Illinois Just Made it a Felony for Its Citizens to Record the Police

[RodeoX]

Well, I may just happen to be recording when I get stopped. 

[NewLiberty]

Well, I may just happen to be recording when I get stopped.  

In Illinois, your car (and camera/phone) just becomes forfeit-able as it is used in the commission of a felony crime and then the car can be sold by the police.  The profit of which sale goes to the police force, whether or not you were guilty of anything when they stopped you, and even if they didn't give you a ticket.  It is "legal" for them to do this after the passage of this law.
It is a bad law.

PROTIP: Don't use a smartphone with a bitcoin wallet on it to record the police in Illinois.

[Blazr]

So, if I happen to see a cop in Illinois raping someone:

I can not record them or I may be charged with a crime.
I can not stop them or they may shoot me because they felt threatened.

[spazzdla]

LOL, then I should become a cop in america, if i want to kill innocent ppl and stay unharmed. Good.

This is true... which is why power hungry people that get off abusing people want to be cops...

There are those that do it for good but alas many that do it for power.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

...Knowing that they are being recorded may encourage best behavior, whilst not knowing (until it appears posted anonymously somewhere) may not be as good for them.  It is a bad law.
The law makes it look like they have something to hide...

Astute. The government is forcing us towards anonymous systems, which will be worse for them in the end. It is analogous when they shutdown Napster then a P2P sharing systems sprouted. The government can't win against the hackers.

People can argue politics until they are blue in the face, but it is all irrelevant. Technology is relevant and the individual will become empowered to give the middle finger to the government and the banksters.

[BADecker]

Soon we will have private, untraceable drone cameras that record everything anyway.

[donseptico]

And people still walk around thinking freedom of speech is real... Sure say whatever you want except for this, this, this this and this. Oh and don't mention that.

In France among a few other countries it's illegal to deny the holacaust (in other words, you are not even allowed to think what you want anymore) and doing so can even give a jail sentence.

Au contraire... you're entitled to hold whatever opinion you like... what you can't do is go around proclaiming it in public.

France
The Gayssot Act was passed in France on July 13, 1990.  The Act criminalizes questioning the existence of crimes of humanity as defined in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, which was used at Nuremberg in 1945 to 1946 to convict Nazi leaders.   Robert Faurisson, an infamous Holocaust denier, challenged the Act but the Human Rights Commission upheld it as a necessary means to counter possible antisemitism.   

Law No. 90-615 to repress acts of racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia (1990)
Art 9. - As an amendment to Article 24 of the law of July 29, 1881 on the freedom of the press, article 24 (a) is as follows written: Art. 24 (a). - those who have disputed the existence of one or more crimes against humanity such as they are defined by Article 6 of the statute of the international tribunal military annexed in the agreement of London of August 8, 1945 and which were a carried out either by the members of an organization declared criminal pursuant to Article 9 of the aforementioned statute, or by a person found guilty such crimes by a French or international jurisdiction shall be punished by one month to one years imprisonment or a fine.

Art 13. - It is inserted, after article 48-1 of the law of July 29, 1881 on the freedom of the press, article 48-2 thus written: Art. 48-2. - publication or publicly expressed opinion encouraging those to whom it is addressed to pass a favorable moral judgment on one or more crimes against humanity and tending to justify these crimes (including collaboration) or vindicate their perpetrators shall be punished by one to five years imprisonment or a fine.

[donseptico]

As for the bill referenced in the OP...

It quite clearly states that it covers recording PRIVATE CONVERSATION between two or more parties where A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY exists.  To whit, simply recording the police going about their day to day business IN PUBLIC (where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy) would not be illegal.  Recording the private conversation between two offices, an officer and a suspect/member of the public would be (potentially).

[pattu1]

As for the bill referenced in the OP...

It quite clearly states that it covers recording PRIVATE CONVERSATION between two or more parties where A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY exists.  To whit, simply recording the police going about their day to day business IN PUBLIC (where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy) would not be illegal.  Recording the private conversation between two offices, an officer and a suspect/member of the public would be (potentially).

hmm... So a corrupt cop asking for a bribe in his office is off limits?

[MangoJ]

So, if I happen to see a cop in Illinois raping someone:

I can not record them or I may be charged with a crime.
I can not stop them or they may shoot me because they felt threatened.

