Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Eavesdropping Charges

Felony charges? Guess it wasn't Cook County:
  • Two DeKalb brothers were indicted Monday on felony and misdemeanor eavesdropping charges for reportedly recording police officers on a November traffic stop.

    [...] While a DeKalb police officer was talking to the driver of the car, a second officer advised him that Fanon Parteet appeared to be recording him using a camera-equipped cell phone. When asked, Fanon Parteet said he was only recording people inside the car, police said. But when he played back the video, the arresting officer said he saw and heard himself on the recording.

    In Illinois, it is illegal to make a recording of an oral conversation without the consent of all parties. There are exceptions, including uniformed police officers using recording devices like squad car-mounted cameras in the course of their duties.
This law is supposed to cover convicted gangbangers who record traffic stops and then turn the tape over to WGN. As WGN aired an illegally recorded conversation, we wonder if they might be civilly liable for damages.

Labels:

52 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

lets not forget that this officer was taken off the street and on the desk due to this illegal recording. Thats right, J fed put another one of us in the dog house after another knee jerk conclusion and after an illegal recording was being taken.. So jody, why dont you return the officer back to the street and give him a spar and make him watch the video which is the punnishment for verbal abuse. you get a spar and watch the stupid ass video..ive seen it several times. Instead of doing that, j fed takes him off the street.. where is the outrage on that???

3/24/2010 12:07:00 AM  
Blogger Crimefile said...

Dekalb County States Attorney just made a mess. They did not research the law before they sought an indictment.

Ouch!!!!

Statute prohibits recording a telephone conversation without the consent of "all parties to [the] conversation." But, Illinois courts have found that the recording of a conversation by a party to the conversation is not a violation of the statute even if another party to the conversation is unaware of the recording. People v. Jansen, 561 N.E.2d 312, 314 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990).

3/24/2010 12:28:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sue away, Wgn, mark suppelsa, Lourdes duarte, Micah matteah and any producer who thought this was a legitimate news story that needed to be the opening story on there newscast.

3/24/2010 12:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The law might not stand up to constitutional scrutiny or as Da Mare might say "it will get scrootened" by da State Supreme Court.

Like Blago it will get its day in court.

3/24/2010 12:32:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sue the shit outta them!!!!! Name the reporter, producer all of those bums!

3/24/2010 12:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the officer in the wgn recording was heard on the tape acknowledging he was being recorded...nothing illegal about that.

3/24/2010 01:33:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In chicago crook county laws do not apply to the bad guys. This place has a whole different set of laws. The city and dept. brass could care less what happens to its police officers.

3/24/2010 01:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just playing devils advocate, wouldn't taking this guys or anyones phone and looking for evidence of eavesdropping without a warrant be illegal as well?

3/24/2010 03:52:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm afraid I'd subscribe to the sensible libertarian position that I'm free to record whatever happens in my own home or my own car, especially when a public official is involved.

3/24/2010 03:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm afraid I'd subscribe to the sensible libertarian position that I'm free to record whatever happens in my own home or my own car, especially when a public official is involved.

Ya, right. At least until it happens to YOU! And when it does, what will you do? Why, call the POLICE. When the officer arrives you can explain to him that while you were in a public place you were having a PRIVATE conversation during which the guy standing next to you waiting for the bus had his cell phone out and had the AUDACITY to catch your conversation while he was using the video feature of his phone.

The officer will then explain to you that, much like you stated above, that no law was broken and that one cannot expect privacy in a public place.

Probably at this point you will start screaming that your rights have been violated and that you demand to see a supervisor.

3/24/2010 06:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok people. Let's start hammering those "elected reps" phone calls and emails. The CCSA needs to prosecute!

3/24/2010 06:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i can't see why anybody would worry about being recorded. i used to work on the cboe and every call was recorded. you were also video recorded all day as well. it never bothered me. actually saved my ass a few times. play by the rules...no problems.

