Illinois wiretapping law

Last updated

Illinois's wiretapping law (720 Illinois Compiled Statutes 5 / Criminal Code of 2012. Article 14, also called the Illinois eavesdropping law) was a "two-party consent" law. Illinois made it a crime to use an "eavesdropping device" to overhear or record a phone call or conversation without the consent of all parties to the conversation. The law was ruled unconstitutional in 2014 by the Illinois Supreme Court, but was replaced by a near-identical law later that same year.

Contents

History

In 2009, Christopher Drew was arrested for "selling artwork without a permit" on State Street in the downtown Chicago Loop. He also had charges brought against him for "felony eavesdropping on a government official." [1]

In August 2010, Tiawanda Moore had criminal wiretapping charges brought against her for secretly recording police officers with her BlackBerry when she was filing a complaint for sexual harassment. In August 2011, a jury cleared her of the charges brought against her, and in 2012 Moore filed a federal suit against the city, alleging "unreasonable seizure, false arrest and malicious prosecution". [2] [3]

Court proceedings

In 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit ACLU v. Alvarez against Cook County State Attorney Anita Alvarez, to block prosecution of ACLU staff for recording police officers performing their duties in public places, one of the group's long-standing monitoring missions. [4] On 2 March 2012, Criminal Courts Judge Stanley Sacks deemed the Illinois wiretapping law unconstitutional, potentially criminalizing "wholly innocent conduct". [5] In November 2012, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of this ruling. [4]

On March 20, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court declared the Illinois wiretapping law unconstitutional unanimously in People v. Melongo [6] and People v. Clark. [7] [8] [9]

Revised law

Following the Melongo and Clark decisions, the state legislature drafted a bill amending the wiretapping statute to make it constitutionally compliant. The bill was injected into an unrelated piece of legislation, and was passed as SB1342 late in the legislative session. On December 30, 2014, Governor Pat Quinn signed the bill into law as Public Act 098-1142. [10]

SB1342 makes changes to the original language of the wiretapping law, adding that in order to commit a criminal offense, a person must be recording "in a surreptitious manner". [11] The bill's sponsors, Elaine Nekritz and Kwame Raoul, claim the law upholds the rights of citizens to record in public. [12]

See also

Related Research Articles

Wiretapping, also known as wire tapping or telephone tapping, is the monitoring of telephone and Internet-based conversations by a third party, often by covert means. The wire tap received its name because, historically, the monitoring connection was an actual electrical tap on an analog telephone or telegraph line. Legal wiretapping by a government agency is also called lawful interception. Passive wiretapping monitors or records the traffic, while active wiretapping alters or otherwise affects it.

Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court modifying its definition of obscenity from that of "utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". It is now referred to as the three-prong standard or the Miller test.

In United States law, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, together with that Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, form the constitutional right of freedom of religion. The relevant constitutional text is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

In American constitutional law, a statute is void for vagueness and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand. This is because constitutionally permissible activity may not be chilled because of a statute's vagueness. There are several reasons a statute may be considered vague; in general, a statute might be void for vagueness when an average citizen cannot generally determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed. For example, criminal laws which do not state explicitly and definitely what conduct is punishable are void for vagueness. A statute is also void for vagueness if a legislature's delegation of authority to judges or administrators is so extensive that it could lead to arbitrary prosecutions. A law can also be "void for vagueness" if it imposes on First Amendment freedom of speech, assembly, or religion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–2007)</span> Part of Terrorist Surveillance Program

NSA warrantless surveillance — also commonly referred to as "warrantless-wiretapping" or "-wiretaps" — was the surveillance of persons within the United States, including U.S. citizens, during the collection of notionally foreign intelligence by the National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program. In late 2001, the NSA was authorized to monitor, without obtaining a FISA warrant, phone calls, Internet activities, text messages and other forms of communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lays within the U.S.

<i>American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency</i>

American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency, 493 F.3d 644, is a case decided July 6, 2007, in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiffs in the case did not have standing to bring the suit against the National Security Agency (NSA), because they could not present evidence that they were the targets of the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program" (TSP).

In the U.S. state of Illinois, residents must possess a FOID card, or Firearm Owners Identification card, in order to legally possess or purchase firearms or ammunition. The applicable law has been in effect since 1968, but has been subject to several subsequent amendments.

Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court decision invalidating a New York law under the Fourth Amendment, because the statute authorized electronic eavesdropping without required procedural safeguards.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anita Alvarez</span> American politician

Anita M. Alvarez is the former State's Attorney for Cook County, Illinois, United States. Alvarez was the first Hispanic woman elected to this position, after being the first Latina to win the Democratic nomination for state's attorney of Cook County.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008</span> United States Law

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, also called the FAA and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008, is an Act of Congress that amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It has been used as the legal basis for surveillance programs disclosed by Edward Snowden in 2013, including PRISM.

The Center on the Administration of Criminal Law is a think-tank dedicated to the promotion of good government and prosecution practices in criminal matters. Its work has been the subject of a feature story in the Associated Press.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms", as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Arkansas</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Arkansas may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Arkansas. Same-sex marriage became briefly legal through a court ruling on May 9, 2014, subject to court stays and appeals. In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that laws banning same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States nationwide including in Arkansas. Nonetheless, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity was not banned in Arkansas until the Supreme Court banned it nationwide in Bostock v. Clayton County in 2020.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Indiana</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of Indiana enjoy most of the same rights as non-LGBT people. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Indiana since October 6, 2014, when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal in the case of Baskin v. Bogan.

Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U.S. 111 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court overturned the disorderly conduct charges against Dick Gregory and others for peaceful demonstrations in Chicago.

<i>Moore v. Madigan</i> Pair of court cases

Moore v. Madigan is the common name for a pair of cases decided in 2013 by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, regarding the constitutionality of the State of Illinois' no-issue legislation and policy regarding the carry of concealed weapons. The plaintiffs, Michael Moore, Mary Shepard and the Second Amendment Foundation, sought an injunction against Illinois attorney general Lisa Madigan, Illinois Governor Patrick Quinn, and other named defendants, barring them from enforcing two key provisions of the Illinois Statutes prohibiting public possession of a firearm or other weapon.

Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Amnesty International USA and others lacked standing to challenge section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as amended by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008.

The law of Illinois consists of several levels, including constitutional, statutory, and regulatory law, as well as case law and local law. The Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS) form the general statutory law.

People v. Aguilar, 2 N.E.3d 321, was an Illinois Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon (AUUF) statute violated the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Court stated that this was because the statute amounted to a wholesale statutory ban on the exercise of a personal right that was specifically named in and guaranteed by the United States Constitution, as construed by the United States Supreme Court. A conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm (UPF) was proper because the possession of handguns by minors was conduct that fell outside the scope of the Second Amendment's protection.

Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436 (1957), was a Supreme Court case that addressed issues of obscenity, free speech, and due process. The case stemmed from the confiscation and destruction of books from a New York City bookstore. The court's determination was that:

A state injunction against distribution of material designated as "obscene" does not violate freedom of speech and press protected by the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

References

  1. ↑ "Christopher Drew, 1950-2012 Activist artist challenged state's eavesdropping law (ARTICLE)". Chicago Tribune . 10 May 2012. Retrieved 12 July 2018.
  2. ↑ "Tiawanda Moore, Woman Who Recorded Cops, Acquitted of Felony Eavesdropping Charges (VIDEO)". The Huffington Post . 25 August 2012. Retrieved 26 November 2012.
  3. ↑ "Illinois Eavesdropping Act: Tiawanda Moore Sues City Amid Multiple Challenges Of Law (VIDEO)". The Huffington Post . 16 January 2012. Retrieved 26 November 2012.
  4. 1 2 "Supreme Court rejects plea to ban taping of police in Illinois". Chicago Tribune . 26 November 2012. Retrieved 26 November 2012.
  5. ↑ "Eavesdropping Law Unconstitutional, Court Says". Chicago Tribune . 3 March 2012. Retrieved 26 November 2012.
  6. ↑ People v. Melongo (PDF). Illinois Supreme Court Opinions, Illinois Supreme Court. Retrieved 31 August 2014.
  7. ↑ People v. Clark (PDF). Illinois Supreme Court Opinions, Illinois Supreme Court. Retrieved 31 August 2014.
  8. ↑ IllinoisCorruption.net, the Opinion on People v. Melongo
  9. ↑ Illinois Supreme Court, the Opinion on People v. Clark
  10. ↑ "Bill Status of SB1342". State of Illinois Legislative Information System. Illinois General Assembly. Retrieved 23 July 2015.
  11. ↑ "Public Act 098-1142". State of Illinois Legislative Information System. Illinois General Assembly. Retrieved 23 July 2015.
  12. ↑ O'Connor, John (9 December 2014). "Eavesdropping Bill Focuses on 'Private' Dialogue". NBC Chicago. Retrieved 23 July 2015.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.