State
Rep. Tries Again On Legalizing Recording Of Police Officers
State Rep. Elaine Nekritz, D-17th, whose offices is in Des
Plaines, has introduced a bill that would make it legal for citizens to record
police officers performing their public duties in public places.
A similar bill (HB 3944) failed in March after police
organizations raised concerns that altered recordings might be used to file
administrative complaints against police officers.
Nekritz
said that issue has been addressed in Senate Bill 1808 with language directing
any audio recording that alleges wrongdoing by a police officer to the state’s
attorney for review if it has been intentionally altered to inaccurately
reflect the incident. Additionally, she noted that there are several existing
laws that could be used to prosecute the intentional misrepresentation of a
recording.
Illinois law already allows citizens to videotape in public
places, but audio recording without both parties’ consent is a class 1 felony.
“The law has not kept up with technology,” Nekritz said.
“The ubiquitous cell phone now puts everyone at risk of being a felon.”
There
have been several instances in Illinois where citizens were arrested for
recording police officers suspected of wrongdoing. In two of those cases,
including one in Cook County, the felony charge of recording was declared
unconstitutional. Yet, the threat of arrest still exists in Chicago.
Some police leaders have praised the bill as being useful in
proving the innocence of police officers. Others have said the bill should
allow more leeway for police to audio record citizens.
“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.”
He
added that the state can ill-afford the lawsuits likely to follow prosecutions
under Illinois' existing eavesdropping law. A recent case in Boston involved
Simon Glik, an attorney who will receive a $170,000 settlement from the city of
Boston, stemming from his 2007 arrest for recording police in a public park.
“What will that verdict be in Chicago where the law has
already been declared unconstitutional?” he said.
Nekritz expressed a need to preserve the privacy rights of citizens while
allowing them to help hold police officers accountable.
“Police can go get a warrant,” she said of law enforcement’s
needs for surveillance. “That’s why we have a constitution.”
She
added that “citizens are all for
this. Only law enforcement and their lobbyists think this is a bad deal.”
“The eavesdropping law should be a shield
and not a sword,” said
Jim Covington, director of legislative affairs for the Illinois State Bar
Association. He said it should provide “reasonable
protection of privacy” while
protecting the integrity of the First Amendment.
The American Civil Liberties Union expressed support for the
Nekritz bill. “It is not acceptable that people in Illinois, including ACLU
staff doing police oversight work, face prison time for using smart phones to
audiotape police engaged in public activity in public places,” said Mary Dixon,
legislative director for the ACLU.
“Any effort that
decriminalizes and removes a threat to journalists doing legitimate work is a
benefit to all journalists in Illinois,” added Stephen Franklin, president of
the Chicago Headline Club, a chapter of the Society of Professional
Journalists. 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.”