Illinois Wiretapping Law Reaching A Boiling Point

September 30, 2011 @ 4:53PM

Illinois Wiretapping Law Reaching A Boiling Point

Topics
News

Illinois police officers have to be the most smug cops in the nation knowing they have the power to arrest citizens on felony charges for recording them in public while they themselves have every right to record citizens.

That smugness is very evident in the latest case to emerge from the Land of Lincoln.

Louis Frobe was pulled over last year by Lindenhurst police for speeding. Frobe didn’t think he was speeding so he pulled out his Flip camera to record the interaction.

Meanwhile, the officer who had pulled him over was recording the interaction with his own dash cam.

Here is the conversation recorded by the officer’s dash cam and obtained by ABC7 in Chicago.

Officer: "That recording?

Frobe : "Yes, Yes, I've been...

Officer: "Was it recording all of our conversation?

Frobe: "Yes. Officer: "Guess what? You were eavesdropping on our conversation. I did not give you permission to do so. Step out of the vehicle."

Louis Frobe was then cuffed and arrested for felony eavesdropping.

"I was terrified. I was absolutely terrified. I was begging him, I said I didn't know about this law. Would you please take the camera - this is no big deal - and smash it. You know I didn't know about the law,"

Frobe, who ended up spending the night in jail, was facing 15 years in prison.

Fortunately charges against him were dropped, even though he was technically breaking the law as absurd as that law is.

And he has since filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law.

And let’s not forget the ACLU is also challenging the constitutionality of the law. And let’s not forget an Illinois judge dismissed felony wiretapping charges against Michael Allison earlier this month.

However, prosecutors plan to appeal that decision, which should turn out to be one of the most laughable arguments in the history of law.

Comments

Tom Jannusch

7 months ago

"Sieg Heil" to Illinois cops!

Rob LaRosa

7 months ago

I hate Illinois Nazis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTT1qUswYL0#t=1m30s

Elliott

7 months ago

Hm, maybe I'll go across the river tonight into IL and get arrested... I could use a little extra $...

DrCos

7 months ago

You arrest me? I arrest you. I did not consent to being recorded by your dash cam.

Bergman

7 months ago

This. The Illinois law is a case of charging someone with a felony for eavesdropping on themselves in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy, AND the other party to the conversation is already recording it!

Phil

7 months ago

I think I'll stay away from Illinois 'till this law is set aside. Not that I planned on going anyway but there is a principal here.

Rusty Carr

7 months ago

I'm anxious to see how this "judicial energy" thing plays out!

crazyredwizard

7 months ago

I posted this before but it matches this case exactly.

Interestingly the exemption in the Illinois statute that allows for police dash cams doesn't seem to specify the recording of audio "simultaneously with the use of an in-car video camera recording" has to be the police car. Doesn't this leave open the option to start a video recording in your car if you are stopped?

"(h) Recordings made simultaneously with the use of an
in‑car video camera recording of an oral conversation between a uniformed peace officer, who has identified his or her office, and a person in the presence of the peace officer..."
(720 ILCS 5/14‑3)
http://1.usa.gov/jxYuGt

Warren Peace Ph...

7 months ago

"You were eavesdropping on our conversation"

How can you eavesdrop on your own conversation?

Warren Peace Ph...

7 months ago

Your honor, I'm afraid I'm guilty of recording myself without giving myself my own permission to do so.

Squinty

7 months ago

Illinois is a "two party consent" state wrt wiretapping. For a recording of a private conversation to be legal, both parties must consent to being recorded - the nonconsenting/unaware party has been "eavesdropped" on. Other states are one party consent states. The key word is private. Police on duty have no expectation of privacy while they fulfill a very public trust, so the law wrt wiretapping shouldn't apply to recording an arrest, and plenty of legal precedent says it doesn't.

Bergman

7 months ago

But the thing is, the police in Illinois are ALREADY recording the conversation! Their dashcams and body cameras are exempted from the eavesdropping law. But exempted or not, a recording IS being made whether a citizen is recording or not.

But given how often police records "mysteriously vanish" or are "accidentally deleted after the subpoena was served", a citizen's recording is an essential tool to making a defense against a criminal charge.

Squinty

7 months ago

Mr. Branch

7 months ago

I don't understand why he was recording in the first place. He doesn't think he was speeding but recording their conversation won't help him in court. Maybe this is a case of one of those people who thinks they are too good to get a ticket and the world revolves around them. So what you got a ticket, pay it and go on with your life, own up to your mistakes instead of always looking for an out. At least the officer was pleasant and respectful.

Clark

7 months ago

Not everyone who gets a ticket is actually guilty.

Squinty

7 months ago

Just maybe he really wasn't speeding. If I thought I was about to be charged with a crine I didn't commit, I would want to document as much of the encounter as I could. I think his motives for recording were pretty clear, and understandable. He feared false accusations and police abuse.

But it doesn't really matter why he was videotaping. He has a first amendment right to do so. Like other rights, it isn't necessary for anyone else to approve or understand how he exercises it. Attacking his character ("thinks the world revolves around him") doesn't change that fact.

Bergman

7 months ago

He doesn't think the world revolves around him. He thinks that US law revolves around the Constitution.

And he's right.

Kirth Gersen

7 months ago

Very occasionally I have reason to drive across Illinois. I don't like doing it. By filling up on either side of the state I'm able to get across without stopping and without spending a nickel. That has been my policy.

WayUpNorth

7 months ago

I figure that J****y L*w is working on Wall. St. That's why he's too busy to post any of his nonsense.

And by the way; Mr. Post Police...eat my shorts

Frank

7 months ago

Let's see, arrest under a law that is unconstitutional on it's face.

Isn't that kidnapping under color of authority? Isn't that potentially a death penalty offense? This shouldn't be a lawsuit except after the fact to collect damages from the executed pig's estate.

Rail Car Fan

7 months ago

I have said the following on this web site many times, but it seems to fall on Deaf ears!

"Some of the public is at the point (if it's not past that point already), where they're going to turn their backs on cops when the cops are asking them for their help.

I personally know of friends who've made it quite well known that they'd refuse to help a severely injured cop lying in the middle of the street.. and it's all because of the "Badge Bully" attitude of the Thin Blue Line.

I guess you can't blame them, can you..!!..?

Rail Car Fan

nigmalg

7 months ago

Since the officer was both audio and video recording without the subject's consent, I'm assuming there is a clear exception for police in the wiretapping law?

So let me get this straight...

The Illinois Legislature made a wiretapping law, which explicitly exempts law enforcement? I thought these arrests for "traffic stop wiretapping" were simply unintended consequences of a badly written, but innocent law made to protect civilians?

What the good is a wiretapping law that exempts the very industry most inclined to abuse privacy?