Guest guest Posted May 23, 2002 Report Share Posted May 23, 2002 Illinois At a Glance: * Consent of all parties is required. * Violation is a felony. * Civil damages are available. * Silent video recording is not prohibited. Illinois is one of the states requiring all-party consent to record conversations, but it is unusual in that the law specifies that conversations need not be private to be protected. When interviewing sources, reporters should ensure that the interviewees know of and consent to the recording, both on the phone and in person. Eavesdropping Illinois law prohibits using " an eavesdropping device to hear or record all or any part of any conversation " without the consent of all parties to the conversation, except in certain cases involving law enforcement. It also prohibits using or divulging any information that a person " knows or reasonably should know was obtained through the use of an eavesdropping device. " The law does not require an " interception " --an " eavesdropping device " is simply any device (other than hearing aids) that can be used to hear or record a conversation, whether in person or on the telephone. Reasonable expectation of privacy Before 1994, Illinois courts commonly referred to a person's reasonable expectation of privacy in deciding whether a recording broke the eavesdropping law, but in 1994 the legislature added a section specifying that it does not matter whether one or more of the parties reasonably expects privacy. Thus, reporters should assume they need consent to record even in public places. Silent video cameras are not considered eavesdropping devices in Illinois. In 1978, the appeals court ruled that a local television news team did not commit eavesdropping by secretly recording video footage of a police officer arresting a lingerie model for solicitation. The court ruled that a silent video camera is not an illegal eavesdropping device under the statute because " it is not capable of being used to hear or to record a conversation. " It appears the court would have found differently if the news crew had placed a microphone in the room with the model, thereby recording the officer's conversation. Emergency and police radio communications are exempt from the eavesdropping law, so reporters may use FM scanners to listen to police reports. In 1990, the Illinois appeals court ruled that police scanners are not eavesdropping devices when used to overhear cellular telephone conversations, and a 1994 opinion of the attorney general indicates that the state does not consider it eavesdropping to tape-record cellular or cordless telephone conversations received on a police scanner. Illinois courts have found that telephone extensions are not eavesdropping devices unless they are somehow altered so as to turn them into a " device. " Generally it is legal to listen to the conversations of others on an extension, but it should still be considered illegal to record such a conversation. Illinois has no jurisdiction over recordings made in other states. If someone outside of Illinois records a telephone conversation with someone in Illinois, that person cannot be prosecuted under the Illinois law. Criminal and civil penalties A first-offense violation of the Illinois eavesdropping law is a class 4 felony, punishable by one to three years in prison. Subsequent violations are class 3 felonies, punishable by two to five years in prison. Any party to an eavesdropped conversation may sue for an injunction and for actual and punitive damages. A plaintiff may sue not only the eavesdropper but also any person who employs or directs the eavesdropper, as well as anyone who " knowingly derives any benefit or information from the illegal use of an eavesdropping device by another. " Sources 720 Illinois Compiled Statutes Annotated Sections 5/14-1 to 5/14-3, 5/14-4, 5/14-6 (1997); Cassidy v. ABC, 377 N.E.2d 126 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978); People v. , 554 N.E.2d 545, (Ill. App. Ct. 1990); People v. Barrow, 549 N.E.2d 240 (Ill. 1989); People v. Britz, 541 N.E.2d 505 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989); People v. Gervasi, 434 N.E.2d 1112 (Ill. 1982); People v. Shinkle, 539 N.E.2d 1238 (Ill. 1989). Source: http://www.rtnda.org/resources/hiddencamera/allstates.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.