Replies

Here's your state law:

California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law

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.

Here's your state law:

I know what my state law is - I was commenting on the Illinois law. If it makes audio taping anyone without their consent a felony, as stated in the article, then a news crew taking film of a riot get signed releases from all of the participants or would have to run the film with no audio to avoid being guilty of a felony. The law as described in the article does not differentiate between private and public conversations.