That's correct.

[TECSHARE]

As for the bill referenced in the OP...

It quite clearly states that it covers recording PRIVATE CONVERSATION between two or more parties where A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY exists.  To whit, simply recording the police going about their day to day business IN PUBLIC (where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy) would not be illegal.  Recording the private conversation between two offices, an officer and a suspect/member of the public would be (potentially).

You obviously aren't an expert in law. Try reading the definition of "private conversation".

"(d)Private conversation

For the purposes of this Article,
"private  conversation" means any oral communication between
2 or more persons, whether in person or transmitted between the
parties by wire or other means, when one or more of the parties
intended the communication to be of a private nature under
circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation."

In short, all the cop has to say is he intended the conversation to be private, and that's it. The recording is illegal regardless of how actually public it is.

I also found this section interesting

"(Source: P.A. 91-357, eff. 7-29-99; 91-657, eff. 1-1-00.)
(720 ILCS 5/14-5) (from Ch. 38, par. 14-5)
Sec. 14-5. Evidence inadmissible.
Any evidence obtained in violation of this Article is not admissible
in any civil or criminal trial, or any administrative or legislative inquiry
or proceeding, nor in any grand jury proceedings; provided, however,
that so much of the contents of an alleged unlawfully intercepted,
overheard or recorded conversation as is clearly relevant, as
determined as a matter of law by the court in chambers, to the proof
of such allegation may be admitted into evidence in any criminal trial
or grand jury proceeding brought against any person charged with
violating any provision of this Article. Nothing in this Section bars
admission of evidence if all parties to the private conversation or
private electronic communication consent to admission of the evidence."

This section basically states that if the officer DOES decide the conversation as private, instantly any evidence collected in this manner is inadmissible in court. In the past in Illinois they abused laws intended to prevent wiretapping. The supreme court struck this practice down, so now they have modified the language of the bill to explicitly say what they were just interpreting and abusing before. In the past organizations dedicated to monitoring police will often simply disable audio on their devices. You can not catch a cop lying or contradicting themselves this way with words, but you can however still legally document police brutality for example IF THE AUDIO IS DISABLED.

[NewLiberty]

BUT WAIT - It gets weird.

Now in California, this happened?

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/11/oakland-protester-unmasked-as-undercover

"An undercover law enforcement officer attempted to infiltrate an anti-police brutality protest in Oakland, California, last night. But once his cover was blown, he drew his gun. A photographer snapped pictures of him pointing it directly at the camera."

Art imitates life imitates art.



I get that they are defending themselves against the guy on the ground (who allegedly hit one of the officers).
But why the gun pointed at the camera?

A Canon is not a cannon.

[donseptico]

As for the bill referenced in the OP...

It quite clearly states that it covers recording PRIVATE CONVERSATION between two or more parties where A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY exists.  To whit, simply recording the police going about their day to day business IN PUBLIC (where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy) would not be illegal.  Recording the private conversation between two offices, an officer and a suspect/member of the public would be (potentially).

You obviously aren't an expert in law. Try reading the definition of "private conversation".

"(d)Private conversation

For the purposes of this Article,
"private  conversation" means any oral communication between
2 or more persons, whether in person or transmitted between the
parties by wire or other means, when one or more of the parties
intended the communication to be of a private nature under
circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation."

In short, all the cop has to say is he intended the conversation to be private, and that's it. The recording is illegal regardless of how actually public it is.

I did read, and indeed cited, parts of the definition of 'private conversation'... you sir seem to fail at English comprehension.  The cop could claim he 'intended the conversation' to be private as much as he likes, if it's not under 'circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation' he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

e.g. You record a cop screaming at a fleeing person at the top of his voice - no problem
e.g. You record the same cop's DISCUSSION once he's arrested/arresting the same person and speaking directly to them, you're potentially in trouble.

NB it would, ultimately, be up to a court to decide whether or not the circumstances gave rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The second section does, indeed, state that IF (and only if) the conversation recorded was deemed to be private and recorded illegally (as above, a conversation isn't automatically private just because one or the other party stated that they intended it to be) any such recording would be inadmissible (fruit of the poison tree) however, as I implied, and you stated outright, recording actions (as opposed to conversation/discussion) in public would bypass this entirely (and if you were close enough to record you could actually testify as to what, if anything, you overheard).

