Pixiq

The fourth amendment protects people Not places. If people talking have a reasonable expectation that there conversation is private. Then eavesdropping is illegal. I do not want the police using technology to record a private conversation that I believe is out of ear shot of others, that I am conducting on a park bench. I do not believe that I have a right to do the same to any other individual no matter what there job title. The purpose of the law was to protect individuals right to be secure there right to privacy. Even in public. The authorities in Illinois are abusing that power when no reasonable expectation of privacy exists. However, the law protecting my expectations of privacy should still stand.

Not so very long ago I listened to a recording of the arguments in the Illinois Supreme Court with respect to this law. One of the judges, who I'm told has no hesitation in both interrupting and pontificating from the bench as he sees fit chose an odd defense of the current law.

His point, which I cannot imagine any rational human being would make, was that if the law were to be struck down and declared unconstitutional it would be a benefit to various criminal gangs, as they could legally record their enemies and discern their plans, or protect themselves by recording suspected disloyal members.

Of course he never expressed any connection with the concept that if such a gang were already engaged in serious crimes, potentially capital crimes, they already have clearly demonstrated that the laws of the city-state-country mean nothing to them. It was painful to listen to this man expound on his theory, knowing that his perspective had such a weak foundation.

Let's hope this law is struck down, and soon. I've said this on many a blog, and perhaps a few times here, when I see the phrase "protect and serve" on the side of a police vehicle I know that what can perhaps protect *me* the most is a video & audio recording of any interaction I have with law enforcement.

There's more than one Derek Colling out there.

@Carlos, it is the eavesdropping law that illinois has.

@Harvey, the law as it was originally intended did not include the phrase - regardless if there is an expectation of privacy or not - It was added to it in response to a citizen who recorded the police was acquitted because there was no expectation of privacy. And it is a different degree felony I believe soley for recording the police. So the law as it is intended now was not for protecting the prvacy of citizens, but is now intended for proteting the police from being recorded.

http://www.chicagotalks.org/2012/01/30/illinois-eavesdropping-law-doesnt...

"Illinois’ eavesdropping law is one of the few in the nation that criminalizes audio recording of on the job police. The Illinois Eavesdropping Act has been on the books since 1961, with changes over time. The law classifies audio-recording a civilian without consent as a Class 4 felony, punishable by up to three years in prison for a first-time offense. A second offense is a Class 3 felony with a possible prison term of five years.

Further complicating matters, is that the law allows law-enforcement officials to legally record civilians in private or public, but citizens who audio-record a law-enforcement officer, state’s attorney, assistant state’s attorney, attorney general, assistant attorney general or judge in the performance of his or her duties are committing a Class 1 felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison."
-------------------------------------------
I think it was intended most for protecting the officers from public scrutiny. Otherwise, why the big difference in punishment for demanding your employees do what is right and lawful. They technically have no authority to create this law as they work for us. I don't get to go work at walmart and tell those who pay my wages to do a job for them that they can't record me or I get to punish them. Someone can't say, you can't record me, that way you can't see those who work for you stealing from you. That's not how it works. We pay them, they do what we say. Not the other way around.

Just one more reason I'd never move to Illinois. I also try to never visit that state.

Welcome to Illinois. You can't have a police state without The State Police.

I’ll amazed at the bias shown by Chicago Press in reporting cases about Illinois Eavesdropp­ing Law. In Cook County there were three Eavesdropp­ing Cases: People v. Moore, People v. Drew and People v. Melongo. In the first case, the jury acquitted the defendant. In the last two cases, there are pending motions to dismiss. However, the Chicago Press has completely ignored the Melongo’s case and focused all its attention on the Drew’s case. Melongo recorded conversati­ons with Pamela Taylor for an allegedly altered court transcript­. Mrs. Taylor is a public official working at the criminal located at 2600th California Ave. Melongo has spent 22 months in jail for this offense, is currently out on house arrest, yet the local press in all of its many articles, has completely ignored the Melongo’s case. Why? Maybe there’s a great bias in the press against police to the extend that it has turned a blind eye on the integrity of reporting the news. If it wants to report news related to the Eavesdropp­ing Law, then by all means, it should report ALL of it; I’m extremely shocked at what’s happening here.

Melongo’s Motion to dismiss: http://www­.scribd.co­m/doc/8109­6353/Amend­ed-Motion-­To-Dismiss­-Illinois-­Eavesdropp­ing-Case

State response’s to Melongo’s motion: http://www­.scribd.co­m/doc/8175­0317/State­-Response-­Amended-Mo­tion

Melongo’s arguments on her motion to dismiss will be heard on March 13th, 2012. The presiding judge is Goebel.

That’s what mean being impartial. Tell the ENTIRE story. Not just a snippet of it.