More

Garry McCarthy: Eavesdropping Act 'Problematic,' Police Superintendent Supports Recording Cops (VIDEO)

First Posted: 01/30/2012 3:45 pm Updated: 01/30/2012 3:45 pm

Opponents of a 2010 law banning covert recording of police officers in Illinois have a surprising new ally: Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, who says the so-called Eavesdropping Act could be equally damaging to cops and civilians.

The Eavesdropping Act makes recording officers without their permission a Class 1 felony, but has been inconsistently applied by different sectors of the justice system who disagree on its merits, particularly in cases where audio spotlights police wrongdoing. In the recent high-profile case of Tiawanda Moore, who recorded police officers trying to talk her out of filing a complaint after she claimed she was sexually harassed by an officer, a jury acquitted her and called the county's charges against her "a waste of time."

At the same time, Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez has stood by her right to prosecute civilians who secretly tape interactions with police, punishable by up to 15 years in prison under the law. Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner defended the law with equal vigor when confronted with an American Civil Liberties Union challenge that included a request for an injunction against Alvarez, warning that rescinding the law would open the door for gang members and "snooping" reporters and bloggers to violate cops' privacy.

A new bill currently in committee, however, moves to reverse part of that law to allow officers on-duty in a public place to be recorded by civilians without their consent -- and McCarthy said in a panel at Loyola University last Wednesday that he's behind it. (See video above for McCarthy's statements at the panel.)

"As far as the use of videotape, I certainly endorse it, for the protection of the police as well as [civilians]," he said at the panel. "There's no argument when you show videotape and can look at what happened. I actually am a person who endorses video and audio recording."

McCarthy, who came to Chicago from New York, said video and audio recordings helped prove officers acted appropriately amid allegations of brutality following a series of protest arrests. He added that this material could be equally useful as police prepare for massive crowds of protesters when Chicago hosts the NATO/G8 summits this spring. McCarthy clarified that it's not his job to advocate for policy changes, according to CBS Chicago, but called objections to covert recordings of police interactions a "foreign concept" after finding the practice helpful during previous stints in other cities.

Eavesdropping Act opponents echo McCarthy's surprise that it remains on the books in Illinois--the only state to require both parties consent to a recording before it begins.

"It is unique in the nation," Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reports Committee for Freedom of the Press who sat on the same panel, told the Chicago Sun-Times. Dalglish expressed support for a pending ACLU challenge of the law's constitutionality in federal court, after a downstate Illinois judge ruled the law unconstitutional recently.

Moore's escape from criminal charges was not typical, and other Illinois residents are currently facing prison time if convicted before the law is overturned. Artist Chris Drew faces up to 15 years in prison for videotaping his own arrest in 2009.

See the footage of Drew's arrest considered a violation of the Eavesdropping Act:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CHICAGO

Opponents of a 2010 law banning covert recording of police officers in Illinois have a surprising new ally: Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, who says the so-called Eavesdropping Act could be equa...
Opponents of a 2010 law banning covert recording of police officers in Illinois have a surprising new ally: Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, who says the so-called Eavesdropping Act could be equa...
Filed by Lizzie Schiffman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 29
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
11:23 AM on 02/01/2012
Here's a link to video of the entire event

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Qytnkz7LZA
04:35 PM on 02/22/2012
I’ll amazed at the bias shown by Chicago Press in reporting cases about Illinois Eavesdropp­ing Law. In Cook County there were three Eavesdropp­ing Cases: People v. Moore, People v. Drew and People v. Melongo. In the first case, the jury acquitted the defendant. In the last two cases, there are pending motions to dismiss. However, the Chicago Press has completely ignored the Melongo’s case and focused all its attention on the Drew’s case. Melongo recorded conversati­ons with Pamela Taylor for an allegedly altered court transcript­. Mrs. Taylor is a public official working at the criminal located at 2600th California Ave. Melongo has spent 22 months in jail for this offense, is currently out on house arrest, yet the local press in all of its many articles, has completely ignored the Melongo’s case. Why? Maybe there’s a great bias in the press against police to the extend that it has turned a blind eye on the integrity of reporting the news. If it wants to report news related to the Eavesdropp­ing Law, then by all means, it should report ALL of it; I’m extremely shocked at what’s happening here.

Melongo’s Motion to dismiss: http://www­.scribd.co­m/doc/8109­6353/Amend­ed-Motion-­To-Dismiss­-Illinois-­Eavesdropp­ing-Case

State response’s to Melongo’s motion: http://www­.scribd.co­m/doc/8175­0317/State­-Response-­Amended-Mo­tion

Melongo’s arguments on her motion to dismiss will be heard on March 13th, 2012.

