DeKalb County files eavesdropping charges against two dudes who recorded a traffic stop. (felony)

[Drover]

DeKalb brothers indicted on eavesdropping charges | Daily Chronicle

Notwithstanding my legal training, I'd love for someone to please explain to me how recording a police detention, which is subject to public 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 detainee 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.

[AuDiBelle]

From what I can tell, it's an issue about voice recording without the consent of all parties. So I guess you can video all you want, just don't include the audio.

Seems absolutely ridiculous either way. Upstanding police officers should have nothing to hide in performing their job duties, so why are they opposed to being recorded?

[Steve-o]

Shameful. I let my cell phone recorder go while I got pulled over for "following too closely" (total garbage LIE) about 2 months ago. I propped my phone up on the passenger seat and recorded the whole deal. When I was done and the cop was cool and only gave me a warning, I deleted it. If cops have a problem with that, too bad, its none of their business what I do in my car on a public road, unless its something illegal.

[knat_2]

Actually in IL all you need is one partys consent to record so I don't see how this would be against the law at all. Here is a list of states and party consents.

Telephone Tape Recording Law

HEre is the direct quote:

Illinois is, by _statute_ a two party state. However, case law from both the IL Supreme Court and various Illinois appellate courts have declared Illinois a one-party state in the case of private citizens (businesses and plain folks - NOT law enforcement). The reigning concensus is that one-party consenual recording is merely "enhanced note-taking" and since some folks have total recall without recording, how can the other party have any expectation of privacy to a conversation held with another person.

Illinois requires prior consent of all participants to monitor or record a
phone conversation. Ill. Rev. Stat. Ch. 38, Sec. 14-2. There is no specific
business telephone exception, but in general courts have found extension
telephones do not constitute eavesdropping devices. Criminal penalties for
unlawful eavesdropping include up to three years' imprisonment or $10,000 in
fines and the civil remedy provides for recovery of actual and punitive
damages.

Here in the enlightened state of Illinois it IS ILLEGAL to monitor cordless phones.

[chitown85]

In Illinois you must get the other party's consent. There are exemptions for law enforcement when making traffic stops for their squad car cameras.

[Drover]

What I'm asking is why you need anyone's consent to record a public act that is fully reviewable in open court?

[rubber duck]

There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation from one party to another, even on a traffic stop in public. There is no problem recording a traffic stop in general, but to stick a mic in someone's face to tape their words needs their consent. Just as I couldn't come up to you having a conversation with your friend in public and start taping you. Consent must be given by all involved parties. Law enforcement is exempted from notifying you of being recorded, as it could be detrimental to their job purpose.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by rubber duck

There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation from one party to another, even on a traffic stop in public.

Whence does this expectation derive in the course of an explicitly public act that is subject to public scrutiny in an open court?

[rubber duck]

Originally Posted by Drover

Whence does this expectation derive in the course of an explicitly public act that is subject to public scrutiny in an open court?

Simply put, just because an officer is already recording video/audio on a stop in public doesn't give you permission to walk up and stick a mic in his face. It's splitting hairs and I don't think the charges will stand, but if you wanted to record a conversation between yourself and an officer, you would need the officer's permission, just like you would if you were recording anyone else. In this instance permission was not explicitly given. A more appropriate charge would've probably been obstruction if the recording was prohibitive to the officers conducting business.