* From the AP…
[The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois] objected to an expansion of the kinds of investigations in which police may eavesdrop without a warrant — at least initially. The bill allows police — with only permission from the state’s attorney — to surreptitiously record conversations for 24 hours when investigating such serious crimes as murder, the most heinous sexual assaults, kidnapping, human trafficking and others.
That, ACLU of Illinois spokesman Ed Yohnka said, is “the kind of unchecked police authority that we’ve always resisted in this country.” When citizens allow such intrusion, it’s typically been only after approval by an impartial judge.
Previous law allowed emergency eavesdropping in a hostage situation or undercover drug buy. The new exemptions don’t comprise a “danger situation” said Steve Clark, legislative liaison for the Cook County public defender’s office, who fears additional crimes will be added.
Nekritz acknowledged the eligible-crime expansion was a trade-off for eavesdropping protections, but prosecutors regard it similarly — they’d prefer so-called “one-party” overhear consent, like in federal law and 38 states.
“The best evidence of the crime itself … is that recording,” said Matt Jones, associate director of the State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor. “The defendants may have to defend what their actual words are, but they don’t have to defend against what a cop writes in his report.”
- Wordslinger - Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 11:28 am:
A states attorney signoff is no check on police power at all. Take it to a judge.
- x ace - Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 11:35 am:
Wordslinger right on target.
Judicial Approval imperative.
Cops pressure State’s Attorneys
Cops steer clear of Judges
- A guy... - Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 11:39 am:
There will be more aspects questioned legitimately. This one came out of the oven way too soon. Agree 1000% with Sling on this dog.
- Formerly Known As... - Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 11:54 am:
Dangerous.
This creates many different standards for police eavesdropping on your personal conversation, depending largely on who the state’s attorney is in your local area. What gets approved in your area as a ==reasonable request== may be laughed at as lacking in proof and blatantly unconstitutional just one or two counties over.
This also lacks oversight or follow-up examination as to whether the reasons given by the police officer to the state’s attorney for wanting to eavesdrop were even legitimate or reasonable. How many state’s attorneys have the time, manpower or resources necessary to go back and evaluate which police may be abusing the process?
In addition, the odds a state’s attorney would deny many of these requests by the local police, whom the SA works with closely and relies upon to do their own jobs, in the first place are extremely slim.
- Precinct Captain - Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 12:05 pm:
Cops: “We don’t need no stinkin’ judges!”
- Anonymous - Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 12:44 pm:
Hold it we want police cameras recording everything but we dont want police recording anything. pick one
- Newsclown - Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 12:44 pm:
Horrible bill and any re-do needs single person consent on behalf of the public recording police activity in public or in their own home or car. That’s still less than having the cops get easy permission to re-open their “red squads”.
- Dan Bureaucrat - Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 12:59 pm:
Moving any amount closer to unchecked prosecutorial power is probably not what the public wants right now.
- Anon - Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 1:21 pm:
Read the bill - the exemption requires the approving prosecutor to file the basis for his or her approval with the circuit court on the next business day, providing for immediate judicial review. The judge may then autonomously deny admission of the recording if the officer and prosecutor’s basis for use of the exemption falls short of reasonable cause to believe the suspect is committing one of the enumerated offenses. The admissibility is of course also subject to suppression on any other recognized evidentiary standard.
Put simply, this is far from “unchecked” police power. The court and defense attorney still provide the necessary check and balance upon the executive. Keep in mind that this is a narrow, particularly egregious class of offenses - murder, sex assault, kidnapping, human trafficking and gunrunning - and still one of the most tightly law enforcement exemptions of any state in the nation.
- fed up - Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 1:26 pm:
Anon, Did you just say “Read the bill - the exemption requires the approving prosecutor to file the basis for his or her approval with the circuit court on the next business day, providing for immediate judicial review.”
That is way too much work when you can just trust the ACLU
- Formerly Known As... - Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 1:59 pm:
== on the next business day ==
It is not the next business day after approval, but the next business after the eavesdropping has occurred and the State’s Attorneys permission has expired. The damage has already been done.
== The judge may then autonomously deny admission of the recording ==
This requires that the case go to trial. It also assumes the police will be 100% correct in identifying the private citizens to eavesdrop on without a warrant, and that those suspects will be prosecuted and go to trial.
This fails to protect people whom the police mistakenly identify as suspects, or to protect against police who may abuse the process.
- Formerly Known As... - Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 2:14 pm:
== The court and defense attorney still provide the necessary check and balance ==
Except for the many private citizens who may be eavesdropped upon without a warrant, never charged with or prosecuted for a crime, and never notified that the local police were monitoring and recording them for a day or so.
The police request to the State’s Attorney is ==subject to review by the Chief Judge or his or her designee as deemed appropriate by the court==. It is not an automatic thing or requirement of the bill. Our courts are already strained to the max on pared-down budgets. There is no way they can divert the money, people or resources necessary to investigate every single one of these requests to determine whether the request was ==legitimate== or whether certain police are abusing the system. Even the NSA had intel officers found to be abusing the system by monitoring girlfriends and others. This legislation practically begs for abuse of the system being put in place.
- Ghost - Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 2:46 pm:
This, no. One part consent, yes!
Keep in mind 2 party consent was passed in il when the ga heard they may have their alleged wrongdoings captured in one party consent scenarios; so they created this 2 party thing to cover themselves
- Anon - Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 4:12 pm:
Short of some good faith basis to justify a belief that the suspect is conversing about one of the serious felonies listed, the law enforcement officer would still commit eavesdropping. The new law still requires all party consent unless one of the exemptions applies, with Illinois as one of only a dozen states to do so. This specific exemption and its procedural safeguards did exist prior to the redraft of the eavesdropping statute, the list of crimes has simply been expanded. If local law enforcement officers wanted to abuse their plentiful budgets, time and resources to monitor their girlfriends as you describe, this law doesn’t change the tide very much.
- Formerly Known As... - Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 4:47 pm:
== this law doesn’t change the tide very much. ==
This most certainly does, in some very dangerous ways. The attempts to downplay this expansion as a casual, mundane occurrence misrepresent the nature of this expansion at best.
As for abuse of these newly expanded eavesdropping powers, it is irrational to believe that while abuses of such power occur at the highest levels of federal government by some of the most strictly screened and monitored professionals in the world, they would never happen here in Illinois. Indeed, this law is structured in a fashion that actually enables such abuse due to the lack of oversight and proactive supervision.
- Kissfreak - Monday, Dec 8, 14 @ 7:57 pm:
Indeed, this law is structured in a fashion that actually enables such abuse due to the lack of oversight and proactive supervision.
Nonsense. By your comments, I can tell you have never been involved in the actual system. As one who has conducted court ordered eavesdrops for over 20 years, Illinois is and will continue to be one of the most restrictive eavesdrop laws in the nation. The ISP audits the applications on a yearly basis, as well as each application is scruntinized by the Prosecutor’s office and the Court. The person that was the subject of the eavesdrop is notified via mail and the record of the entire ordeal eventually becomes public information. How much more transparency and accountability do you want?
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 1:48 am:
Kissfreak, you haven’t read this bill have you?
The old way of doing things are about to go the way of the dinosaur. These applications will no longer be subject to the same level of scrutiny, and neither the ISP nor the courts have the resources necessary to properly evaluate and monitor the new flood of requests about to come through the pipeline if this became law.
- Pacman - Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 6:19 am:
One party consent like the rest of the country