[pr0d1gy]

Wonder if anyone will find a loophole or something... Since it's for Citizens, maybe someone makes an organization or something not defined as a "Citizen" to do this? I'm not that legal savvy, but just thinking out loud. This stuff sucks, if this spreads... smh...

[TECSHARE]

As for the bill referenced in the OP...

It quite clearly states that it covers recording PRIVATE CONVERSATION between two or more parties where A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY exists.  To whit, simply recording the police going about their day to day business IN PUBLIC (where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy) would not be illegal.  Recording the private conversation between two offices, an officer and a suspect/member of the public would be (potentially).

You obviously aren't an expert in law. Try reading the definition of "private conversation".

"(d)Private conversation

For the purposes of this Article,
"private  conversation" means any oral communication between
2 or more persons, whether in person or transmitted between the
parties by wire or other means, when one or more of the parties
intended the communication to be of a private nature under
circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation."

In short, all the cop has to say is he intended the conversation to be private, and that's it. The recording is illegal regardless of how actually public it is.

I did read, and indeed cited, parts of the definition of 'private conversation'... you sir seem to fail at English comprehension.  The cop could claim he 'intended the conversation' to be private as much as he likes, if it's not under 'circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation' he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

e.g. You record a cop screaming at a fleeing person at the top of his voice - no problem
e.g. You record the same cop's DISCUSSION once he's arrested/arresting the same person and speaking directly to them, you're potentially in trouble.

NB it would, ultimately, be up to a court to decide whether or not the circumstances gave rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The second section does, indeed, state that IF (and only if) the conversation recorded was deemed to be private and recorded illegally (as above, a conversation isn't automatically private just because one or the other party stated that they intended it to be) any such recording would be inadmissible (fruit of the poison tree) however, as I implied, and you stated outright, recording actions (as opposed to conversation/discussion) in public would bypass this entirely (and if you were close enough to record you could actually testify as to what, if anything, you overheard).

 Actually you  didn't "cite" parts of the "private conversation" definition, you INTERPRETED IT. If you know anything about law you would know words ONLY MEAN what they say they mean in the definition. If they defined "private conversation"  as talking to a stadium full of people, talking to a stadium full of people would now be "private". Your standard understanding of the definitions of the words are MEANINGLESS UNLESS DEFINED, and they are defined, exactly how I quoted, not how you INTERPRETED it.

The law clearly states

"when one or more of the parties intended the communication to be of a private nature under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation."

All a cop has to do is SAY HE INTENDED for the conversation to be private, now law enforcement gets to pick and choose which evidence is admissible. The part that says "under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation." is COMPLETELY OPEN TO INTERPRETATION by law enforcement and prosecutors. Any time there is a law regarding police that states something should have to be "reasonable" it is ABUSED HEAVILY, because for something to be "reasonable" you only have to again create another idea in your head to fabricate a REASON for your expectation of privacy.

Being out in public WOULD NOT bypass this law at all, and I know this for a fact. You know how I know this? Because they were enforcing a previous version of this law intended to stop illegal wiretapping, against people filming IN PUBLIC in order to charge them with felonies. The supreme court struck this practice down, now in order to regain this ability, they are modifying the law to explicitly give them the power to do so. You have far too much blind faith and trust in law enforcement who have no desire or obligation to help you, but only a mandate to CONSUME you and all that you own, because at the end of the day all they are, are armed revenue collection agents for their localities going into massive debt. Your well being doesn't factor into it anywhere.

[donseptico]

As you say, the law clearly states

"when one or more of the parties intended the communication to be of a private nature under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation."

The two parts required for something to be deemed private are;

'one or more of the parties intending it to be so' AND 'it taking place in circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation'.

The theoretical cop can not reply on the first part without also satisfying the second part of the same clause, as per my earlier examples.

