User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/9/2014 9:48:46 AM EDT
[#1]
They really snuck that one in without anyone knowing. I never heard of that bill.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2014 12:07:23 PM EDT
[#2]
Seems to me like if you're afraid of being recorded doing your job, you're not doing your job correctly to begin with.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2014 2:17:05 PM EDT
[#3]
What should be against the law is gutting a bill and replacing all the contents with something unrelated.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2014 7:24:09 PM EDT
[#4]
I've been drinking, and will withhold my true feelings...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2014 8:06:01 PM EDT
[#5]
IL Supreme court ruled existing ban on recording police unconstitutional. This is a replacement law. Don’t know if Quinn will sign it or not. It says cannot record police if they have a reasonable expectation of privacy – but the law does not define what that is. Do they have a reasonable expectation of privacy when stopping a citizen in public? Probably not. Questioning citizen in citizen’s home or not in public? Hmmm?
When talking to an informant? Leaves a lot of questions....Mostly goofy! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2014 8:36:08 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IL Supreme court ruled existing ban on recording police unconstitutional. This is a replacement law. Don’t know if Quinn will sign it or not. It says cannot record police if they have a reasonable expectation of privacy – but the law does not define what that is. Do they have a reasonable expectation of privacy when stopping a citizen in public? Probably not. Questioning citizen in citizen’s home or not in public? Hmmm? When talking to an informant? Leaves a lot of questions....Mostly goofy! Ok, who hacked SwanHunter's account? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2014 9:10:33 PM EDT
[#7]
I expect this one to be challenged like the previous law.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2014 10:39:35 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok, who hacked SwanHunter's account? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
IL Supreme court ruled existing ban on recording police unconstitutional. This is a replacement law. Don’t know if Quinn will sign it or not. It says cannot record police if they have a reasonable expectation of privacy – but the law does not define what that is. Do they have a reasonable expectation of privacy when stopping a citizen in public? Probably not. Questioning citizen in citizen’s home or not in public? Hmmm? When talking to an informant? Leaves a lot of questions....Mostly goofy! Ok, who hacked SwanHunter's account? I get that  ...Things are a little confusing with the Ferguson influence going on so not sure if Quinn will know for sure which is the correct wrong thing he should do! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2014 11:10:40 PM EDT
[#9]
can this countered by requesting any form of interaction with any IL LEO be subject to consent to recording first?
IF denied by LEO, can you plead the fifth? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2014 10:14:19 AM EDT
[#10]
Maybe you all ought to READ the bill before throwing the rope over the branch.
Snopes link Huff Post link No, Illinois Did Not Just Pass A Law Making It Illegal To Record Police Officers The previous law, deemed to be among the strictest in the nation, technically forbade any recording of anyone without consent from all parties involved. The new proposal draws a distinction between “private” conversations and those that “cannot be deemed private,” such as a loud argument on the street. The recording of private conversations, unless there is all-party consent or a warrant, remain prohibited under the bill. The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois fiercely fought the previous eavesdropping law, and worked with state lawmakers to craft its replacement. They offered a mixed review of the new proposal, saying the organization is pleased the new statute “generally protects our reasonable expectations of privacy in our conversations, phone calls, and electronic communications from unwanted recording or interception.” They also noted it protects the ability of civilians to record on-duty government officials and police officers “talking with the public as part of their jobs.” Quoted:
What should be against the law is gutting a bill and replacing all the contents with something unrelated. I wholeheartedly agree. Bill name in February 2013 when it was introduced was originally Juvenile Justice Mortality Review Team Act |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2014 10:57:24 AM EDT
[#11]
Read it? Ain't nobody got time for that!
After reading, it appears to be a little unclear. "According to the Illinois Policy Institute, “Under the new bill, a citizen could rarely be sure whether recording any given conversation without permission is legal. The bill would make it a felony to surreptitiously record any ‘private conversation,’ which it defines as any ‘oral communication between 2 or more persons,’ where at least one person involved had a ‘reasonable expectation’ of privacy.” Illinois Policy noted that the law does not clarify when someone should have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” and does not explain what qualifies as a “public encounter”. The new bill would classify unlawful recording of police, an attorney general, assistant attorney general, state’s attorney, assistant state’s attorney or a judge a Class 3 felony, which can result in a 2-4 year prison sentence. Unlawful recording of a citizen would be classified as a Class 4 felony, which could result in 1-3 years in prison. A felony conviction and subsequent prison sentence has the ability to deter people from recording encounters, especially if they are unsure when it is legal to record conversations." http://benswann.com/new-illinois-eavesdropping-law-distorts-ability-to-record-law-enforcement/ First time someone gets charged with a felony for recording this law will likely get ruled unconstitutional just like the old law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2014 11:42:23 AM EDT
[#12]
Sure they could "rarely be sure" unless they maybe....
