I am posting this story to pose a question for attorneys with knowledge about surreptitious recording. I thought that in many states it was legal to record a conversation as long as one party was aware of the recording. What are the rules? Here is the story:

HINCKLEY, Ill. — A former northern Illinois police chief has been charged with official misconduct for allegedly recording a conversation with her boss.

Kimberly Everhart was taken into custody Tuesday after being accused of illegally recording a 2017 conversation with Hinckley Village President Nancy Nelson.

DeKalb County court records show the 51-year-old Everhart of Plano used an eavesdropping device to record the conversation without Nelson’s consent.

Online court records didn’t list a lawyer for Everhart.

Everhart became the first female police officer for the village when she won election over a fellow write-in candidate in 2017. She was fired in late 2018, and former Chief Gregg Waitkus, who served as Hinckley chief from 2012 to 2015, was appointed interim chief.

An eavesdropping conviction is typically punishable by one to three years in prison.

LINK:https://wgntv.com/2019/03/21/former-hinkley-police-chief-charged-with-eavesdropping/

Some states are one-party states, meaning that the only one party in the conversation has to consent to a recording. Unfortunately for her, Illinois is not one of those states. Illinois is an all-party state, meaning all parties in the conversation must consent.

Personally, this sounds like something that he Police Chief should know......

If (big if) Wikipedia is correct,11 states require at least 2 party consent and of course there is nuances.

Years ago, we had a Police Chief in Birmingham who to say the least had questionable ethics and was brought in to support the Mayor who some described as having the same mindset. I do not remember the specific incident but a patrolman who was being put through the wringer secretly recorded the Chief dressing him down. When it became public the local newspaper made a point of trying to degrade the patrolman in question for the recording-the actions of the Chief and the Mayor's office which were widely seen as dirty to begin with were overlooked while the patrolman who attempted to defend himself against unlawful action by the powers that be was condemned for trying to play it straight.

A ridiculously stupid law in any state. People should learn not to run their mouths, not worry whether or not their words might jam them up.

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:
If (big if) Wikipedia is correct,11 states require at least 2 party consent and of course there is nuances.

The article that you referenced seems to be specific to telephone calls.

Do the same laws apply to face-to-face conversations?

The both parties consent law was, as I recall, what got Linda Tripp jammed up for recording her conversations with Monica Lewinski. What has puzzled me is how these all parties consent laws apply—or don’t apply—to the almost universal practice these days of people’s taking videos with their phones. They always include recording what people are saying, and very often the person doing the recording isn’t really a party to the conversation.

And then there are the police body cameras. If they’re used in states requiring all parties consent, is there an exception for the police?
Is the fact that the cameras are (sort of) visible enough notice and the consent implied?

It would be interesting to know how the laws have been interpreted on these points, if at all.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:
If (big if) Wikipedia is correct,11 states require at least 2 party consent and of course there is nuances.

The article that you referenced seems to be specific to telephone calls.

Do the same laws apply to face-to-face conversations?

Here is a chart by state updated about a month ago. Where I live, Texas, it's essentially the same but where the OP's story took place looks like a lot more reading than I'm willing to do as I avoid Illinois.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
The both parties consent law was, as I recall, what got Linda Tripp jammed up for recording her conversations with Monica Lewinski. What has puzzled me is how these all parties consent laws apply—or don’t apply—to the almost universal practice these days of people’s taking videos with their phones. They always include recording what people are saying, and very often the person doing the recording isn’t really a party to the conversation.

And then there are the police body cameras. If they’re used in states requiring all parties consent, is there an exception for the police?

Is the fact that the cameras are (sort of) visible enough notice and the consent implied?
It would be interesting to know how the laws have been interpreted on these points, if at all.

Most of these videos are taking place in public where a reasonable person doesn't have the expectation of privacy.

Recording an in person conversation in a room with a closed door or a telephone call is a much different situation.

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:
Most of these videos are taking place in public where a reasonable person doesn't have the expectation of privacy.

That could be the reason, but I do not recall any exceptions to the applicable laws back when restrictions on recording or intercepting conversations by electronic means made a difference to me. Of course it could be a case law thing rather than statute if any such incidents have made it to court.

Added:

My curiosity finally prompted me to do a little research. Here is a site with good information about the subject. Most states’ laws relating to recording conversations do mention the expectation of privacy issue, but not all.

Illinois has to be this way or even more officials would be going to jail. It's hard to keep training so many noobs on how to accept fat cash-stuffed envelopes while avoiding jail. It's better to keep the thieves you're already comfortable with.