You say "Being out in public WOULD NOT bypass this law at all, and I know this for a fact. You know how I know this? Because they were enforcing a previous version of this law intended to stop illegal wiretapping, against people filming IN PUBLIC in order to charge them with felonies. The supreme court struck this practice down, now in order to regain this ability, they are modifying the law to explicitly give them the power to do so. You have far too much blind faith and trust in law enforcement who have no desire or obligation to help you, but only a mandate to CONSUME you and all that you own, because at the end of the day all they are, are armed revenue collection agents for their localities going into massive debt. Your well being doesn't factor into it anywhere."

So they (the police?) 'enforced' the previous law (that was subsequently struck down) - and?  The police can arrest you (and try and make a case) on suspicion of pretty much anything... which is where you get your day in court, if it even goes that far, to make your case that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy and you therefore didn't break the law.  IF, and only if, the court interprets the 'reasonable expectation' element as absurdly as you obviously expect them to then I'll join you in righteous indignation over the implementation/outcome - until then I'll keep faith that a court, jury (and yes, possibly even the police) would 'do the right thing' (vis a vis determining 'reasonableness').

Side note: actually, I've had several good experiences with helpful police officers (and a couple of not so good experiences) - so am far from trusting them 'blindly' - although I do trust them, overall, to perform their jobs to the best of their abilities, etc - that may have something to do with them not being armed or revenue collection agents for the locality here (ok, so about 10% of our police are now armed - but that's irrelevant.)

[TECSHARE]

As you say, the law clearly states

"when one or more of the parties intended the communication to be of a private nature under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation."

The two parts required for something to be deemed private are;

'one or more of the parties intending it to be so' AND 'it taking place in circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation'.

The theoretical cop can not reply on the first part without also satisfying the second part of the same clause, as per my earlier examples.

You say "Being out in public WOULD NOT bypass this law at all, and I know this for a fact. You know how I know this? Because they were enforcing a previous version of this law intended to stop illegal wiretapping, against people filming IN PUBLIC in order to charge them with felonies. The supreme court struck this practice down, now in order to regain this ability, they are modifying the law to explicitly give them the power to do so. You have far too much blind faith and trust in law enforcement who have no desire or obligation to help you, but only a mandate to CONSUME you and all that you own, because at the end of the day all they are, are armed revenue collection agents for their localities going into massive debt. Your well being doesn't factor into it anywhere."

So they (the police?) 'enforced' the previous law (that was subsequently struck down) - and?  The police can arrest you (and try and make a case) on suspicion of pretty much anything... which is where you get your day in court, if it even goes that far, to make your case that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy and you therefore didn't break the law.  IF, and only if, the court interprets the 'reasonable expectation' element as absurdly as you obviously expect them to then I'll join you in righteous indignation over the implementation/outcome - until then I'll keep faith that a court, jury (and yes, possibly even the police) would 'do the right thing' (vis a vis determining 'reasonableness').

Side note: actually, I've had several good experiences with helpful police officers (and a couple of not so good experiences) - so am far from trusting them 'blindly' - although I do trust them, overall, to perform their jobs to the best of their abilities, etc - that may have something to do with them not being armed or revenue collection agents for the locality here (ok, so about 10% of our police are now armed - but that's irrelevant.)

You are right, I only live in this state. What would I know?

[malaimult]

As for the bill referenced in the OP...

It quite clearly states that it covers recording PRIVATE CONVERSATION between two or more parties where A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY exists.  To whit, simply recording the police going about their day to day business IN PUBLIC (where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy) would not be illegal.  Recording the private conversation between two offices, an officer and a suspect/member of the public would be (potentially).

You obviously aren't an expert in law. Try reading the definition of "private conversation".

"(d)Private conversation

For the purposes of this Article,
"private  conversation" means any oral communication between
2 or more persons, whether in person or transmitted between the
parties by wire or other means, when one or more of the parties
intended the communication to be of a private nature under
circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation."

In short, all the cop has to say is he intended the conversation to be private, and that's it. The recording is illegal regardless of how actually public it is.

