Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* The setup…

Back in 1965, lobbyists were secretly recorded talking about which legislators were on the take. […]

In the ‘60s, embarrassed lawmakers responded to the scandal by making it illegal to secretly tape conversations without a court order, Bill O”Connell, a retired statehouse reporter for Peoria Journal Star, recalls.

Illinois is one of only 12 states where in most circumstances everyone participating in a conversation must consent to being recorded.

A gubernatorial commission created in the wake of the Blagojevich scandal has an idea for reform: allow secret recordings.

The logic is that once you can clandestinely record without a court order informants would crop up throughout government to better document corruption.

State employees could better document illegal orders from bosses and business executives could demonstrate when they are being shaken down by politicians. Lobbyists could again be recorded talking about who in the Legislature is on the take.

* The Question: Do you support this change in state law? Explain fully, please.

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 8:45 am

Comments

It is kind of like a red light camera that is usually off, but can be turned on under certain circumstances. While there could be come possible abuse that we will need to work out, I believe that the original ban was created to protect the wrong people, instead of the citizens - so the law should be ended.

Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 8:53 am
Yes, it should be allowed- it just fits with the idea of transparency.
But perhaps it should be paired with concealed carry. You don’t want to be caught with a concealed mike and nothing to protect yourself with, no?

It’s something that most mp3 players and cell phones do as a feature, so it’s even easier today.

“State employees could better document illegal orders from bosses…”
Just make them express it in an email, for now…

Comment by Frank Sobotka Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 8:55 am
Yes.

if ony party present in the room consents to the recording, then it should be legal. Their is not any real expectation of privacy as to the person you are talking to. This law just requires us to rely on the imperfect memory of the person present and hope they can be attacked at a trial. If you have knowledg and consent of one person to the conversation that is sufficient.

Comment by Ghost Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 8:56 am
The first question would be who exactly can record who. The law should be directed towards public officials and not merely everyone. There are some who are paranoid about who being taped. I would say no, not unless there was a court order to do so.

Comment by Levois Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 8:57 am
Isn’t this governed by federal law?

Comment by Excessively rabid Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 8:57 am
Yes, as long as it is a public space.

The government’s position seems to be that there is no implied privacy in a public space. Red light camera, crime cameras, etc.

Internet usage in public spaces is monitored as well. It is part of terms of use. Don’t expect to use a state computer to view questionable materials.

Comment by Leroy Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 9:02 am
Wasn’t this an issue in the Bill Clinton mess? Linda Tripp recording Monica?

Comment by Jacksonville Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 9:03 am
Yes, for the time being, every citizen in IL needs every tool they can use to clean up the state.

This is merely another tool, and we ought to be allowed to use it.

Is there a risk of abuse? Probably, but nowhere near the abuse the citizens of Illinois have been subjected to nearly every member of the political class.

Comment by Bruno Behrend Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 9:03 am
Get a court order or have some way of making sure there is a real cause for taping. Do not want taping used in cases where personal, sensitive information would be recorded.

Let’s not turn into the old Soviet Union here.

Comment by Nearly Normal Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 9:05 am
You don’t need to be able to tape record to document. After questionable or borderline conversations, immediately write up an email to the person, documenting the conversation starting the memo with “per our conversation of today at time, it is my understanding you want xxxx done”. Do that enough times and the phone calls / conversations stop.

Comment by Don't Need Tape Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 9:07 am
Agree with allowing secret recordings. In fact, I encourage secret recordings of all elected officials, lobbyists, PACs, and anyone doing business with any form of government…. as often as possible. I’ll even chip in to help pay for them!

Comment by Justice Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 9:10 am
‘In Soviet Russia, TAPE RECORDER conceals YOU!’

Comment by Frank Sobotka Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 9:18 am
I’m against it because I fear it would be a way for the police to use citizens to secretly tape targets without getting court authorization.

When I was a cops reporter there, Iowa was a state where secret recordings of one party by another party were admissible in court. Cops did not hesitate to wire up snitches or put taps on their phones without going in front a judge.

I like the oversight of a judge. I have nothing against cops, but they have enough power already.

In addition, it’s not a crimefighting panacea. I covered cases where such recordings by private citizens were tossed because the setup of authenticity and chain of evidence were too sloppy. If Joe Citizen secretly records me, my lawyer better have the stuff to get it tossed.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 9:18 am
I’m fine with it as long as it’s not in the bedroom.

Comment by Belle Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 9:24 am
Abosolutely yes. Illinois very restrictive taping laws apply to all criminal investigations not just public corruption cases. Wouldn’t it be nice for prosecutors in an arson or kidnapping, or drug distribution case to be able to play for the jury, the bad guy using his own words to incriminate his/herself?