read the law? so they could be sure what was legal or not. It's pretty fucking clear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2014 12:34:44 PM EDT
[#13]
in the law, it uses the word: "surreptitious"
1: done, made, or acquired by stealth : clandestine 2: acting or doing something clandestinely : stealthy <a surreptitious glance> — sur·rep·ti·tious·ly adverb so, if one is to have been recording before the interaction, and citizen announces that he/she is recording, then, citizen is no longer surreptitiously recording? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2014 12:47:29 PM EDT
[#14]
nope
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2014 9:53:24 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What should be against the law is gutting a bill and replacing all the contents with something unrelated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2014 11:46:27 AM EDT
[#16]
I got on Elaine nekritz's mailing list for calling her out on anti stuff. She sent out
an email that says Dear Friend,
Last week, the General Assembly passed SB1342, legislation that restored Illinois' long standing policy that no one in a private conversation can be recorded without their consent. This was necessary after the Illinois Supreme Court last March declared the state's law covering unauthorized recordings - known commonly as eavesdropping - unconstitutional. This legislation was the result of many years of work and debate between a wide variety of stakeholders. Since last week, there have been numerous inaccurate media reports that the legislation makes it a felony to record police officers while performing their duties in public. This is not true. I fully support the right of citizens to record public officials and agree with state and federal courts that have upheld the right of citizens to do so. My motivation in sponsoring this legislation was to help Illinoisans be confident that conversations they have and expect to be private remain so. I believe this bill accomplishes that. Below is a lengthy summary of SB1342. It's a complicated and sensitive issue that can't be summarized in just one or two paragraphs. I hope you'll read it, share it, and contact my office at 847-229-5499 or [email protected] with any questions. As always, thank you for the opportunity to serve you. Sincerely, Elaine |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2014 12:28:50 AM EDT
[#17]
K
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I got on Elaine nekritz's mailing list for calling her out on anti stuff. She sent out an email that says Quote HistoryQuoted:
I got on Elaine nekritz's mailing list for calling her out on anti stuff. She sent out an email that says Dear Friend,
Last week, the General Assembly passed SB1342, legislation that restored Illinois' long standing policy that no one in a private conversation can be recorded without their consent. This was necessary after the Illinois Supreme Court last March declared the state's law covering unauthorized recordings - known commonly as eavesdropping - unconstitutional. This legislation was the result of many years of work and debate between a wide variety of stakeholders. Since last week, there have been numerous inaccurate media reports that the legislation makes it a felony to record police officers while performing their duties in public. This is not true. I fully support the right of citizens to record public officials and agree with state and federal courts that have upheld the right of citizens to do so. My motivation in sponsoring this legislation was to help Illinoisans be confident that conversations they have and expect to be private remain so. I believe this bill accomplishes that. Below is a lengthy summary of SB1342. It's a complicated and sensitive issue that can't be summarized in just one or two paragraphs. I hope you'll read it, share it, and contact my office at 847-229-5499 or [email protected] with any questions. As always, thank you for the opportunity to serve you. Sincerely, Elaine Thanks for sharing whatever was below
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2014 12:08:25 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
K Thanks for sharing whatever was below
Quote HistoryQuoted:
K Thanks for sharing whatever was below
Sorry, was posting from my phone. Wasn't user friendly. Illinois Eavesdropping Law Background: In March 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down Illinois' eavesdropping law. The law prohibited people from using a device to hear or record oral conversations without the consent of all parties. It did not provide exceptions for recording conversations that weren't intended to be private (crowds yelling at a basketball game), recording conversations that were made in the open (a person standing with a video camera at a protest), or recordings of conversations in which the participants have no expectation of privacy (recording a child support hearing or a conversation between a police officer and group on a corner). The court held the law was an overbroad restriction on speech because innocent conduct was made criminal. SB1342 redefined what constitutes "eavesdropping." Under the bill, a person eavesdrops if they use a device to secretly record private conversations without consent of all participants. A conversation is considered private if one or more of the parties had a "reasonable expectation" that the conversation would be private. While the prior law prohibited all recordings without consent, SB1342 is very narrow and only prohibits recording conversations if both (i) the recording device is concealed and (ii) the person records a private conversation. Examples of conduct that would be considered criminal under SB1342: •Three people sitting in a car talking about things they do not like about their spouses. Two of the three believe the conversation is private. The third records the conversation using a tape recorder hidden in her purse. •Someone secretly places a recording device under a coffee table in a person's home and records a husband and wife discussing disciplining their children. Examples of conduct that would NOT be considered criminal under SB1342: •A person in a restaurant uses their iPhone to record a group of people singing happy birthday. •A father holding a video recorder at their child's baseball game records a conversation between two people sitting behind him. •A person with an iPhone in their pocket