Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Rochester

(838 posts)
Wed May 9, 2012, 11:15 AM May 2012

Court orders ban on enforcement of Illinois eavesdropping law

Source: Chicago Tribune

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the controversial Illinois law prohibiting people from making audio recordings of police officers in public "likely violates" the First Amendment and ordered that Cook County prosecutors be prevented from enforcing it.

...

The law makes it a felony to record audio of any conversation without the consent of all parties. It carries stiffer sentences — up to 15 years in prison — if a police officer is recorded without his or her knowledge, but it does not prevent people from recording silent video of police.

In its ruling, the appeals court said the law is "the broadest of its kind" in the country and "likely violates the First Amendment's free-speech and free-press guarantees."

The law "restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests," wrote Judge Diane S. Sykes, who was joined in the decision by Judge David F. Hamilton. Judge Richard A. Posner dissented.

...

Read more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-eavesdropping-court-ban-20120509,0,4770453.story



Score one for the good guys. Abuse of police powers becomes less likely when we peons can provide hard evidence of it in court if need be.
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Court orders ban on enforcement of Illinois eavesdropping law (Original Post) Rochester May 2012 OP
Illinois has alwas been a police state going back to the original Mayor Daley. xtraxritical May 2012 #1
If I'm not mistaken Nuclear Unicorn May 2012 #2
Here is the Actual Opinion happyslug May 2012 #3
K&R!!! n/t DeSwiss May 2012 #4
I would like lawmakers punished for passing stupid laws like these. LiberalFighter May 2012 #5

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
2. If I'm not mistaken
Wed May 9, 2012, 12:56 PM
May 2012

if a police officer is walking down the street and smells marijuana he is legally permitted to follow the scent and, if finding the source, affect an arrest without the need for obtaining a warrant. The logic behind this is, the smell and the officer both being in public places alleviates the expectation of privacy. As the recording and the police conversation were both carried-out in public what is the material difference?

If I may cite case precedence: Goose v Gander in the challenge to the Saucing Act of 1978.

LiberalFighter

(50,843 posts)
5. I would like lawmakers punished for passing stupid laws like these.
Wed May 9, 2012, 05:42 PM
May 2012

Monetarily as they are not likely to be voted out.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Court orders ban on enfor...