"A statute intended to prevent unwarranted intrusions into a citizen’s privacy cannot be used as a shield for public officials who cannot assert a comparable right of privacy in their public duties. Such action impedes the free flow of information concerning public officials and violates the First Amendment right to gather such information. ... The [Illinois Eavesdropping Statute] includes conduct that is unrelated to the statute’s purpose and is not rationally related to the evil the legislation sought to prohibit. For example, a defendant recording his case in a courtroom has nothing to do with an intrusion into a citizen’s privacy but with distraction. ... The court finds the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to the defendant as the statute is violative of substantive due process."
by:
Judge David Frankland
Circuit Court Judge for Crawford County, Illinois
Source:
In a 12-page order entered September 15, 2011, in People v Michael D. Allison, No 2009-CF-50, Judge David K. Frankland of the circuit court of Crawford County held that the Illinois Eavesdropping Act is unconstitutional in that it violates substantive due process and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Michael Allison faced up to to 75 years in prison for recording his encounters with police officers and a judge.
http://www.isba.org/ibj/2011/12/lawpulse/istheillinoiseavesdroppingactuncons
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
Good to know as precedent. It should herald similar decisions in other states - if we're lucky.
See: http://www.illinoiscorruption.net/common/oral-arguments.html
 -- anonymous     
  •  
    You would think so but as we saw with Obamacare in the courts what is plain and obvious to one judge under Constitutional (original intent) is soft and pliable to another judge whose activism isn't constrained by it and holding to the philosophy of the Constitution being a "living" document, which is nothing more then tall grass cover for reinterpretation at whim to institute social political change around the will of the governed (THE PEOPLE.)
     -- Mike, Pleasant Hill     
  •  
     -- Ron, Or      
    On its face, accurate enough. The legal positivism's premise of relied upon law is something else. At least the principle was some what addressed. I like Mike from Pleasant Hill's overview.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    This court's ruling still stands as the US Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from the attorney general of Illinois on the unconstitutionality of the Eavesdropping Statute. Thanks again to the ACLU for this one -- I read that they defended Michael Allison through 4 years of court battles, all because he recorded his court appearance when the judge refused to bring in a court recorder to do so. What gall ! 100 stars to Michael Allison for risking it all (75 years in prison -- essentially a life sentence) -- a David against a Goliath.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5

     
    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    Your town:
        CLICK JUST ONCE!

    More Quotations
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2017 Liberty-Tree.ca