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.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)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.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,843 posts)Monetarily as they are not likely to be voted out.