Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel On City's Illegal Recordings Of Conversations With Journalists: 'Much Ado About Nothing'

from the we're-here-to-write-the-laws,-not-follow-them dept

Chicago city hall officials are in a bit of trouble for recording phone conversations with Chicago Tribune reporters without their consent. A city attorney is downplaying the incidents, insisting that there's no “widespread practice of such tapings” and promising that “steps are being taken” to prevent this from happening again.

Why is this a big deal? Because recording a conversation without the consent of all parties is a felony in Illinois. But what happens when city hall officials, who should be familiar with these laws, violate them? Not much. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel's response is that committing a felony is nothing to get excited about.

Asked about the recordings at an unrelated news conference Monday, Mayor Rahm Emanuel said the issue was “much ado about nothing.”

“My view is, like all, we have a press conference here, I expect my staff to have a record of it,” he said. “And if I have a phone conversation, an interview, I expect to have a record of it as well.”

But the commission of a felony is a very big deal if committed by regular citizens. Radley Balko says it's all about who's doing the recording… and who they're recording

So remember when Chicago police were arresting people for recording them, and charging them with crimes punishable by 10 or more years in prison? Remember the woman who was arrested and charged because she attempted to record Chicago PD internal affairs police browbeating her when she tried to report a sexual assault by a Chicago cop? Remember all that stuff we heard from Chicago PD and Cook County DA Anita Alvarez’s office about protecting privacy?

That's not an isolated event. Earlier this year, two men filed a lawsuit against the city of Chicago, alleging they were battered, strip-searched and falsely charged after filming a traffic accident caused by a police car. Late last year, a man was arrested for recording the police and charged with illegal eavesdropping and is now facing a sentence of up to 75 years in prison. Another man was arrested and told he was facing 15 years in prison for daring to record a traffic stop.

The good news is that the courts have rejected some of these cases, stating that the law these citizens were arrested for breaking may be unconstitutional. For now, the law still stands. And the recordings done by members of city hall are illegal. The claims that the recordings were simply inadvertent errors rather than part of something more nefarious don't wash when you take a look at what was being discussed when the recordings occurred.

The issue reached a public forum last week when a court filing in a wrongful death lawsuit against the city raised questions about whether a city spokeswoman had recorded Tribune reporters without their consent as they conducted a phone interview with Chicago police Superintendent Garry McCarthy in October 2011.

And in separate incidents this past September, city spokespeople twice recorded a Tribune reporter as he conducted phone interviews with a top city official involved in Emanuel's controversial speed camera program. The spokespeople acknowledged that they independently recorded the interviews without asking the reporter for consent.

Odd that the illegal recordings would have occurred during discussions about possible law enforcement malfeasance. Emanuel's press aides openly admit that recordings take place during media interviews about “controversial topics,” but most of these interviews are done in person, making the recording obvious. No effort was made to inform these reporters that their conversations were being recorded.

Last month, the city turned over to the plaintiff's lawyers an audio recording and transcript of the conference call showing no evidence that McCarthy or Hamilton sought consent to record the Tribune reporters.

“Absent from the audio and the transcript was evidence of the parties' consent,” according to a court filing last week by the plaintiff's attorney, Craig Sandberg.

Not only is the required consent absent, but the recordings seem to be missing as well:

Gerould Kern, senior vice president and editor of the Tribune, declined to comment Friday about the recordings. Instead, he cited the letter sent by Tribune Co. attorney Karen Flax to Patton, demanding that city officials cease recording Tribune reporters without consent. The letter also asked that the city preserve copies of all recorded conversations and turn them over to the Tribune.

In its response Saturday, the city said it was unclear whether there would be any tapes to turn over.

As Balko points out, the double standard on display here is egregious. Ordinary people get cuffed, threatened, charged with felonies and in some cases, beaten and strip-searched. City officials don't even get a slap on the wrist. Instead, they get the mayor's assurance that their illegal recordings are a whole lot of nothing for anyone to be concerned about. Even the “mysterious” disappearance of the requested recordings fails to raise an eyebrow. Just one of those things that happens to evidence that incriminates politicians and members of law enforcement.