3/24/2010 07:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
lets not forget that this officer was taken off the street and on the desk due to this illegal recording. Thats right, J fed put another one of us in the dog house after another knee jerk conclusion and after an illegal recording was being taken.. So jody, why dont you return the officer back to the street and give him a spar and make him watch the video which is the punnishment for verbal abuse. you get a spar and watch the stupid ass video..ive seen it several times. Instead of doing that, j fed takes him off the street.. where is the outrage on that???

3/24/2010 12:07:00 AM



A SPAR bases on illegally obtained evidence? The officer should sue the department, the city and the mope who illegally recorded him. Or does the department have some exemption to using illegally obtained recordings?

3/24/2010 07:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If I get stopped, Im not recording anything. I will just say "down with Shortshanks". That should get me out of a ticket anywhere in Chicago.

3/24/2010 07:43:00 AM  
Blogger Colin Howe said...

I support cops and usually am on their side... but in this case:

1. What's wrong with me taping a cop talking to me? There should be no expectation of privacy when stopped by the side of the street

2. Joking or not, taped or not, that cop shouldn't have said that. Period.

3/24/2010 08:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please remember that when there is an accusation against one of us, we are wrong from the get-go!
The bangers can tape us, lie against us. etc... Some of the IAD are simply told who to go after and who to give that little slap on the wrist.
People keep harping on laws against this and laws against that. That does not apply to us. We are thrown under the bus on the daily basis.
ANd even when the IAD knows that the complainants have broken the law or are even wanted for lets say being an offender on a case report, they do not follow up against the complainant in fear of losing their cooperation.
I guess the IAD should be stripped as well for failure to take action of inattention to duty!
Just a thought people....

3/24/2010 08:26:00 AM  
Blogger battery said...

if a police officer can legally record video and audio of a traffic stop anyone in the vehicle should be able to as well.

3/24/2010 08:26:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once again in crook county, some laws apply and others don't. It depends on what side of the bed shanks wakes up on.

3/24/2010 08:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

acknowledement of being recorded is not consent just as aknowledgement of being raped is not consenual intercourse

3/24/2010 08:49:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(720 ILCS 5/14‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 14‑2)
Sec. 14‑2. Elements of the offense; affirmative defense.
(a) A person commits eavesdropping when he:
(1) Knowingly and intentionally uses an
eavesdropping device for the purpose of hearing or recording all or any part of any conversation or intercepts, retains, or transcribes electronic communication unless he does so (A) with the consent of all of the parties to such conversation or electronic communication or (B) in accordance with Article 108A or Article 108B of the "Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963", approved August 14, 1963, as amended; or
(2) Manufactures, assembles, distributes, or
possesses any electronic, mechanical, eavesdropping, or other device knowing that or having reason to know that the design of the device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious hearing or recording of oral conversations or the interception, retention, or transcription of electronic communications and the intended or actual use of the device is contrary to the provisions of this Article; or

(3) Uses or divulges, except as authorized by this
Article or by Article 108A or 108B of the "Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963", approved August 14, 1963, as amended, any information which he knows or reasonably should know was obtained through the use of an eavesdropping device.

(b) It is an affirmative defense to a charge brought under this Article relating to the interception of a privileged communication that the person charged:
1. was a law enforcement officer acting pursuant to
an order of interception, entered pursuant to Section 108A‑1 or 108B‑5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963; and

2. at the time the communication was intercepted,
the officer was unaware that the communication was privileged; and

3. stopped the interception within a reasonable time
after discovering that the communication was privileged; and

4. did not disclose the contents of the
communication.

(c) It is not unlawful for a manufacturer or a supplier of eavesdropping devices, or a provider of wire or electronic communication services, their agents, employees, contractors, or venders to manufacture, assemble, sell, or possess an eavesdropping device within the normal course of their business for purposes not contrary to this Article or for law enforcement officers and employees of the Illinois Department of Corrections to manufacture, assemble, purchase, or possess an eavesdropping device in preparation for or within the course of their official duties.
(d) The interception, recording, or transcription of an electronic communication by an employee of a penal institution is not prohibited under this Act, provided that the interception, recording, or transcription is:
(1) otherwise legally permissible under Illinois law;
(2) conducted with the approval of the penal
institution for the purpose of investigating or enforcing a State criminal law or a penal institution rule or regulation with respect to inmates in the institution; and

(3) within the scope of the employee's official
duties.

