A bill was passed w/ one of those completely unrelated amendments added to it. This one making it a
felony to record the police w/o a court order:
(a) Eavesdropping, for a first offense, is
a Class 4 felony (from Ch. 38, par. 14-4) and, for a second or
subsequent offense, is a Class 3 felony.
(b) The eavesdropping of an oral conversation or an electronic communication of between any
law enforcement officer,
State’s Attorney, Assistant State’s Attorney, the Attorney General,
Assistant Attorney General, or a judge, while in the performance of his
or her official duties, if not authorized by this Article or proper
court order, is a Class 3 felony, and for a second or subsequent offenses, is a Class 2 felony 1 felo
Isn't that just special? How far do they want the general populace to mistrust the police? They're saying that taking video of a police officer is the equivalent to attacking them physically.
4 comments:
The way I read that even scanner listening just became illegal. How are the journalists going to be first to report from the scene if they can't have their scanners?
Is there an exemption for already-in-place surveillance cameras?
Say, the ones overlooking the Walmart parking lot?
Or are the Walmart execs liable for felonies for "recording police activity without a court order" if something - anything - goes down in the parking lot?
I don't see this hoding up in court. Wasn't it just a coupe years ago that the aw against voice recording of the poice was struck down?
The definition of a police state is where the laws apply to the citizens, but not to the police.
Clearly, they will use dash cams or body cams to get convictions, but will never release the same if it exonerates the citizen (it will be lost "by accident").
The Left (and the police) like to proclaim that if you have nothing to hide you should not be afraid of a search. Why are the police afraid of such scrutiny? What do they have to hide. A lot is my educated guess.
Post a Comment