PDA

View Full Version : Illinois: FILMING COPS / Public Officials Now Class 3 FELONY




presence
12-16-2014, 07:33 PM
It’s Now Illegal In Illinois To Film Cops (http://www.prisonplanet.com/its-now-illegal-in-illinois-to-film-cops.html)


Or any government officials, for that matter

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
December 10, 2014
http://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/cop-phone.jpg


An amendment to a Senate bill in Illinois has been overwhelmingly passed to ensure that recording police officers and government officials is now a felony.


The Amendment to Senate Bill 1342 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/98/SB/PDF/09800SB1342ham006.pdf) was stealthily introduced on the back of an unrelated piece of legislation last week. It essentially reestablishes a completely unconstitutional eavesdropping law that was previously overturned by The Supreme Court (http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/20/illinois-supreme-court-unanimously-overt) in March for being too draconian.


The amendment has stripped away safeguards to free speech rights from the original legislation and instituted a blanket ban on recording officials in public. It was passed by both the Illinois House and the Senate, with huge majorities, within two days of it’s introduction.


A post at watchdog website IllinoisPolicy.org (http://thefreethoughtproject.com/illinois-felony-citizens-record-police-media-silent/)notes that the bill is designed to prevent people from documenting interactions with cops on their cell phones by making it a class 3 felony to “eavesdrop” on city and state officials including police officers, police, an attorney general, an assistant attorney general, a state’s attorney, an assistant state’s attorney or a judge.


The new amendment legislates it way around the ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy) standard in law by refraining from defining it, and merely states that recording any “oral communication between 2 or more persons” is now illegal.


A class 3 felony is punishable by a prison sentence of two to four years. The bill also outlines that it is now a class 4 felony to record a private citizen in such circumstances. The crime is punishable by one to three years in prison.


The vaguely worded legislation states:



(a) Eavesdropping, for a first offense, is a Class 4 felony (from Ch. 38, par. 14-4) and, for a second or subsequent offense, is a Class 3 felony.

(b) The eavesdropping of an oral conversation or an electronic communication of any
law enforcement officer, State’s Attorney, Assistant State’s Attorney, the Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General, or a judge, while in the performance of his or her official duties, if not authorized by this Article or proper court order, is a Class 3 felony, and for a second or subsequent offenses, is a Class 2 felony
Jacob Huebert, Senior Attorney at Liberty Justice Center, notes “There’s only one apparent reason for imposing a higher penalty on people who record police in particular: to make people especially afraid to record police.”


Huebert also notes that the legislation could impact the widely proposed move to implement body cameras for all police officers


“Police may argue that using body cameras to record encounters with citizens outside of “public” places would violate the law, as citizens have not consented to being recorded.” he writes.


In it’s previous overturning of the bill, The Supreme Court justices noted that the eavesdropping ban


“criminalizes a wide range of innocent conduct,” including “the recording of conversations that cannot be deemed private: a loud argument on the street, a political debate on a college quad, yelling fans at an athletic event, or any conversation loud enough that the speakers should expect to be heard by others. None of these examples implicate privacy interests, yet the statute makes it a felony to audio record each one. Judged in terms of the legislative purpose of protecting conversational privacy, the statute’s scope is simply too broad.”

Activists are calling for citizens to pressure Illinois governor, Pat Quinn (email here (https://www2.illinois.gov/gov/Pages/ContacttheGovernor.aspx)) to veto the amendment.

aGameOfThrones
12-16-2014, 08:20 PM
If they have nothing to hide...

brushfire
12-16-2014, 08:44 PM
The amendment has stripped away safeguards to free speech rights from the original legislation and instituted a blanket ban on recording officials in public.


This bill is not law. I read the bill and it doesnt seem to change any case where police are in a public location (traffic stops, etc). The proposed law also leaves wording to the "illinois supreme court" to decide what is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" - precedent that has already been set.

The penalties are severe for cases where police are in a private place. This aspect of the bill seems typical of chicago-a$$fuks who are retaliating against having an injunction on their previous law. Very typical, but not what the article describes it as.

That POS quinn will probably vote this into law. I like the complete injunction better, but as law it would still permit recording of police in public.

Brian4Liberty
12-16-2014, 08:48 PM
"Some animals are more equal than others...The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

PaulConventionWV
12-16-2014, 08:48 PM
Holy shit they gonindunnit now!

If I lived there, this would be the point when I decided to get the hell out of Dodge... and fast!