I also found this section interesting

"(Source: P.A. 91-357, eff. 7-29-99; 91-657, eff. 1-1-00.)
(720 ILCS 5/14-5) (from Ch. 38, par. 14-5)
Sec. 14-5. Evidence inadmissible.
Any evidence obtained in violation of this Article is not admissible
in any civil or criminal trial, or any administrative or legislative inquiry
or proceeding, nor in any grand jury proceedings; provided, however,
that so much of the contents of an alleged unlawfully intercepted,
overheard or recorded conversation as is clearly relevant, as
determined as a matter of law by the court in chambers, to the proof
of such allegation may be admitted into evidence in any criminal trial
or grand jury proceeding brought against any person charged with
violating any provision of this Article. Nothing in this Section bars
admission of evidence if all parties to the private conversation or
private electronic communication consent to admission of the evidence."

This section basically states that if the officer DOES decide the conversation as private, instantly any evidence collected in this manner is inadmissible in court. In the past in Illinois they abused laws intended to prevent wiretapping. The supreme court struck this practice down, so now they have modified the language of the bill to explicitly say what they were just interpreting and abusing before. In the past organizations dedicated to monitoring police will often simply disable audio on their devices. You can not catch a cop lying or contradicting themselves this way with words, but you can however still legally document police brutality for example IF THE AUDIO IS DISABLED.

I am not sure about the part about evidence of "illegal" recording being inadmissible in court however the 7th court of appeals has declared IL's previous law banning the filming of police officers unconstitutional and in 2012 the supreme court declined to here an appeal by the state of IL.

I don't think anything in the law has changed so that it would not be constitutional.

[NewLiberty]

As you say, the law clearly states

"when one or more of the parties intended the communication to be of a private nature under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation."

The two parts required for something to be deemed private are;

'one or more of the parties intending it to be so' AND 'it taking place in circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation'.

The theoretical cop can not reply on the first part without also satisfying the second part of the same clause, as per my earlier examples.

You say "Being out in public WOULD NOT bypass this law at all, and I know this for a fact. You know how I know this? Because they were enforcing a previous version of this law intended to stop illegal wiretapping, against people filming IN PUBLIC in order to charge them with felonies. The supreme court struck this practice down, now in order to regain this ability, they are modifying the law to explicitly give them the power to do so. You have far too much blind faith and trust in law enforcement who have no desire or obligation to help you, but only a mandate to CONSUME you and all that you own, because at the end of the day all they are, are armed revenue collection agents for their localities going into massive debt. Your well being doesn't factor into it anywhere."

So they (the police?) 'enforced' the previous law (that was subsequently struck down) - and?  The police can arrest you (and try and make a case) on suspicion of pretty much anything... which is where you get your day in court, if it even goes that far, to make your case that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy and you therefore didn't break the law.  IF, and only if, the court interprets the 'reasonable expectation' element as absurdly as you obviously expect them to then I'll join you in righteous indignation over the implementation/outcome - until then I'll keep faith that a court, jury (and yes, possibly even the police) would 'do the right thing' (vis a vis determining 'reasonableness').

Side note: actually, I've had several good experiences with helpful police officers (and a couple of not so good experiences) - so am far from trusting them 'blindly' - although I do trust them, overall, to perform their jobs to the best of their abilities, etc - that may have something to do with them not being armed or revenue collection agents for the locality here (ok, so about 10% of our police are now armed - but that's irrelevant.)

Courts are often completely insane.
You know they convicted Bernard von NotHaus of Counterfeiting because his pure silver medallions might be mistaken for the Nickle-Copper stuff the US Government makes?  So they confiscated millions of dollars of silver even though THEY LOOK NOTHING ALIKE.

Getting your day in court is not always what it is cracked up to be, especially when it is you against law enforcement and only a jury of your "peers" standing between you and a career ending felony.

[iCEBREAKER]

Courts are often completely insane.
You know they convicted Bernard von NotHaus of Counterfeiting because his pure silver medallions might be mistaken for the Nickle-Copper stuff the US Government makes?  So they confiscated millions of dollars of silver even though THEY LOOK NOTHING ALIKE.

Getting your day in court is not always what it is cracked up to be, especially when it is you against law enforcement and only a jury of your "peers" standing between you and a career ending felony.

BvN used the "$" symbol and even put the word "DOLLAR" on his coins.

You can't do that unless Congress says you may, via delegated authority.

The judge was pretty fair and kept him out of prison, much to the chagrin of the overreaching prosecutor thugs.

This Illinois recording law is being overblown with FUD.  It doesn't make it illegal to record where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.  If it did, the courts would shred it in no time.