Nekritz tries again
Wednesday, May 2, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Rep. Elaine Nekritz has revamped her bill to delete Illinois’ felony penalties for audio recording a police officer in the line of duty…
SB1808 is nearly identical to HB3944 except for one key aspect. The new bill requires state’s attorneys to consider charges if a person alters an audio recording of a law enforcement official in order to make it look like he or she is guilty of wrongdoing.
That could result in a charge of obstruction of justice or disorderly conduct , said Melinda Bentley, assistant director of legislative affairs for the Illinois State Bar Association.
Nekritz said the provision was added to address the concerns of law enforcement, but conceded she does not expect those groups to change their position. […]
At least two law enforcement groups, the Illinois State Police and the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, have said they oppose SB1808.
The new provision about penalties for altering recordings is a step in the right direction, said Laimutis Nargelenas, a lobbyist for IACP, but he said the bill is still unfair to law enforcement. He reiterated his support for one-party consent, in which only one person in a conversation would have to consent before being recorded. Nekritz opposes that idea.
One-party consent? So, if I’m ever (God forbid) recording, from a safe distance, a dastardly criminal shooting at a cop I’d have to first obtain permission from one of them? I suppose that’d be easier than following current law and getting permission from both, but, seriously, what the heck?
The natural reaction is to ask what they’re so afraid of. But I’m pretty sure it’s just the usual “This is our turf, so don’t mess with us” stuff we always see in Springfield from just about everybody.
* From the Illinois Press Association…
“There are already nine exemptions to the Eavesdropping Act that allow officers to record citizens without a warrant,” said Josh Sharp, government relations director of the Illinois Press Association, which supports the bill. “The score today is Police — 9, Citizens — 0.” […]
Stephen Franklin, president of the Chicago Headline Club, a chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, added, “Any effort that decriminalizes and removes a threat to journalists doing legitimate work is a benefit to all journalists in Illinois.” He said his group “has long opposed this [current] law, which is unique to Illinois and unhelpful in the gathering of information.”
Sharp noted that the current law hinders reporters from doing their jobs but also makes it impossible to use citizen-supplied recordings of suspected police abuse on their websites.
“You can have the recording in your hands and see what’s going on right in front of you, but you can’t share that with your audience? In the most free country on Earth? That’s hard to believe, but that’s the law in Illinois today.”
- wordslinger - Wednesday, May 2, 12 @ 10:14 am:
The coppers position is specious and untenable in the era of smart-phones.
- Only fair - Wednesday, May 2, 12 @ 10:15 am:
I’d like to change the law to require the state’s attorneys to consider charges if ANYBODY (especially the media) alters an audio recording of ANYBODY in order to make it look like he or she is guilty of wrongdoing.
Selective playback, omitting words, rigging tests, etc
Why should the cops get special protection?
- Irish - Wednesday, May 2, 12 @ 10:16 am:
I would think that the proliferation of other cameras everywhere would dilute the police’s argument that this infringes on their ability to do their job. If Rahm has his way there won’t be many places in the city of chicago that wouldn’t catch actions by police. How many times have we seen situations where police have gotten in trouble through their own car cams. And what about the cameras in private businesses like the one that caught the police officer beating on the bartender because she wouldn’t serve him? Camewras are out there, like it or not, so what is the big deal?
- mark walker - Wednesday, May 2, 12 @ 10:19 am:
The current law is an embarassment for Illinois. Nekritz is right.
- Shore - Wednesday, May 2, 12 @ 10:25 am:
where’s brubaker when you need him?
- Shore - Wednesday, May 2, 12 @ 10:25 am:
wrong post sorry
- Fed up - Wednesday, May 2, 12 @ 10:25 am:
Hmm no state bill to allow one party consent for filming politicans I see
- Just Observing - Wednesday, May 2, 12 @ 10:39 am:
Keeping fighting Elaine! The current law is ridiculous. There are many good police officers out there, but there are some bad apples too. A number of police officers throughout the country have been caught in illegal and/or unprofessional acts — a few months ago it was the Univ. of Cali - Davis police pepper spraying non-violent protesters, and just the other night it was Illinois State Police pressuring people pulled over non-violent offenses to come up with a gun, somewhere, someway in order to avoid charges. There is only one reason the police don’t want this proposed bill to pass — they don’t want to get caught doing the wrong thing — any other reason they give is complete BS.