For the purposes of this subsection (d), "penal
institution" has the meaning ascribed to it in clause (c)(1) of Section 31A‑1.1.

(Source: P.A. 94‑183, eff. 1‑1‑06.)

3/24/2010 09:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes that was true under the "Illinois Revised Statutes" prior to the laws being redone as "Illinois Compiled Statutes" in 1992. Can you cite the law under the new Compiled Statutes?

3/24/2010 09:10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Crimefile said...
Dekalb County States Attorney just made a mess. They did not research the law before they sought an indictment.

Ouch!!!!

Statute prohibits recording a telephone conversation without the consent of "all parties to [the] conversation." But, Illinois courts have found that the recording of a conversation by a party to the conversation is not a violation of the statute even if another party to the conversation is unaware of the recording. People v. Jansen, 561 N.E.2d 312, 314 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990).

----


I had to read this about 3 x Crimefile.

Sorry, but you are not making sense. It is as if you said "Battery penalizes punching someone in the face, but the Il Sup Ct has said punching someone in the face does not violate the battery statute."

And the statute does not prohibit recording a TELEPHONE conversation ..it prohibits recording a conversation, whether telephonic or not ....

3/24/2010 09:10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SCC, I believe CrimeFile has it right on this one as I have looked up and researched the same statute myself. This eavesdropping law was not intended to cover these types of instances...gonna be no probable cause

3/24/2010 09:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just playing devils advocate, wouldn't taking this guys or anyones phone and looking for evidence of eavesdropping without a warrant be illegal as well?

3/24/2010 03:52:00 AM

Um...NO! He was doing it in plain view of the officer, and the video was still playing when you "investigated." Therefore what you saw was readily apparent to be an illegal recording and you TAKE THE APPROPRIATE ACTION.

3/24/2010 09:37:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is the State of Chicago, they do what they want here.

3/24/2010 10:44:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the Police can record a conversation with a motorist,(dash cam with a body mic on the officer) the reverse should be true as well, fair is fair. After all, if no one is saying something they shouldn't, why is this a problem? Or, to put it another way, "if you haven't done anything wrong, what are you afraid of/why won't you talk to me/why won't you give me permission to search your vehicle"....

3/24/2010 10:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The recording was not illegal.

3/24/2010 11:26:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

HEY CRIMEFILE!!!!
Go home and get your SHINE BOX.
You haven't been the Police in over what-" 2- decades?" It is illegal in Illinois. We are a 2-party consent.

You have turned very liberal. Stay off this blog and spew your liberal ideas to your minions. How many Defense attorneys have your worked for. Yes, I know-----, But you are now NOT on our side. You work for the Dark side. After years of I suppose the GOOD police work you did in Chicago, YES-You basically & technically work for the OTHER side.

A 23yrs vet. still on this job

3/24/2010 11:40:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just playing devils advocate, wouldn't taking this guys or anyones phone and looking for evidence of eavesdropping without a warrant be illegal as well?


If that were true, then the police would need a court order for every forensic test done on guns and narcotics recovered too. We all know that isn't required so I don't think one would be needed here either.

3/24/2010 11:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ya know, really, I support you guys in a lot of stuff, but I do believe that only cockroaches fear the light.

Any officer who is worried or nervous about being recorded on the job is absolutely, positively conducting himself in a manner contrary to what would be acceptable of judged by his superior, or the citizenry who pays him.

The eavesdropping laws put in place weren't there to cloak the untoward actions of boorish cops. They were put there so people could be reasonably certain that a private, sensitive conversation would wind up being broadcast on TV. When you're a public official doing a public job, everything you do should be a clear matter of public record and again... If you're a cop who 'worries' about cameras recording your actions, chances are, you're part of the problem and not part of the 'good guys' whom the public stands behind.

3/24/2010 11:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How to beat the "law"


Record the VIDEO with the mute on,and NARRATE the video later when making final copy.Media does it ALL THE TIME AND PERFECTLY LEGAL.If the VIDEO was recorded in the presence of another person not party or a direct participant TO it then that person is called a WITNESS.