That’s what mean being impartial. Tell the ENTIRE story. Not just a snippet of it.
09:23 AM on 02/01/2012
http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/30/federal-jury-says-cops-cant-arrest-peopl

and

http://boston.com/community/blogs/on_liberty/2011/08/victory_for_liberty_and_the_ri.html ""The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles [of protected First Amendment activity]. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs."
The federal courts have spoken. They should be happy that the cops can still lie to people when questioning them to try to confuse people into answering in a way that will make them look guilty.
02:27 PM on 01/31/2012
I totally disagree with this law - this gives the police ammunition to do whatever they want. If I saw any wrongdoing I'd record them in a second and take it all the way to the Supreme Court. If you're a Public Servant you're on my dime and I'll record whatever I want.
photo
southingtonian
"I'm a Capricorn and you can't make me do sh*t.."
06:18 AM on 01/31/2012
police officers on duty, conducting the people's business, have no 'right to privacy' concerning their actions and words.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
60699
10:56 AM on 01/31/2012
I disagree. Police have the same " right to privacy " as any other citizen . This anti-eavesdropping law makes it illegal to "covertly" record ANY citizen in public. Police are citizens, they should be equally protected. This law does not prohibit legitimate "overt" news gathering.
01:49 PM on 01/31/2012
There is no expectation of privacy when you are out in public. Sorry, but the law is wrong and must be changed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eric8869
12:00 AM on 01/31/2012
We must have this law overturned - it is UNAMERICAN. Chicago should not be a police state where the CPD can get away with wrongdoing because the public can't prove what happened. Anita should be ashamed.
k535panther
And now for something completely different
12:42 AM on 01/31/2012
absolutely!!! fanned& faved
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:43 PM on 01/30/2012
Crooked politicians and crooked police put the law on the books.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
ChiGuy
Just an earthbound misfit, I
11:06 PM on 01/30/2012
If I recall correctly, anyone on public streets are not entitled to a "reasonable expectation of privacy". This law would seem to fly in the face of that.
07:50 PM on 01/30/2012
Representative John J. Millner (R) 55 district and Senator Don Harmon (D) 39 district are the sponsors.

Law went into effect 01/01/2006
photo
Thinkster
I Think, therefore I POST!
07:18 PM on 01/30/2012
We the people have a right to best, most excellent performance from those we arm in our own self-defense - they have no privacy when they are on duty - their every move is to be scrutinized and considered. They should behave in an exemplary manner at all times - they should EXPECT the people to be watching - we are the BOSS - not the subjects. There is no excuse for this "law" - I will not have the police have power over the populace - this is America - it must be the other way around.
Mochilero
Have backpack, will travel
06:35 PM on 01/30/2012
There is a very old adage, who will police the police? If they act legally, then they should not be afraid of being filmed. These laws are appalling to anyone who understands the unwarrented power of authority.
05:52 PM on 01/30/2012
Cops are employed by the public, they should not expect any priovacy while on the job.
photo
freedom1947
sarcasm, cynicism
04:42 PM on 01/30/2012
Anyhing for a good cover up?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Anarchy4hire
Don't you love your guns, god, government?
04:33 PM on 01/30/2012
Can some rightie please explain to me how this is constitutional again?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Marc1940
05:21 PM on 01/30/2012
I don't think it can be done. The "righties" praise the constitution and at the same try to change it.
05:54 PM on 01/30/2012
Who passed this law? Democrats. explain that to me leftie
05:53 PM on 01/30/2012
Hey I am on the right and it is not constitutional. What Illinois or Chicago government passed that law. Oh yea the liberal, dem union loving politicians. How did you huffers let that one get by you. Come on leftie explain this to me?
07:39 PM on 01/30/2012
House Sponsors
Rep. John J. Millner (R) 55th District

Senate Sponsors
Sen. Don Harmon (D) 39th District
08:58 AM on 01/31/2012
Yeah -- get rid of all them unions. Especially the public employee unions. Then politicians can just fire anyone they want and hire their friends and relatives with no watchdogs. More of THEIR friends on the government payroll. If a PRIVATE union and a PRIVATE company want to work out a contract, how come, suddenly, it's okay for big government to force it to be illegal -- but the same folks don't want "big government" doing safety inspections at factories...........