Illinois passes law making it a felony to Record police.

Search

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
25,611
Tokens
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
99,709
Tokens
This Country is beginning to be a Joke... well it has been lately

What's next ?? Killing someone for selling loose cigarettes ??

oh right, that happened already
 

Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2006
Messages
16,073
Tokens
Did anyone read the article? The law makes it illegal to record both police AND citizens. The difference is a higher penalty for recording police. This bill says nothing regarding FILMING police.


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/il...cord-police-media-silent/#FS4HlcpLkkWI2tu5.99


 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
25,611
Tokens
It's pretty ambiguous. If a cop sees you video taping, he can reasonably assume that it's recording the sound too, and threaten force, or arrest if you don't stop.
 

Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2006
Messages
16,073
Tokens
It's pretty ambiguous. If a cop sees you video taping, he can reasonably assume that it's recording the sound too, and threaten force, or arrest if you don't stop.

Wrong, it's not illegal to videotape the police. Even the Supreme Court has upheld the right to do so. The article makes the case that this new law could lead to not being able to film police.

I do agree that it can lead to a slippery slope, but my point was that Illinois didn't pass a law prohibiting the filming of police.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
25,611
Tokens
Wrong, it's not illegal to videotape the police. Even the Supreme Court has upheld the right to do so. The article makes the case that this new law could lead to not being able to film police. The article is incorrect.

What if you video tape them with sound? The law states no recording police while in the performance of his or her official duty. If you are filming you are more than likely also recording the sound. And really what's the difference. Illinois did pass the law earlier as filming, and the supreme court did shut them down. Now it looks like they're trying to get around that decision with a little wording change, I'll bet this law gets shut down by the supreme court too. The wording should be recording private conversations, and thats not the wording of the law.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
25,611
Tokens
Plus if you're close enough to video tape, the cop could assume you are close enough to eaves drop and hear the conversation, which is also against the law under this bill. It's pretty obvious what this bill is about.

(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 <del style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: HelveticaNeue-Light, 'Helvetica Neue Light', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; line-height: 19px;">between</del> 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 <del style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: HelveticaNeue-Light, 'Helvetica Neue Light', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; line-height: 19px;">1 felony.</del>
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/il...cord-police-media-silent/#rvIQq7uUGsof0xGi.99
 

Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2006
Messages
16,073
Tokens
What if you video tape them with sound? The law states no recording police while in the performance of his or her official duty. If you are filming you are more than likely also recording the sound. And really what's the difference. Illinois did pass the law earlier as filming, and the supreme court did shut them down. Now it looks like they're trying to get around that decision with a little wording change, I'll bet this law gets shut down by the supreme court too. The wording should be recording private conversations, and thats not the wording of the law.

To me, filming is filming. The law passed doesn't make a distinction in the scenarios you described. It just describes audio recordings. Like I said though, it could be a slippery slope with this new law. I'm sure someone will be arrested and charged, will be found guilty, and then the case will work it's way through the appeals process.

As far as arresting for filming, a person still can't interfere with a crime scene or any other police related investigation. Who decides what exactly that is? I'm guessing either the DA or a jury. Like we say, you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
25,611
Tokens
Could a mod change the title from film, to record, to make it factual. (even though they're basically the same thing) Thanks.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,773
Tokens
unlawfully recording

you can still record, you just can't do it unlawfully.

only thing this does is change the classification of current law.

look up what a lawful recording is in that state.


 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
25,611
Tokens
Very different in the eyes of the law.

So if I secretly film a judge while he is in his chambers I wouldn't be guilty of this crime, because we have picture as well as sound?

This law doesn't change what is an unlawful recording for regular folks, but it does for the police, and I quote the new law, "while in the performance of his or her official duties" That would include public, which changes what is currently an unlawful recording. The supreme court has ruled that the police have no expectation of privacy in public. No way this law last because of that wording.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
25,611
Tokens
old story, was overturned long ago no?

Yes, a while back the same legislation tried to make filming police in public a felony and got shut down. What's new is they changed the wording around last night, to try to get around the supreme courts decision, and passed it. But it will eventually be overturned too.
 

Member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
39,461
Tokens
So if I secretly film a judge while he is in his chambers I wouldn't be guilty of this crime, because we have picture as well as sound?

This law doesn't change what is an unlawful recording for regular folks, but it does for the police, and I quote the new law, "while in the performance of his or her official duties" That would include public, which changes what is currently an unlawful recording. The supreme court has ruled that the police have no expectation of privacy in public. No way this law last because of that wording.

Filming a guy in private when he has a reasonable expectation of privacy and in public are very different things altogether.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,108,524
Messages
13,452,189
Members
99,417
Latest member
selectionpartners
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com