Just do what you do.
You're screwed either way
on camera or not.

3/24/2010 11:48:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe it also does not apply if you reasonably believe you are taping a crime and the tape will be used as evidence. I agrre there was no crime but the phrase "reasonably believes" can be interperted differently by many people.

3/24/2010 12:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was trained by guys that have long retired that a wisper is more intimidating that a shout. Keep your voices low and hammer the fuck out of the shit heads. Recording devices have a very difficult time recording a wisper when there is ambient sound.

That how we roll.

3/24/2010 12:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are civil penalties for the any person responsible for the illegal recording, but WGN did not record anyone. They only played the recording.

If WGN paid the person who recorded the officer, it could be argued that WGN is vicariously liable for the illegal recording of their agent. But, that may be a stretch.

The officer certainly can sue the person who recorded him.

People v. Jansen is not necessarily the law of the state. It is only an appeallate court decision. I also do not know if this opinion applied only to the statute's criminal penalities or to its civil penalties, but that could make a big difference in the scope of that decision. Also, the decision is more than 20 years old. It most certainly does not take into account the changes in technology that today allow subversive recording in virtually any environment.

3/24/2010 12:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just playing devils advocate, wouldn't taking this guys or anyones phone and looking for evidence of eavesdropping without a warrant be illegal as well?

3/24/2010 03:52:00 AM

NO.

Eavesdropping means LISTENING to an AUDIBLE conversation. It has nothing to do with LOOKING at anything.

3/24/2010 12:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once again Crimefile appears, starts talking shit and is wrong.

3/24/2010 12:45:00 PM  
Blogger Navy80to04 said...

What do we have to hide?, If it is my home, car or out in the free. are we not free to protect our self? If people are not doing anything wrong, what's is the wrong doing?? only 13 states do not let people record what is going on around them. IL is one of them and it is not people that have something to hide, it is the north IL GOV that does not like recordings.

3/24/2010 02:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

mogadishu needs peace officers. no big government tellin you what to do, no taxes...a libertarian's dream

3/24/2010 02:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WGN has a boatload of money!

Time to hit them up with a lawsuit, Office!

3/24/2010 02:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounds like WGN will be getting out the checkbook!

Just fill in the blank with 7 digits!

3/24/2010 08:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lots of good debate re: eavesdropping, legal or not..seems to me that 1) the Illinois statute should be clarified, finally, as to what is legal and what is not; 2) as far as what is sarcasm, and what is not....at first, look to the 1st Amendment, then go from there (today's liberals seem to have trouble with the Constitution)

3/24/2010 08:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nobody, not even J-Fed, knows anything about traffic stops. Every jerk who blows a stop sign asks why you pulling me over, if their legit they say, " Your just afraid of going after the gangbangers" If their gangbangers they say " Its because I'm _______ ," We just can't win. Hammer them all. Show me some respect and I'll give it back. You have to beg me to give you a ticket. Be a jerk and I'll see you in court. Always take the high road and just hammer them with your pen. I just hope he impounded the car.

3/24/2010 10:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Statute prohibits recording a telephone conversation without the consent of "all parties to [the] conversation." But, Illinois courts have found that the recording of a conversation by a party to the conversation is not a violation of the statute even if another party to the conversation is unaware of the recording. People v. Jansen, 561 N.E.2d 312, 314 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990).

...recording of a conversation by a party to the conversation.. the female that did the recording was not party to the conversation. It was between the driver and the officer. The passenger illegally recorded a conversation she was not party to.

3/24/2010 11:53:00 PM  
Anonymous The Enemy said...

Can someone please explain to me how a police detention, which is subject to public and judicial review and scrutiny, is a felony, much less a misdemeanor? How is it the cops can record a traffic stop without the consent of the detained driver, but the driver can't do the same? How can the officer who was recorded possibly believe he has an expectation of privacy while carrying out a traffic stop that is fully reviewable in an open court?

Seems Big Brother really doesn't like Little Brother watching him.

