The Illinois Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday on the constitutionality of the Illinois Eavesdropping Act which requires consent from all parties if a conversation is recorded, whether or not the conversation is private. The ACLU of Illinois filed amicus briefs on behalf of both of the criminal defendants whose cases were heard. In People v. Clark, the accused was representing himself in a civil proceeding, and recorded a court hearing and a brief conversation with the opposing lawyer, in order to advance his access to the courts. In People v. Melongo, the defendant recorded her phone conversations with a county court reporter and then posted the recordings online, in order to advance her claim of ineffective government services. Ms. Melongo was arrested and imprisoned for 18 months while awaiting the conclusion of her trial. In both of these cases, a trial judge held that people have the right to record these kinds of conversations. The prosecutors appealed these decisions to the state’s Supreme Court. The Courthouse News highlighted portions of the ACLU of Illinois’ brief in support of Ms. Melongo’s claim.

"It is axiomatic that conversational privacy is not advanced by restricting the recording of conversations that are not private," the ACLU's brief states. It added that "few courts have squarely addressed the constitutional implications" of the "delicate balancing of free speech and privacy rights."

"Thus, the Eavesdropping Statute's means do not fit its ends," the ACLU continued.

"It unconstitutionally infringes Ms. Melongo's right to receive, gather, and publicize non-private information, obtained from government officials in the course of their duties which the First Amendment protects."

This is not the ACLU of Illinois’ first case in this area. Last year, we successfully persuaded the federal appellate court that the First Amendment protects the right to audio record on-duty police officers in public places.

Read the article.

Nationally-renowned Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne decries the inequitable application of anti-marijuana laws and argues for decriminalizing the drug. Citing the ACLU’s 2013 report “The War on Marijuana in Black and White,” the column dismisses the premise that there are moral and social benefits to keeping marijuana an illegal drug. Dionne says the ACLU report should be the key document used in the now occurring legalization debates and he points to the ACLU findings that, though marijuana is used at about the same rates across racial lines, Blacks are arrested for procession 3.73 times more often than Whites.

One way or another, public sentiment is moving toward change, and for good reason. A 2013 Pew poll found that 72 percent of Americans agreed that "government efforts to enforce marijuana laws cost more than they are worth." 

That's true, and those costs are far heavier for some of our fellow citizens than for others.

Read the rest of the article.
Learn about the effects of marijuana laws in Illinois.

The constitutionality of a River Forest ordinance limiting political signs on residential properties is being questioned by a village trustee. The local River Forest publication, Forest Leaves, reports that Trustee Thomas Cargie questions the legality of the ordinance which specifies that only one political sign, of specific dimensions, may be posted in a yard. When questioned on the issue, ACLU spokesman Ed Yohnka pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court had stuck down a similar Missouri ordinance in 1994:

“The bottom line [in the Supreme Court ruling] is that in many ways placing a yard sign with a political candidate’s name on it or taking a stand on a particular issue is for many of us the most intimate and most personal way we can express our political views to our neighbors and the people who move through our neighborhoods,” he said. “Undue limitations on that speech is something that clearly runs afoul of the Constitution.”

Read the article.