Comment by Leave a light on George Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 9:25 am
Absolutely not. Talk about a policy ripe for abuse!

Comment by stones Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 9:26 am
Giving up our liberties and freedoms and protections from an overzealous police state and allowing yet more encroachment on our privacy and civil rights only brings us closer to the police state we are becoming.

Illinois should be a national role model for civil liberties and safeguarding privacy and saying “enough is enough” besides moving towards reforms of our campaign finance system.

we can go after the bad guys, without creating an East German Stasi network in Illinois of government informants.

Comment by illinois insider Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 9:36 am
Word, keep in mind under the current law the cops can still secretly get somone to record a conversation.

its just the person making the recording would be in violation of the state law.

I am aware of several cases where tape recordings of conversation demonstarted that a person wrongfully accused of criminal acts was able to establish their innocence of the underlying crime, only to be prosectued for the illegal recording.

When you talk to somone else, the infroamtuion is no longer private, you have shared it. If I have a conversation with VM, I can not keep VM from sharing what I said. That he can tape records it in place of writing donw notes later just goes to the accuracy of the infromation from VM. The illinois law just supports requiring us to rely upon imperfect recall in place of the truth.

Comment by Ghost Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 9:39 am
This would be fun, huh? People acted like they’ve never heard people talk the way blago did on the tape. Secretly recording would peove just how many people really do talk like this. Seems like an invasion of privacy, but who cares. The “lives ruined by taped conversations” train has already left the station. Lets make sure that everybody is tethered to the track so that their own recorded missteps could position their neck on the rail.

Comment by Anon Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 9:41 am
Yes - current Illinois law prohibits taping for ANY purposes, not just law enforcement, without everyone’s consent. So if law enforcement comes to visit you, you can’t tape them without their consent either. General rule - if you don’t want anybody to know it, don’t say it.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 9:41 am
–I am aware of several cases where tape recordings of conversation demonstarted that a person wrongfully accused of criminal acts was able to establish their innocence of the underlying crime, only to be prosectued for the illegal recording.–

In court? Certainly illegally taped conversations were not admissible.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 9:42 am
I support this.

To those who say it’s ripe for abuse, what sort of abuse?

Comment by lincoln street Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 9:42 am
No. There are enough rats in this business already. There is certainly no need to encourage them or recruit new ones with recorders.

Comment by Bill Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 9:45 am
Yes-Absolutely- Desperate times require desperate measures–And, for Illinois, it is an desperate time. Patrick Fitzgerald needs all of the help that he can get. We have placed this poor guy into an arena against a grizzly bear with only a squirt gun pistol for his weapon of defense.

This guy (Patrick Fitzgerald) will go down in the Illinois history book pretty much like Moses did in the Bible when Moses led his people to the chosen land. Maybe that is a little “over the top” but not by much.

Comment by Beowulf Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 9:46 am
I’d give this proposal a qualified yes. Qualified because I certainly can see the potential for abuse, so I would like to see some kind of safeguards added. Yes, because the corruption in IL govt is so rampant, we need additional methods to attack it.
Is is possible to simplify or streamline the court order process?
How about sun-setting this, making it valid for perhaps 5 years, then get a report from DAs and judges as to whether it had made a significant difference? The legislature would then have to vote to renew the law.
And what about the penalties for abuse? Are there appropriate penalties for anyone caught abusing this law? Similarly, are there protections for those “whistleblowers” that are harrassed if they record more conversations?

Comment by JLP Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 9:48 am
While it sounds great to use secret recordings to clean up government don’t forget that they can be used to record YOU. In or out of context.

Comment by stones Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 9:49 am
Bill, you don’t think public corruption or wrongdoing should be exposed? Would be interested to hear you explain that rationale!?!

Comment by Ulysses Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 9:49 am
–No. There are enough rats in this business already.–

What business is that, Bill?

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 9:49 am
Record - yes - but restrictions must be placed on the ownership and use of recordings. The contents of those tapes should be restricted to law enforcement, etc. Otherwise you will see a huge decline in trust between all the players in state government related to discussions on sensitive issues related to taxes or anything else.

You can’t say something that may be honest but politically embarrassing if you are worried about being recorded.

Comment by carbon deforestation Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 9:50 am
Sounds like Bill has something to hide wordslinger.

Comment by Ulysses Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 9:54 am
–Sounds like Bill has something to hide wordslinger.–

No, I’m sure he doesn’t. I was just yanking his chain.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 9:56 am
lol

Comment by Bill Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 10:00 am
No. Show cause or go home. This idea is rife with unintended consequences that could hurt innocent people.

Comment by Fan of the Game Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 10:02 am
Too many “public servants” have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted. Some sort of recording should be allowed as long as at least one party has agreed to the recordings.

