Okay.
Reading now...
Sigh, I'm putting my pitchfork back, false alarm.
The old law got struck down [1] because the Constitution. The new one stipulates that it's only illegal in situations where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy [2]. Damn it, I can't get offended about this.
[1] http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-26/news/chi-supre... [2] http://politics.suntimes.com/article/springfield/state-eaves...
... the eavesdropping bill retains another odious aspect of the old law: It punishes unauthorized recordings of public officials—specifically, police officers, prosecutors, and judges—more severely than unauthorized recordings of ordinary citizens. The former would be a Class 3 felony, punishable by two to four years in prison, while the latter would be a Class 4 felony, punishable by one to three years in prison. If anything, that is the opposite of the distinction the law should draw, since public officials, given the power they wield, should be subject to greater scrutiny than private citizens.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm294TYqh6o
... And there are plenty more stories where that came from.
The latter concerns someone who was not arrested.
Of course we want to tell the 98% they are free to film as well! But I take your point.
if my spouse/gf/friends film my arrest in my own garage (without my objection, maybe even with my insistence), are they now subject to arrest?
But giving a tool to for officers to use while making an arrest, confiscating footage, and passing the case to prosecutors to file charges is not OK. Even if you think the trial judge, or worse, an appeals judge will rule on precedent. This law is meant as a cudgel to abuse the public.