records a conversation between a police officer and a person being arrested at Walgreens. Recording Law Enforcement: There have been reports that the bill prohibits recording law enforcement while engaged in their duties. This is false and was not the intent of the bill. An on-duty police officer does not have an expectation of privacy, particularly when doing his job in public (i.e. pulling over cars, monitoring a protest, arresting someone in a public location). This was specifically discussed by the sponsors on the floor during debate and it was made clear that this bill permits people to record law enforcement while engaged in their duties, provided the conversation isn't private. Summary of SB1342 1) A person is considered an eavesdropper if he or she: (i) uses an eavesdropping device to secretly record a private conversation without the consent of the all parties. (ii) uses an eavesdropping device to secretly record electronic communications without the consent of all parties. (iii) discloses the content of a private conversation or private electronic communication without the consent of all parties. 2) Currently law enforcement may use an eavesdropping device to record conversations related to certain drug offenses with approval of a State's Attorney. The bill expands this exemption to allow law enforcement to record conversations related to certain forcible felonies with written or verbal approval of the State's Attorney. In all instances, the State's Attorney must file notification of the approval with the circuit's chief judge. Additionally, each State's Attorney must submit an annual report to the General Assembly detailing use of this exemption. 3) Reduces the penalties from a Class 1 felony to a Class 3 felony for eavesdropping on law enforcement, State's Attorneys, or judges performing their official duties. Note that the situations in which a person eavesdrops on a law enforcement officer performing their official duties are limited to private conversations that are secretly recorded. In other words, the type of conduct that would punishable includes planting a recording device in a State's Attorney's office or judge's chambers to record private conversations |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2014 10:54:31 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry, was posting from my phone. Wasn't user friendly. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
K Thanks for sharing whatever was below
Sorry, was posting from my phone. Wasn't user friendly. Illinois Eavesdropping Law Background: In March 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down Illinois' eavesdropping law. The law prohibited people from using a device to hear or record oral conversations without the consent of all parties. It did not provide exceptions for recording conversations that weren't intended to be private (crowds yelling at a basketball game), recording conversations that were made in the open (a person standing with a video camera at a protest), or recordings of conversations in which the participants have no expectation of privacy (recording a child support hearing or a conversation between a police officer and group on a corner). The court held the law was an overbroad restriction on speech because innocent conduct was made criminal. SB1342 redefined what constitutes "eavesdropping." Under the bill, a person eavesdrops if they use a device to secretly record private conversations without consent of all participants. A conversation is considered private if one or more of the parties had a "reasonable expectation" that the conversation would be private. While the prior law prohibited all recordings without consent, SB1342 is very narrow and only prohibits recording conversations if both (i) the recording device is concealed and (ii) the person records a private conversation. Examples of conduct that would be considered criminal under SB1342: •Three people sitting in a car talking about things they do not like about their spouses. Two of the three believe the conversation is private. The third records the conversation using a tape recorder hidden in her purse. •Someone secretly places a recording device under a coffee table in a person's home and records a husband and wife discussing disciplining their children. Examples of conduct that would NOT be considered criminal under SB1342: •A person in a restaurant uses their iPhone to record a group of people singing happy birthday. •A father holding a video recorder at their child's baseball game records a conversation between two people sitting behind him. •A person with an iPhone in their pocket records a conversation between a police officer and a person being arrested at Walgreens. Recording Law Enforcement: There have been reports that the bill prohibits recording law enforcement while engaged in their duties. This is false and was not the intent of the bill. An on-duty police officer does not have an expectation of privacy, particularly when doing his job in public (i.e. pulling over cars, monitoring a protest, arresting someone in a public location). This was specifically discussed by the sponsors on the floor during debate and it was made clear that this bill permits people to record law enforcement while engaged in their duties, provided the conversation isn't private. Summary of SB1342 1) A person is considered an eavesdropper if he or she: (i) uses an eavesdropping device to secretly record a private conversation without the consent of the all parties. (ii) uses an eavesdropping device to secretly record electronic communications without the consent of all parties. (iii) discloses the content of a private conversation or private electronic communication without the consent of all parties. 2) Currently law enforcement may use an eavesdropping device to record conversations related to certain drug offenses with approval of a State's Attorney. The bill expands this exemption to allow law enforcement to record conversations related to certain forcible felonies with written or verbal approval of the State's Attorney. In all instances, the State's Attorney must file notification of the approval with the circuit's chief judge. Additionally, each State's Attorney must submit an annual report to the General Assembly detailing use of this exemption. 