The true rats are those who fail in their duties to the citizens.

Comment by Plutocrat03 Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 10:03 am
here, here Plutocrat03!

Comment by Ulysses Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 10:07 am
Since that law has passed, we have the proliferation of telephone answering machines, voice mails, cell phones with voice mails, cameras at intersections checking on “red light” violations, cameras mounted in “high crime areas,” cameras placed in every lobby of every large building, in small 7-11 type of stores, in large department stores, etc. etc. etc. You all get the idea.

And we are still worried about clandestine recording?

Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 10:08 am
If so-called rats will clean up some of this state’s corruption-record,record,record-your advisor was dead on,we have this law to further political theft

Comment by bugs Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 10:09 am
This idea sounds like something that could tie up the courts and line the pockets of lawyers for years to come.

Comment by Dan S, a Voter, Taxpayer and Cubs Fan Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 10:09 am
(tap, tap) Hey, is this thing on?

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 10:14 am
I was interviewed by a Dallas ABC affiliate about corruption in military recruiting. The station sent a crew to Chicago.

It was impossible to do an undercover sting in Illinois b/c of the two-party consent law.

Allowing clandestine recording would help expose corruption.

(I would favor continuing to require two-party consent for audio and video recordings of sexual nature. A relative was videotaped nude in a locker room and that’s not cool.)

Reading the comments there seems to be a bias toward recording public figures in public places.

I would also allow recording bosses who are compelling the employees. Allowing surreptitious recordings would make sexual harassment more risky and what about employers who advocate doing something illegal or immoral b/c it’s profitable? Don’t we want whistleblowers in these situations to be able to record their bosses?

Comment by Carl Nyberg Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 10:14 am
–This guy (Patrick Fitzgerald) will go down in the Illinois history book pretty much like Moses did in the Bible when Moses led his people to the chosen land. Maybe that is a little “over the top” but not by much.–

If that’s the case, maybe anyone who’s worked for Blago or Cellini over the years would be wise to smear some ram’s blood over their doorways.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 10:16 am
wordslinger’s concern can be addressed. Police can’t request someone record a third party without a court order.

Comment by Carl Nyberg Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 10:21 am
I have no problem with a twin standard: court order for law enforcement and “consent of 1 party” for a private citizen. When/if the recording is turned over to law enforcement, then a court order is needed to continue any such recordings. It WILL be abused, no doubt of that, but maybe a few officials will clean up their acts while they figure their way around the new standard/law.

Comment by Distant Observer Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 10:34 am
This idea is rife with unintended consequences that could hurt innocent people.

Every idea is rife with unintended consequences that could hurt innocent people. That is why we have lawyers and judges, and that is why we have courts. Over the centuries, we have worked these unintended consequences out when they hurt innocent people. So, regarding this particular issue, before evidence is gathered from this kind of a source, legal teams will be taking this kind of evidence into consideration, and weighing it just as they do with other evidence.

To somehow believe that this will open a door to innocents being railroaded for crimes they did not commit, take a look once again at what happens when the Feds go through the current process, record a sitting governor, collect mountains of information that can be used as evidence, and yet uses it only as a prop against the law-breaking governor.

Blogojevich’s case demonstrates the caution used with current procedures. That won’t change.

So, whatever the unintended consequences, well, we seem to be handling unintended consequences rather well right now. No problem.

Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 10:35 am
When you die, doesn’t St. Peter play a recording of all your misdeeds anyway? Even the really private stuff? Just before you get sentenced to purgatory, or worse. It’s hard to legislate that.

Comment by Captain Flume Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 10:38 am
I support opening up permission to record beyond the current status of only police. Put the technological power in everyone’s hands, not just the police and government. Especially when the police and government are full of crooks. I don’t buy the “abuse” fears when 38 states have open recording laws without noticeable problems.

Comment by Thomas Westgard Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 10:40 am
First of all, given our infamous political history, any politician who doesn’t assume he or she is always being recorded is a fool. That should be standard operating procedure regardless of this legislation.

Second of all, anybody want to join me in opening a new spa/sauna/gym/bathhouse in Springfield, close to the Capitol. We’ll make a fortune by renting sauna rooms for private meetings!

I’ve always had this sort of unpleasant visual image of City Hall staff meetings where everyone has his shirt off…

Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 10:42 am
the corruption problem in Illinois is bad, but i’m not nearly as concerned about that as i am about rape, murder, domestic violence, gangs, illegal gun sales, and heroin. any new tool that can assist law enforcment in fighting crime is fine by me.

Comment by Amy Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 10:49 am
Sure! If you are not a crook the worst they could get is a bad joke. Pending punishment is always a good deterent.

