A report on The Washington Post said that a case filed against a man who had recorded a court hearing and a private conversation set precedent on the interpretation of the Illinois state ban on audiorecording conversations.
DeForest Clark was indicted over charges that arose from a child support hearing before the Kane County Circuit Court, an amicus bried by the ACLU of Illinois said. Clark was found to have recorded the open court hearing and a private conversation with opposing counsel Colleen Thomas ahead of the hearing. The brief said Clark justified the recordings as a way for him to preserve an accurate record of public proceedings as there was no court reporter around and that Clark represented himself during the hearing.
Because of this act, the Illinois Supreme Court has deemed Clark's actions in violation of the First Amendment and that Clark has violated state law on recording audio conversations, of which the Post referred to, which read, "(Any person who) knowingly and intentionally uses an eavesdropping device for the purpose of hearing or recording all or any part of any conversation (is committing a crime) unless he does so ... with the consent of all of the parties to such conversation or electronic communication."
The brief explained that Clark's conviction was on the basis that the act of recording the hearing and of his conversation with Thomas was a felony to begin with. It read, "[The statute is] a general ban on audio recordings of any oral communication whatsoever, absent consent from all parties, except in limited circumstances that mostly apply to law enforcement authorities."
The brief the Post cited said the ruling on Clark's case was alarming in a sense that future cases could prosecute innocent people. Moreover, the paper said that although some people do not want their conversations to be broadcasted or recorded, the possibility of getting recorded or broadcasted is beyond our control given the fact that there are now means that people could use to record and broadcast such material quickly.
On the other hand, the Post said that the current Illinois law on audio recordings has a distinct exception that could aid future innocent people who could face charges under the state law. The law read, "Recording of a conversation made by or at the request of a person ... who is a party to the conversation, under reasonable suspicion that another party to the conversation is committing, is about to commit, or has committed a criminal offense against the person or a member of his or her immediate household, and there is reason to believe that evidence of the criminal offense may be obtained by the recording."