The growing gap between the governing and the governed continues. Those on the enforcement side treat many laws as optional. Those governed and policed are still forced to comply with the laws, no matter how (to paraphrase Frank Zappa) badly written and randomly enforced.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel On City's Illegal Recordings Of Conversations With Journalists: 'Much Ado About Nothing'”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
IPLawyer says:

Two Party Consent Is A Farce

Sorry Tim,

As a huge privacy advocate, I just have to call BS on this whole thing. States with two-party consent laws are living in an absurd fantasy world. You have to remember that the road goes two ways: if the cops cannot record you without your consent, you cannot record the cops without their consent.

Get over it and move on. One party consent is all that should be necessary, barring exceptions such as publicly viewable behavior and grant of a Title III warrant.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Two Party Consent Is A Farce

Yeah, right. Have fun telling a police officer he’s not allowed to record you, in any city, and see how far that gets you. At most you’ll probably be laughed at. Now try and record him and see what that gets you. If you’re lucky, you’ll just be ignored. If not…

The hypocrisy being pointed out in this article is that the powers that be are just ‘meh-ing’ away actions that, if done by a regular citizens, are considered serious crimes, and have gotten people beaten and assaulted by the one’s supposed to be protecting and serving them, so your attempt to just handwave it away as an imaginary problem is glaringly obvious, and frankly an insult to all of those that have suffered due to these double-standards.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Two Party Consent Is A Farce

” You have to remember that the road goes two ways”

I agree, many politicians live in fantasy land but I think the point being made here is that in theory it is a two way street but in practice it is clearly a one way street.

Many people in positions of power and influence have a “do as I say, not as I do” attitude and expect the law to enforce said hypocrisy. I find it amazing that so many people simply go along with this as though it were no big deal. What’s worse is the cheering from the sidelines when those who do complain are mugged by the law. Illinois is not alone in this, it is pervasive and growing.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Two Party Consent Is A Farce

> States with two-party consent laws are
> living in an absurd fantasy world. You
> have to remember that the road goes two
> ways: if the cops cannot record you
> without your consent, you cannot record
> the cops without their consent.

Except in Illinois, that’s not the case. The law itself makes exceptions for law enforcement. So the cops *can* record you, but you can’t record them.

art guerrilla (profile) says:

Re: Two Party Consent Is A Farce

in my state (florida) it has a ‘two-party’ law, but i am pretty sure it is not ‘consent’, specifically, it is ‘notification’…
in other words, if i record a phone call, i don’t have to get their ‘permission’, per se, i just have to notify them i am recording…
if *they* choose to terminate the call/conversation because i am recording, that is their choice…
otherwise, i’ve notified them, and can record to my heart’s delight…

art guerrilla
aka ann archy

rule of law says:

A trio is trying to get Rule of Law out of Texas

Mr. Kelton 1st showed up on We the People Radio Network then felt the fight was still worth having and made their own network where the 3 of ’em discuss how in Texas there is a duty for the local officials to act when a crime is committed and how you as a private citizen can use this information to effect change.

What other way do you have to attempt to address local corruption?

Christopher Best (profile) says:

SOP in Chicago

Chicago has one of the most ridiculous gun control laws in the nation… But city aldermen are allowed to carry concealed handguns.

There was a relatively notorious case of an alderman pulling a gun on some of her constituents during a shouting match. She wasn’t charged, either.

There has always been a double standard in Chicago regarding criminal laws and government officials.

Anonymous Coward says:

The laws of each state should be respected because it can affect the information one of the parties divulges in the conversation.

In a 2 party requirement – 1 party may divulge private information because they are talking under the assumption it can’t be recorded.

In a 1 party requirement – 1 party may contribute to the conversation under the assumption it may be recorded.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...