Comment by Middle of the Road Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 10:52 am
Aren’t there already whistle blower laws that would protect an individual doing the same stuff any how?

Comment by dan l Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 10:56 am
So, under this law if Local, State or Federal LE agents visit your home late night for a “talk” you could tape record the entire conversation/interview and have evidence one way or the other about what was said or “lying” to a federal agent? Wow. Will local LE try and prohibit recordings of their conversations? someone could record their own traffic stops? If so, pass it today.

Comment by Joe Wonderer Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 11:01 am
When some scumbag solicits normal people to commit a crime, they think, how can I help put this guy away.

When some scumbag solicits another scumbag, and for one reason or another he can’t get involved, he thinks, “Not this time, but your secret’s safe with me - I ain’t no rat.”

Just using the term ‘rat’ the way Bill did should be probable cause.

Comment by lincoln street Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 11:09 am
I can see/hear it now:

RAT PATROL (A Reality TV series based on non-consensual taping.)

Starring Captain Fitzgerald and Hauptmann Blago

Comment by Anon sequitor Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 11:10 am
Rich, perhaps another QOTD: set-up the formal whistleblower protections that exist under state law and any concerns about imperfect enforcement. The question: how should Illinois whistleblower laws be improved?

Comment by Carl Nyberg Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 11:21 am
Some of you folks are missing the point. In Illinois no one, including the police, can tape even with one party consent (except in some very limited circumstances with court approval and I believe the police have to notify the recorded party in 30 days from the event that they were recorded). That’s one reason the Fed’s are the only ones who can effectively clean up the mess in our backyard. To those worried about abuse, recall the testimoney at the impeachment trial from the FBI agent about all the internal hoops they jumped through before they received permission to tape Blago.

Comment by Leave a light on George Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 12:23 pm
An interesting element is that the fear of exposure is alive and well in legislators of today, not just those of the 1960s.

Just a few years ago the Illinois Supreme Court interpreted the then-existing eavsdropping statute to allow a person to secretly record a conversation to which he or she was a party. The Machine dominated legislature reacted by amending the statute to state quite clearly that such recordings were banned.

Comment by Bubs Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 12:40 pm
In Illinois no one, including the police, can tape even with one party consent (except in some very limited circumstances with court approval and I believe the police have to notify the recorded party in 30 days from the event that they were recorded).

I don’t understand this. Maybe I’m just too much of a web-enabled twenty something.

What’s stopping me from recording a conversation and putting it up on wikileaks or something? It doesn’t require a law change–in fact– you could just do it right now.

Comment by dan l Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 2:17 pm
===What’s stopping me from recording a conversation and putting it up on wikileaks or something?===

Without permission from all parties involved, you could be sued and possibly arrested.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 2:21 pm
Dan l,

Don’t do it. In Illinois you will have committed a felony! (Class 3 or 4 I think.)

Comment by Leave a light on George Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 2:30 pm
=== In court? Certainly illegally taped conversations were not admissible. ===

Actually this depends on who made the recording. If a private citizen made the recording it can, and usually is admissable so-long-as the recording is not attriubutable o govt action, i.e. person ws operating at the direction of the govt.

Comment by Ghost Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 2:51 pm
Rich, did you delete me on this?

Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 3:01 pm
Nope.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 3:16 pm
The law in Illinois is so bad that a few years ago African Americans in Champaign were videotaping interactions of African Americans with the police as they happened on the streets. The police officers asked the camera operators to shut off the cameras, and when they refused, they were arrested for violating this law. Does anyone remember this?

Comment by Anon Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 3:31 pm
Legal experts generally agree that Illinois’ eavesdropping statute is dreadful. See my articles in the December 2001 and May 2004 issues of the Illinois Bar Journal ( www.isba.org )which point out, among other things, that anyone who saves or prints out e-mails or chat transcripts is probably violating the statute–which can present real problems in bringing sexual predators to justice.

Comment by Helen W. Gunnarsson Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 3:34 pm
Steve I know sometimes people think faster then they can write.. appearnetly you have now extended the phenom to blogging…. creating an entire blog entry in thought and passing on to the next task before putting it down

Comment by Ghost Monday, Apr 6, 09 @ 3:35 pm
IL law is so restrictive requiring 2-party consent unless an officer safety issue or restrictive court order while Federal law is open & allows 1-party consent. In other words, if Att Gen Madigan or ISP was trying to do overhears on a corrupt governor, it couldn’t be done correctly under IL law. The way around it is to forward all info to the feds so they can do the correct overhear using federal law [which Fitz did].

IL overhear law benefits the criminal and hampers IL law enforcement.

Comment by North of I-80 Tuesday, Apr 7, 09 @ 12:59 am