3) Reduces the penalties from a Class 1 felony to a Class 3 felony for eavesdropping on law enforcement, State's Attorneys, or judges performing their official duties. Note that the situations in which a person eavesdrops on a law enforcement officer performing their official duties are limited to private conversations that are secretly recorded. In other words, the type of conduct that would punishable includes planting a recording device in a State's Attorney's office or judge's chambers to record private conversations I'm trying to digest this like a 6 year old. So the main word here is "secretly." So, if a person has "disclosed" that he is recording, then, it will should not be considered as recording "secretly." Question: Can an officer decline to be recorded? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 4:20:17 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm trying to digest this like a 6 year old. So the main word here is "secretly." So, if a person has "disclosed" that he is recording, then, it will should not be considered as recording "secretly." Question: Can an officer decline to be recorded? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
K Thanks for sharing whatever was below
Sorry, was posting from my phone. Wasn't user friendly. Illinois Eavesdropping Law Background: In March 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down Illinois' eavesdropping law. The law prohibited people from using a device to hear or record oral conversations without the consent of all parties. It did not provide exceptions for recording conversations that weren't intended to be private (crowds yelling at a basketball game), recording conversations that were made in the open (a person standing with a video camera at a protest), or recordings of conversations in which the participants have no expectation of privacy (recording a child support hearing or a conversation between a police officer and group on a corner). The court held the law was an overbroad restriction on speech because innocent conduct was made criminal. SB1342 redefined what constitutes "eavesdropping." Under the bill, a person eavesdrops if they use a device to secretly record private conversations without consent of all participants. A conversation is considered private if one or more of the parties had a "reasonable expectation" that the conversation would be private. While the prior law prohibited all recordings without consent, SB1342 is very narrow and only prohibits recording conversations if both (i) the recording device is concealed and (ii) the person records a private conversation. Examples of conduct that would be considered criminal under SB1342: •Three people sitting in a car talking about things they do not like about their spouses. Two of the three believe the conversation is private. The third records the conversation using a tape recorder hidden in her purse. •Someone secretly places a recording device under a coffee table in a person's home and records a husband and wife discussing disciplining their children. Examples of conduct that would NOT be considered criminal under SB1342: •A person in a restaurant uses their iPhone to record a group of people singing happy birthday. •A father holding a video recorder at their child's baseball game records a conversation between two people sitting behind him. •A person with an iPhone in their pocket records a conversation between a police officer and a person being arrested at Walgreens. Recording Law Enforcement: There have been reports that the bill prohibits recording law enforcement while engaged in their duties. This is false and was not the intent of the bill. An on-duty police officer does not have an expectation of privacy, particularly when doing his job in public (i.e. pulling over cars, monitoring a protest, arresting someone in a public location). This was specifically discussed by the sponsors on the floor during debate and it was made clear that this bill permits people to record law enforcement while engaged in their duties, provided the conversation isn't private. Summary of SB1342 1) A person is considered an eavesdropper if he or she: (i) uses an eavesdropping device to secretly record a private conversation without the consent of the all parties. (ii) uses an eavesdropping device to secretly record electronic communications without the consent of all parties. (iii) discloses the content of a private conversation or private electronic communication without the consent of all parties. 2) Currently law enforcement may use an eavesdropping device to record conversations related to certain drug offenses with approval of a State's Attorney. The bill expands this exemption to allow law enforcement to record conversations related to certain forcible felonies with written or verbal approval of the State's Attorney. In all instances, the State's Attorney must file notification of the approval with the circuit's chief judge. Additionally, each State's Attorney must submit an annual report to the General Assembly detailing use of this exemption. 3) Reduces the penalties from a Class 1 felony to a Class 3 felony for eavesdropping on law enforcement, State's Attorneys, or judges performing their official duties. Note that the situations in which a person eavesdrops on a law enforcement officer performing their official duties are limited to private conversations that are secretly recorded. In other words, the type of conduct that would punishable includes planting a recording device in a State's Attorney's office or judge's chambers to record private conversations I'm trying to digest this like a 6 year old. So the main word here is "secretly." So, if a person has "disclosed" that he is recording, then, it will should not be considered as recording "secretly." Question: Can an officer decline to be recorded? Outsider looking in, here... SCOTUS has made it clear: If it is outside, it is public. Sneaky & corrupt politicians pass laws for one of two reasons, or both; a) They are trying to trap non-lawyer/ politician/ LEO into not being able to have a freedom or b) Allow them to get away with something they don't want to get caught doing. If you don't want it heard or recorded have a private conversation inside, where it is considered private & not public. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2015 8:37:13 PM EDT
[#21]
Apparently there is some confusion.
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2015/01/illinois-cop-claims-now-illegal-record-cops-caught-sleeping-car/ |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
