A freshly passed law is gaining Illinois some worldwide attention. The law known as SB1342 contains language about private eavesdropping (see below) and it is prompting blogs to take notice. Is the new law something to be concerned about? Is it aimed at protecting private conversations, or is the goal to protect police officers from the watchful eye of the iPhone?
If you’re curious whether pulling out your smartphone to record some video will land you in jail, then you’ll want to understand the distinction between private conversations and public ones. Beyond the excitable headlines, there is little in the bill to indicate that passerby cannot record police interactions in public.
The bill does make it a felony to record conversations with the police, and it carries a jail sentence of two to four years. But the conversations would have to be private, or “in-home,” and not the public recording of police officers like in the cases of Michael Brown and Eric Garner.
The American Civil Liberties Union has spoken up about the bill, but not regarding the concern over police recording, which “is largely misplaced.” Rather, the ACLU is concerned over the police eavesdropping on persons accused of a crime.
What does this mean for the Illinois citizen? Largely nothing. It means that people should educate themselves on bills passing in Springfield, and if someone is now afraid to take their phone out in public to record an egregious act, then that is an unfortunate result of misinformation.
Read the eavesdropping amendment here:
“Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Eavesdropping Article of the Criminal Code of 2012. Changes various definitions. Defines “surreptitious”. Provides that a person commits eavesdropping when he or she knowingly and intentionally: (1) uses an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner, for the purpose of overhearing, transmitting, or recording all or part of a private conversation to which he or she is not a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all the parties to the conversation; (2) uses an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner, for the purpose of transmitting or recording all or any part of any private conversation to which he or she is a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all of the parties to the private conversation; or (3) intercepts, records, or transcribes, in a surreptitious manner, any private electronic communication to which he or she is not a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all other parties to the private electronic communication. Prohibits the use or disclosure of any information which he or she knows or reasonably should know was obtained from a private conversation or private electronic communication in violation of the Eavesdropping Article, unless he or she does so with the consent of all of the parties. Provides exceptions. In the exemption from an eavesdropping violation that provides with prior request to and verbal approval of the State’s Attorney of the county in which the conversation is anticipated to occur, recording or listening with the aid of an eavesdropping device to a conversation in which a law enforcement officer, or any person acting at the direction of a law enforcement officer, is a party to the conversation and has consented to the conversation being intercepted or recorded in the course of an investigation of a qualified offense, removes verbal consent by the State’s Attorney and changes the sunset date of the exemption from January 1, 2015 to January 1, 2018. Provides that nothing in the evidence inadmissibility provision bars admission of evidence if all parties to the private conversation or private electronic communication consent to admission of the evidence. Provides that beginning March 1, 2015, each State’s Attorney shall annually submit a report to the General Assembly disclosing: (A) the number of requests for each qualified offense for approval under this exemption; and (B) the number of approvals for each qualified offense given by the State’s Attorney. Provides that the eavesdropping of an oral conversation or an electronic communication of 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 the Article or proper court order, is a Class 3 felony, and for a second or subsequent offenses, is a Class 2 felony (rather than a Class 1 felony). Adds a severability provision. Effective immediately.” SB1342, passed both houses on Dec. 4, 2014
Will this law prevent you from using your recording device to record police officers in public? Comment below.