- Leave a Light on George - Wednesday, May 2, 12 @ 10:46 am:
One party consent has been a goal of Illinois law enforcement for ever. It will put a lot more crooks in jail than it will harm cops going about their job.
- Ahoy - Wednesday, May 2, 12 @ 10:54 am:
–but he said the bill is still unfair to law enforcement.–
Although he never explains why, probably because he can’t. How is it fair that law enforcement is allowed to record citizens without their consent but not the other way around? If law enforcement wants to make another argument, fine, let’s hear it, but the fairness issue is completely off base.
- Coach - Wednesday, May 2, 12 @ 11:34 am:
Rich,
If I correctly understand one-party consent, you would be the consenting party in the scenario you described and therefore wouldn’t need the consent of either the criminal or cop.
At least in the context of a phone call, my understanding is one-party consent would allow one person to record without the other person’s consent (or even knowledge) because, by activating the recording, the first person is consenting.
Could be wrong on that, but that’s my understanding.
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations
- reformer - Wednesday, May 2, 12 @ 11:40 am:
Defending this felony is defending the indefensible. Let’s hope our General Assembly doesn’t wait until courts force them to do the right thing.
- Newsclown - Wednesday, May 2, 12 @ 12:38 pm:
Madigan killed the last one of these, and lost my respect. I would love to see the Governor and Lt. Governor use their bully pulpits to support Nekritz’s bill. The reason the law is the way it is now, is that a cowardly legislature was trying to avoid getting caught in bribery stings like Abscam and The Mirage, back in the day. - not by modifying criminal behavior, but by outlawing the means to uncover and reveal that criminal behavior.
To quote law enforcement’s own favorite line about using cameras:
“If you’re innocent, you have nothing to fear”.
We DO have something to fear, if law enforcement can operate without the oversight of the very people it is sworn to protect.
Fix the law, people, this is the 21st century, fer crying out loud.
- Anon III - Wednesday, May 2, 12 @ 12:40 pm:
Coach:” If I correctly understand one-party consent, you would be the consenting party in the scenario you described and therefore wouldn’t need the consent of either the criminal or cop.”
One-party consent by the government blows-away the Fourth Amendment.
You are correct, but the important point to consider is that the cop is the G. The bill of rights operates to limit the acts of government, not to limit the acts of citizens. If the G determines to record an otherwise private event, a warrant is required.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
- Allen Skillicorn - Wednesday, May 2, 12 @ 12:48 pm:
So citizens can be prosecuted for exposing inappropiate police behavior (most LEO’s are professional and have nothing to worry about), and Rahm can profit from cameras pointed at citizens throughout the city. No hypocrisy here, move along…
- Leave a Light on George - Wednesday, May 2, 12 @ 1:40 pm:
=If the G determines to record an otherwise private event, a warrant is required.=
I can (almost) guarantee you that the fed’s did not have a warrant when they sent CS -1 to record his conversations with Rep. Smith. CS-1 consented to himself being recorded and that’s all that is necessary.
Not to say that their aren’t lots of policies and procedural things an agency imposes before they allow their officers to reocord conversations.
Bugging offices, taping phones ect that’s a whole different deal because you no party consent in those cases.
- Bigtwich - Wednesday, May 2, 12 @ 1:49 pm:
other cameras everywhere
I believe the prohibition is on audio, not video.
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Wednesday, May 2, 12 @ 3:17 pm:
Time to repeal the law, period, and make it illegal to alter any tape, audio or video.
Today the law is only selectively enforced. In fact, the Chicago police just said so themselves about the NATO summit and demonstrations:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-28/news/ct-met-nato-eavesdropping-20120428_1_nato-summit-summit-protests-eavesdropping-law
If I was charged with taping, one of my defenses would be unequal enforcement of the law.
- Fed Up - Wednesday, May 2, 12 @ 6:25 pm:
HMM does the police dept get to deciede what laws to enforce or do the victims (ie individual officers) get to. While I agree it is a law that needs to be changed its not the job of the police department to just declare they will not enforce laws.