This morning's paper carried an article about the arrest of a Johnsburg (Ill.) man on Saturday for videorecording police who came to a house he was visiting. Alexander Henson, 25, was arrested for using his cell phone to video and audio record the actions of the officers. Although the police department was not named specifically in the article, it was most likely the McHenry Police Department, as the house was west of the Fox River and just south of Bull Valley Road.
I was familiar with the law about surreptitious recording of a conversation, so I found the statute and read it at 720 ILCS 5/14-. If you want to get bleary-eyed fast, start there.
Section 1 defines an eavesdropping device: "An eavesdropping device is any device capable of being used to hear or record oral conversation or intercept, retain, or transcribe electronic communications whether such conversation or electronic communication is conducted in person, by telephone, or by any other means; Provided, however, that this definition shall not include devices used for the restoration of the deaf or hard‑of‑hearing to normal or partial hearing."
Note the keyword "any".
Next, read sub-section (e) for the definition of "Electronic communication."
"For purposes of this Article, the term electronic communication means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or part by a wire, radio, pager, computer, electromagnetic, photo electronic or photo optical system, where the sending and receiving parties intend the electronic communication to be private and the interception, recording, or transcription of the electronic communication is accomplished by a device in a surreptitious manner contrary to the provisions of this Article. Electronic communication does not include any communication from a tracking device."
Do the police have any expectation of privacy when they respond to a dispatched call to a resident on report of a fight? The actions of police officers are public actions.
Was the order by police to stop videorecording them of any legal effect?
The felony charge may begin to fall apart right there.
And then the very important wording, "surreptitious manner".
What was surreptitious about Henson's recording, if he was standing in plain view of officers and videorecording their activity inside the house?
Henson was also charged with resisting a peace officer. Judge Weech explained Henson's rights to him on April 12, and Henson's next court date is April 16, 9:00AM, before Judge Prather. From the Circuit Clerk's public access records, it appears that Henson is in McHenry County Jail.
It will be interesting to see how this case plays out. Suppose the State's Attorney's Office decides not to prosecute it. Will they wipe away the entire record of Henson's arrest?
Or will the government computer record at http://www.mchenrycircuitclerk.org/ exist forever as a permanent record of Henson's arrest on a felony charge, even if he is found not guilty or the case is nolle prossed?
Henson is no stranger to the McHenry County court system, where records go back to 2001. Regardless of history, though, he is presumed innocent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Apples and oranges, Gus. Don't bring electronic communications into the game as there weren't any here. Stick to the eavesdropping. The charge appears to have been placed because he recorded their oral statements without their consent THAT gave rise to the eavesdropping charge. He appears to have done it BEFORE they became aware of it and thus he probably violated the law. Their admonishment to "stop that, you @*&*(&%%%$!" probably doesn't mean much. Kinda like the cops catching you doing 70 miles an hour in a 30 zone. They catch you, decide to give you a warning and tell you to slow it down. You speed off and do 80 now. You did the crime, ignored the warning. You pay the fine!
This guy needs to contact the Illinois Press Association. They would love to hear about this. All I have to say is "You're on the record" and I can't be touched.
After 25 years in the press, I know the law. And I know how to bend it.
If someone doesn't want his voice recorded, he can stop talking.
The law is about SURREPTITIOUS recording, not all recording.
If you don't know what the $100 word means, look it up.
Very interesting case indeed. It sounds to me like the police were over zealous in their actions. The outcome of this case could mean huge implications for all of us.
You just don't get it, do you, Gus? Perhaps you never will or, maybe you aren't as ignorant as you seem... just hell bent on creating controversy and twisting things to suit yourself. In all of 720 ILCS 5/14-1, et seq the ONLY use of the word surreptitious (and, yes, I know what it means in addition to it meaning you are wrong)is in the definitions regarding electronic communications and the manufacture of devices capable of intercepting same in a surreptitious manner. Those sections pertaining to the actual act of eavesdropping or interception of electronic communications make no reference to it being done in a surreptitious manner. "Sneakiness" is NOT an element of the offense of eavesdropping. It simply means (under Illinois law) that you've recorded or overheard a conversation thru the use of anything other than your own two ears without the consent of ALL parties to the conversation. For those keeping score and wanted to stay on top of this. Read 720 ILCS 5/14-1 through 5/14-9. That's the entire statute on Eavesdropping. Contrary to Gus's assertion, it's not all that difficult for most folks to figure out. Gus, try it again, and feel free to move your lips as you read it. He who would be sheriff? HAH!
(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
Post a Comment