet Union.

[Graybeard58]

I apologize for my tone in my earlier replies to you and hope you accept it.

[longtermmemmory]

On duty or when acting in an official capacity no police officers should have an expectation of privacy. like the motorcyclist who was vindicated.