Henry Rogue
12-16-2014, 09:11 PM
It's in the best interests of the public unions.

PRB
12-16-2014, 09:14 PM
uhhhh.....yay for state rights?

TheTexan
12-16-2014, 09:28 PM
“Police may argue that using body cameras to record encounters with citizens outside of “public” places would violate the law, as citizens have not consented to being recorded.” he writes.

Wouldn't being a citizen in of itself be considered implied consent? That's how the social contract works, right?

ClydeCoulter
12-16-2014, 09:40 PM
"What good for the goose is not necessarily...well, you can't get fooled again"

brushfire
12-16-2014, 10:34 PM
uhhhh.....yay for state rights?

So we in IL can now sue the federal government for allowing the NSA to break our wiretap laws? Is that what you're getting at? State's rights?

TheTexan
12-16-2014, 10:37 PM
Jacob Huebert, Senior Attorney at Liberty Justice Center, notes “There’s only one apparent reason for imposing a higher penalty on people who record police in particular: to make people especially afraid to record police.”

No, that's not necessarily true. There's also a safety benefit. Filming police officers is an inherently dangerous activity, particularly for the person holding the camera.

acptulsa
12-16-2014, 10:40 PM
What will the penalty be for using the word 'transparency' within the Illinois borders?

JK/SEA
12-16-2014, 10:44 PM
What will the penalty be for using the word 'transparency' within the Illinois borders?

which leads me to this question..

how long till we need a Passport to enter the Empire of Illinois?

brushfire
12-16-2014, 11:00 PM
which leads me to this question..

how long till we need a Passport to enter the Empire of Illinois?

I already use a passport for travel - no address.

Occam's Banana
12-17-2014, 12:06 AM
Wouldn't being a citizen in of itself be considered implied consent? That's how the social contract works, right?

You, sir, win a cookie - fresh from the ovens of Rousseau's Noble Savage Bakery & Confections ...


which leads me to this question..

how long till we need a Passport to enter the Empire of Illinois?

"To enter?" Seems more likely that should be "to leave."

Especially once that pension-addled budgetary time-bomb blows up in their faces ...

Christian Liberty
12-17-2014, 12:10 AM
No, that's not necessarily true. There's also a safety benefit. Filming police officers is an inherently dangerous activity, particularly for the person holding the camera.

Your trolling is getting old.

Suzanimal
12-17-2014, 12:12 AM
According to IllinoisPolicy.org, the bill discourages people from recording conversations with police by making unlawfully recording a conversation with police – or an attorney general, assistant attorney general, state’s attorney, assistant state’s attorney or judge – a class 3 felony, which carries a sentence of two to four years in prison. Meanwhile, the bill makes illegal recording of a private citizen a class 4 felony, which carries a lower sentencing range of one to three years in prison.
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/illinois-felony-citizens-record-police-media-silent/#BqceECroiKcb44yT.99

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Occam's Banana
12-17-2014, 12:38 AM
According to IllinoisPolicy.org, the bill discourages people from recording conversations with police by making unlawfully recording a conversation with police – or an attorney general, assistant attorney general, state’s attorney, assistant state’s attorney or judge – a class 3 felony, which carries a sentence of two to four years in prison. Meanwhile, the bill makes illegal recording of a private citizen a class 4 felony, which carries a lower sentencing range of one to three years in prison.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

http://i.imgur.com/FpHWpX4.png

PRB
12-17-2014, 02:47 AM
So we in IL can now sue the federal government for allowing the NSA to break our wiretap laws? Is that what you're getting at? State's rights?

no, you're thinking Texas.

BV2
12-17-2014, 02:50 AM
no, you're thinking Texas.

You need to give the tenth another perusal. Think dc mj referendum.

DamianTV
12-17-2014, 02:54 AM
Self Defense is ILLEGAL.

They can put a camera on your hose and record six months of footage in wait of catching someone doing something that should not be a crime to begin with. They can LIE in Court. They can LIE to obtain evidence. They will NOT be sent to Trial in the event that the Execution of a Mundane becomes necessary.

They should just come out and publicly declare that this is a fucking Police State, Incorporated and be done with it already.

Spikender
12-17-2014, 07:23 AM
Your trolling is getting old.

I quite enjoy it.

otherone
12-17-2014, 07:55 AM
No, that's not necessarily true. There's also a safety benefit. Filming police officers is an inherently dangerous activity, particularly for the person holding the camera.

It will also save taxpayers MILLIONS in lawsuit payouts.