Ill. House committee OKs bill to allow audio recording

SPRINGFIELD – Legislation letting people record police activities without risking felony charges was approved Wednesday by an Illinois House committee, despite some lawmakers’ concerns that the measure creates new complications.

The bill was approved 9-2 by the Human Services Committee, sending it to the House floor for further action.

Rep. Elaine Nekritz said it would protect citizens who pull out cellphones or turn on a camera to record events they witness.

The Northbrook Democrat said updating the law is “urgent” because international visitors and journalists are coming to Chicago in May for the G-8 and NATO summits, which may trigger protests that people will want to record.

Under current Illinois law, it is a felony to make an audio recording of someone without the person’s permission.

That means using a smartphone to record a conversation with police or tape them as they make arrests is punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

Nekritz’s bill would create an exception allowing people to record public officials while they are performing their duties in public places.

Several lawmakers voted for the bill, but said they might oppose it on the House floor unless there are changes.

Rep. Jil Tracy, R-Quincy, said the idea of drawing lines between public and private places troubles her.

Specifying “public” would make it illegal to record an officer in your own home, or continue recording if you move from the front desk of a police station to a private interview room.

“I think we’re pretty much all in agreement that a felony conviction is a high price to pay,” said Tracy, who also wants assurance that police officers wouldn’t be impaired by citizens recording.

Dan Nelson, the director of government affairs for the Fraternal Order of Police, testified against the legislation. He argued the bill would allow citizens who are not a party in a conversation to secretly record officials in public places and interfere with police activities.

Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez also opposed bill. Her office said the measure should wait until the courts rule on challenges to the current law and a rewrite should address the entire eavesdropping statute, not just one small part.