3/24/2010 11:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SCC, I believe CrimeFile has it right on this one as I have looked up and researched the same statute myself. This eavesdropping law was not intended to cover these types of instances...gonna be no probable cause

3/24/2010 09:31:00 AM

You and your buddy Crimefile can go blow each other. Not only do you not know shit about the law you obviously have not read the article. A JUDGE HAS ALREADY FOUND PROBABLE CAUSE. The eavesdropping statue is EXTREMELY complex, and trust me shit house lawyer Crimefile does not understand it.

3/25/2010 12:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the Police can record a conversation with a motorist,(dash cam with a body mic on the officer) the reverse should be true as well, fair is fair.

Newflash, you the public wanted "dash cams" not the police, idiot. The Rev's and citizens asked to be video taped by asking for the cameras, not the police. And you are aware of this so the police officer should be made aware of this if he is video taped as well, whats "fair is fair" clown
Too many ignorant non police on this one, signing off.

3/25/2010 12:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
If the Police can record a conversation with a motorist,(dash cam with a body mic on the officer) the reverse should be true as well, fair is fair. After all, if no one is saying something they shouldn't, why is this a problem? Or, to put it another way, "if you haven't done anything wrong, what are you afraid of/why won't you talk to me/why won't you give me permission to search your vehicle"....

3/24/2010 10:50:00 AM
--------
Didn't anybody ever tell you that some times life's not fair?

3/25/2010 12:52:00 AM  
Blogger Crimefile said...

People vs Jansen applies to all Illinois recorded conversations except those gathered by government agents. Yes, cops have no exemption unless they are doing it for non-gonernmental reasons.

I can't make this crap up because I do this for a living.

I don't consider myself working for the dark side since I help lots of cops.

I have a high profile five year-old case right now with a good Chicago cop who was trashed, framed and arrested. He's done NOTHING wrong.

We will go to trial at the end of April and he will get his life back and his pension will be safe.

The FOP wouldn't walk accross the street and help this guy. That was wrong!

I've worked on many a cop's criminal or internal affairs cases in various states and enjoy my work.

I specialize in justifiable use of force cases where officers are accused. Both on and off duty shootings and such.

I really can't do much for guilty criminals even if they are or once were cops.

I respect Due Process, something too many internal affairs guys hate.

3/25/2010 01:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have a better question: If someone records us can we take the phone and inventory it?

Simple question.

3/25/2010 09:52:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. What's wrong with me taping a cop talking to me? There should be no expectation of privacy when stopped by the side of the street
---


I don't see how "expectation of privacy" has anything to do with anything. It's against the law to record. Period. It's like saying it is OK to batter someone because they had no "expectation of privacy." Stupid. Stop bringing it up.

3/25/2010 09:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous The Enemy said...

Can someone please explain to me how a police detention, which is subject to public and judicial review and scrutiny, is a felony, much less a misdemeanor? How is it the cops can record a traffic stop without the consent of the detained driver, but the driver can't do the same? How can the officer who was recorded possibly believe he has an expectation of privacy while carrying out a traffic stop that is fully reviewable in an open court?

Seems Big Brother really doesn't like Little Brother watching him.

3/24/2010 11:52:00 PM

Yeah I can tell you asshole. The law was changed so that the police can have cameras with audio in their cars. Do you know why the law was changed? Because of retards like you. You wanted the police filmed at all times during traffic stops. This is what you got. You can't have it both ways dickhead.

3/25/2010 02:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've read the actual text of the law and the exception for police to record traffic stops doesn't specify it's only legal for police officers. It's legal for _anyone_ to record traffic stops with video. Not to mention that even if it had prohibited recording, the law would be against basic concepts of liberty.

(720 ILCS 5/14‑3) Sec. 14‑3. Exemptions. The following activities shall be exempt from the provisions of this Article:
(h) Recordings made simultaneously with a video recording of an oral conversation between a peace officer, who has identified his or her office, and a person stopped for an investigation of an offense under the Illinois Vehicle Code;

3/25/2010 08:25:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer Posts.......................... ..........................Older Posts