(MintPress) – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that they will not hear an appeal of a controversial Illinois law that prohibits people from recording on duty police officers while doing their jobs in public – meaning the federal appeals court ruling that found that the Illinois anti-eavesdropping law violated First Amendment free speech rights against those recording audio of on duty police officers, stands.
The Illinois Eavesdropping Act, enacted in 1961, was considered one of the strictest in the nation, as audio recording of an on duty police officer without their knowledge, even if the recording was done in public, is a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. But now that a federal appeals panel ruled that the law “restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests,” the ability for citizens to record on duty police officers in public could alter the public’s relationship with police from this point forward.
In response to the ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has asked a federal judge in the U.S. District Court in Chicago, to create a permanent injunction, which would bar attorneys across the state from prosecuting anyone under the current statute. Harvey Grossman, legal director of the ACLU of Illinois, told the Chicago Tribune he expected a permanent injunction to set a precedent across Illinois that would effectively cripple enforcement of the law.
In a statement, Grossman added, “We are hopeful that we are moving closer to a day when no one in Illinois will risk prosecution when they audio record public officials performing their duties. Empowering individuals and organizations in this fashion will ensure additional transparency and oversight of public officials across the state.”
Renewed attention came to the law in August 2011 after a woman recorded Chicago police officers who she believed were trying to keep her from filing a sexual harassment charge against another officer. Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez pressed charges against the woman for recording the officers, but a jury later acquitted her. Alvarez argued that allowing civilians to record on duty police officers dissuades them from “speaking candidly” to officers and could be problematic in securing crime scenes or conducting sensitive investigations.
Since the ruling, law enforcement lobby groups have begun “campaigning,” hoping to stall the committee that will amend the law. But some officers applaud the change in the law. For example, Chicago police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said he is partial to a law that would allow citizens to tape police as well as for officers to record civilians.