IL-Remember the man who was facing 75 years in prison for recording video of cops?

[Anti Federalist]

Still some justice in the world, even in Illinois.



Strict eavesdropping law ruled unconstitutional in Illinois case

September 16, 2011

http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=12153

An Illinois judge ruled the state’s eavesdropping law unconstitutional as applied to a man who faced up to to 75 years in prison for secretly recording his encounters with police officers and a judge.

“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,” the judge wrote in his decision dismissing the five counts of eavesdropping charges against defendant Michael Allison.

“Such action impedes the free flow of information concerning public officials and violates the First Amendment right to gather such information,” he wrote.

[AFPVet]

Wow... some constitutional judges still exist :)

[Kylie]

Holy shit. That's two for IL. Never woulda thunk it.

[hazek]

Awesome victory for freedom!

[asurfaholic]

Never woulda thunk it.

Lol

[Dr.3D]

I'll bet Michael Allison has to pay a ton of money anyway. I believe those who accuse should have to pay all fees incurred by the defendant.

You can also bet this isn't over yet. I'll bet the cops and the judge will try to get even in some other way.

[Working Poor]

I have known a lot of judges and for the most part i have found them to be very cool people.

[V4Vendetta]

Great News!!!!!!!!

[aGameOfThrones]

Holy shit. That's two for IL. Never woulda thunk it.

I'm starting to get scared. :toady:

[MJU1983]

Wow, something good out of IL... Good for them.

[libertybrewcity]

i don't think that means the law is off the books. I am sure people will still get arrested for it. This is just a circuit court judge, so another judge could make a different ruling.

[AFPVet]

i don't think that means the law is off the books. I am sure people will still get arrested for it. This is just a circuit court judge, so another judge could make a different ruling.

True... yet, it does set a precedent. Anytime a judge nullifies a law, it creates ripples across the pond (stare decisis).

[libertybrewcity]

True... yet, it does set a precedent. Anytime a judge nullifies a law, it creates ripples across the pond (stare decisis).

right on, it does set a precedent.

[guitarlifter]

Wow, and that came out of Illinois of all places. In my mind, Illinois has become very establishment in recent history, so this is a good (but maybe not big) step in protecting individual rights.

[james1906]

So, when will this judge's body be found in a dumpster?

[libertybrewcity]

Let me guess, they shot his dog?

[hillbilly123069]

They're not all corrupt. You notice how these laws have been pushed over the last few years hard. I wonder if the loss in campaign donations from entities such as ACORN dethroned over recordings has something to do with this.

[HOLLYWOOD]

So, obviously "The Statue To Protect Government" is Unconstitutional, so when does it become null and void?

BTW, who inserted this unconstitutional legislation? Be nice to put names to the 10 planks of Communism.

[phill4paul]

Great outcome! Thanks for keeping us updated AF.

[AGRP]

Don't know where I read it but, unless the camera itself is being used to:

Ease-drop (ie private phone conversations) or use it for things like being a peeping tom, then it's perfectly legal!

[John of Des Moines]

True... yet, it does set a precedent. Anytime a judge nullifies a law, it creates ripples across the pond (stare decisis).

Sorry, but stare decisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis) doesn't fit you example. This circuit court judge's opinion is considered persuasive on other courts but not binding. However other judges within that Circuit Court must follow the previous ruling. (I'll bet the issuing judge asked the opinions of the other circuit judges before issuing his/her opinion.)

Stare decisis "requires" that the ruling court and all courts under that court's jurisdiction follow and not overturn previous rulings. Thus, if the Federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issues a published ruling on the 4th Amendment all Federal Courts under and within the 7th Circuit (District, Bankruptcy, etc.) and the the state courts of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin must follow the 7th's ruling. But, the 7th's ruling is merely persuasive on Ohio, New York, etc. Federal and state courts and those courts are not obligated to follow it. This is one reason the U.S. Supreme Court will issue a Writ of Certiorari when there is a conflicting law between various Circuits. (For Example, if the 7th Circuit says it's okay for a city to demand a homeowner sign a contract granting government agents free access to the home in order to receive water service and another circuit finds that practice unconstitutional.)

[Anti Federalist]

Actually, I think AFPvet has it right.

This is a state judge in a state court, regarding a state law, that, if my reading is correct, is binding throughout the state.


Sorry, but stare decisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis) doesn't fit you example. This circuit court judge's opinion is considered persuasive on other courts but not binding. However other judges within that Circuit Court must follow the previous ruling. (I'll bet the issuing judge asked the opinions of the other circuit judges before issuing his/her opinion.)

Stare decisis "requires" that the ruling court and all courts under that court's jurisdiction follow and not overturn previous rulings. Thus, if the Federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issues a published ruling on the 4th Amendment all Federal Courts under and within the 7th Circuit (District, Bankruptcy, etc.) and the the state courts of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin must follow the 7th's ruling. But, the 7th's ruling is merely persuasive on Ohio, New York, etc. Federal and state courts and those courts are not obligated to follow it. This is one reason the U.S. Supreme Court will issue a Writ of Certiorari when there is a conflicting law between various Circuits. (For Example, if the 7th Circuit says it's okay for a city to demand a homeowner sign a contract granting government agents free access to the home in order to receive water service and another circuit finds that practice unconstitutional.)