* Rep. Elaine Nekritz’s bill to repeal Illinois’ supremely goofy law making it a felony with a maximum 15 years in prison to record audio of an on-duty police officer could get a House floor vote today. Her bill came up short last time after opposition from the coppers. This federal appellate court ought to boost her bill’s chances…

In a blow to Illinois’ sweeping eavesdropping law, a federal appeals court on Tuesday blocked its enforcement in cases where someone is recording a police officer at work.

It was a victory for activists who had feared that using smartphones or video cameras to record police responding to demonstrations during this month’s NATO summit in Chicago could land protesters and bloggers behind bars for years. It’s also the most serious legal challenge to the measure — one of the strictest in the nation — and adds momentum to efforts by some state lawmakers to overhaul the legislation, whose constitutionality has been questioned. […]

“The Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit said in its opinion. “As applied to the facts alleged here, it likely violates the First Amendment’s free speech and free-press guarantees.”

The ruling stemmed from a 2010 lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union seeking to block Alvarez from prosecuting ACLU staff for recording police officers performing their duties in public places, one of the group’s long-standing monitoring missions.

Chicago has already decreed that it won’t arrest people for violating the law during the NATO summit. It’s an unfair, unworkable, unconstitutional statute and the strong opposition by law enforcement to this proposal has no basis in reality.

* It’s tough to pass any legislation that’s opposed by law enforcement agencies, including prosecutors. Videotaping interrogations was going to break the process, according to law enforcement, and state legislation very nearly didn’t pass. But have you heard of any real problems since that requirement became law nine years ago?

Prosecutors recently stopped a proposed constitutional amendment guaranteeing that crime victims can exercise the rights already afforded to them in the state Constitution…

The constitutional amendment would have changed the role of victims in the legal process. But uncertainty over how that role would affect a prosecutor’s ability to go after criminals helped sink the bill just days before Sunday’s deadline to put it on the ballot.

Victims’ rights are often a bipartisan rallying cry at the Statehouse. When the amendment first passed the House in February, only two Democrats voted against it. Changes were made in the Senate, but 55 senators still voted for it.

The amendment, HJRCA29, seemed on track to clear the House again until Wednesday, when it met a buzz saw of opposition from both defense attorneys and prosecutors. The lobbying effort by the Illinois State Bar, Illinois state’s attorneys and Illinois public defenders associations forced lawmakers in the House Judiciary Committee on Criminal Law to reconsider their position.

“This, in my mind, has thrown a very interesting dynamic into something that early on was very easy to get behind and strongly support,” said Rep. Jim Sacia, R-Pecatonica. “This opposition has greatly convoluted that.”

* From the Illinois Constitution…

SECTION 8.1. CRIME VICTIM’S RIGHTS.

(a) Crime victims, as defined by law, shall have the following rights as provided by law:
(1) The right to be treated with fairness and respect for their dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice process.
(2) The right to notification of court proceedings.
(3) The right to communicate with the prosecution.
(4) The right to make a statement to the court at sentencing.
(5) The right to information about the conviction, sentence, imprisonment, and release of the accused.
(6) The right to timely disposition of the case following the arrest of the accused.
(7) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused throughout the criminal justice process.
(8) The right to be present at the trial and all other court proceedings on the same basis as the accused, unless the victim is to testify and the court determines that the victim’s testimony would be materially affected if the victim hears other testimony at the trial.
(9) The right to have present at all court proceedings, subject to the rules of evidence, an advocate or other support person of the victim’s choice.
(10) The right to restitution.
(b) The General Assembly may provide by law for the enforcement of this Section.
(c) The General Assembly may provide for an assessment against convicted defendants to pay for crime victims’ rights.
(d) Nothing in this Section or in any law enacted under this Section shall be construed as creating a basis for vacating a conviction or a ground for appellate relief in any criminal case.

Victims already have some pretty broad rights here. But there is no actual enforcement mechanism if those constitutionally guaranteed rights are denied. And because the Constitution bars appellate relief, this really can’t be resolved through simple legislation.

The deadline for putting constitutional amendments on the ballot has passed. So the opposition won big. It would be nice, though, if the next time this comes around that there was a real effort by prosecutors to help come up with a solution. “Trust us, we know what’s best for them,” isn’t it.