Alvarez,
No.
10
C 5235,2011 WL 66030 (N.D. Ill. Jan.
10
,2011);
Peoplev.Drew,
No.
10
CR
46 (CookCty. Cir. Ct. May
18
,2010),and defendant provides no persuasive reason for this Court to reach a different
conclusion.Defendant cites a First Circuit case for the proposition that"though not unqualified, a citizen's rightto film government officials,including law enforcement officers,in the discharge
of
their duties in a publicspace is a basic,vital,and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment." Def. Mot.
10
(citing
Glik
v.
CunnifJe,
655 F.3d
78
,
85
(Ist
Cir. 2011)) But the Seventh Circuit has held,to the contrary,
that"there
is
nothing in the Constitution which guarantees the right to record a public event."
Potts
v.
City
of
Lafayett
e,
Indiana,
121
F .3d 1106,1111 (7th Cir. 1997).Other federal courts,in the context
of
qualifiedimmunity analyses,have held that there is no clearly established right to record police officers.
See,
e.
g.
,Kelly
v.
Borough
of
Carlisle,
622 F.3d 248,263 (3d Cir. 2010);
Matheny,
2010 WL 1007859, at
*6
;
Gravolet
v.
Tassin,
2009 WL 1565864,at *4 (E.D.La. Jun. 2,2009).
Glik,
moreover,is inapposite.
Glik
did not hold that there is a First Amendment right to audio recordconversations with or between unconsenting government officials;rather,the issue there was whether there
was a right to video record police officers in the course
of
making an arrest.
Glik,
655 F.3d at 80.Furthermore,
Glik
involved openly recording the officers in their plain
view
.Id.
The instant case involvedthe defendant surreptitiously recording a telephone conversation with an assistant administrator at the CookCounty Court Reporter's Office. Mrs. Taylor was never informed
of
the recording,nor did she consent.Defendant further contends that the statute is unconstitutional because it places greater prohibitionson recordings made by civilians than it does on recordings made by police officers. Def. Mot.
6.
Withoutlegal or evidentiary support, defendant concludes that this difference in treatment between civilians and lawenforcement leads to speaker-based discrimination. Def. Mot.
6.
However,the prohibition on recording
,..,
-
.)
-