Arrest and Bail in Chicago/ Eavesdropping

Submitted by Sue Basko on

Sue Basko's picture

Arrest and Bail in Chicago/ Eavesdropping

by Sue Basko

 

 Planning a trip to Chicago for the G8/ NATO Summit protests?  Arrested at a protest in Chicago?  Unlike California and some other states, Illinois does not use bail bondsmen.  If you are arrested (not on a warrant) on a misdemeanor or petty ordinance violation while in Chicago, you will be required to pay a bail bond of 10% of the total bail, but a minimum of $120 or $150 must be paid.   This is paid directly to the desk sergeant at the police station where you are being held.  This bail bond amount will usually be $120 or $150 in cash or cashier’s check.  If you cannot pay the bail, the watch commander at the station may authorize that you be released on an “I Bond,” or Individual Bond, which means you are being released on your own recognizance.  If you are arrested on a felony, you will be brought before a judge who will set the bail amount.  You will then have to pay 10% of that amount.  If you show up court, and after your case is all over, you may apply to have your bail, minus some fees, refunded to you.

 

 

CLICK to download Chicago Police Department Bail Bond Manual

 

 

Municipal, State, and Federal Offenses:

If you are arrested at a protest in Chicago, you will probably be charged with either a violation of the Chicago Municipal Code or of the Illinois Criminal Code.  Call me cynical, but I think the City will most likely be trying to charge protesters with Municipal Code violations, so the City can make the money in fines.   Some of the Chicago laws pertaining to protests can be read at: 

Where You Can Protest in Chicago and How.

see also: Chicago G8 and NATO Protests

 

The G8 and NATO summits are being run by the U.S. Secret Service and FBI.  You might be charged with a federal offense if you are accused of doing anything that affects them, their vehicles, their equipment, or the territory they stake out as a safety perimeter around the event locations.  Please don’t do any of this.

 

Arrests at Chicago Protests:  It is usually pretty darn easy to avoid getting arrested at a protest in Chicago.  Things that are almost sure to get you arrested at a protest in Chicago are the same things that would get you arrested in public in Chicago, even if it were not a protest, such as: 

 
  • Being in a park after closing 
  • Interfering with traffic 
  • Use a sound system or megaphone without a permit
  • Graffiti – marking with chalk, marker, paint, etc., on anything that is not your own piece of paper
  • Possession of marks or paints likely to be used for graffiti
  • Any form of property damage or misuse 
  • Doing anything as a group that startles or frightens others
  • Possessing open alcohol or being intoxicated in public
  • Marijuana possession or use (Illinois does not have medical marijuana)
  • Carrying a weapon
  •  Disobeying simple instructions from a police officer
  • Climbing a fence or barrier meant to keep people out 
  • Starting any fire
  • Pointing a laser pointer at a plane, vehicle, or person  

Eavesdropping – If you plan to bring an audio or video recorder, including a phone with a built-in camera, and if you are not a broadcast journalist, please be aware that it is a crime in Illinois to record any conversation between two or more people without stated specific permission beforehand from each of them.  If you record a police officer in conversation with someone while in the course of official duties, it is a serious felony.  If you wish to videotape an arrest and you are not an actual broadcast journalist, be absolutely sure you are not recording audio.  You may still be arrested, but if you have not recorded audio, you will most likely have a defense.  

  

If you are an actual broadcast journalist, as some of the live streamers are,  try to get Chicago News Media Credentials and/or the special G8 Press Credentials.     

    

Tags: 

17 Comments

Yep

Submitted by OccuMikey on

California is also getting heavily authoritarian. Occupy feels it from TPTB all the time.

But as far as i know it isn't YET a felony in California to tape a cop arresting someone. If that doesn't smell like a police state then nothing does.

BTW, thanks for the "partying" comment...very professional.

old law, new technology

Submitted by OccuMikey on

Stating that the law is an old one reinforces my point that the current interpretation of the law from TPTB is an authoritarian move. Also, this law is currently being challenged. I think that is a good thing since it smacks of a police state...oh wait, I already said that.

Discrimination in Reporting Illinois Eavesdropping Cases

Submitted by amorro on


I’ll amazed at the bias shown by Chicago Press in reporting cases about Illinois Eavesdropp­ing Law. In Cook County there were three Eavesdropp­ing Cases: People v. Moore, People v. Drew and People v. Melongo. In the first case, the jury acquitted the defendant. In the last two cases, there are pending motions to dismiss. However, the Chicago Press has completely ignored the Melongo’s case and focused all its attention on the Drew’s case. Melongo recorded conversati­ons with Pamela Taylor for an allegedly altered court transcript­. Mrs. Taylor is a public official working at the criminal located at 2600th California Ave. Melongo has spent 22 months in jail for this offense, is currently out on house arrest, yet the local press in all of its many articles, has completely ignored the Melongo’s case. Why? Maybe there’s a great bias in the press against police to the extend that it has turned a blind eye on the integrity of reporting the news. If it wants to report news related to the Eavesdropp­ing Law, then by all means, it should report ALL of it; I’m extremely shocked at what’s happening here.

Melongo’s Motion to dismiss: http://www­.scribd.co­m/doc/8109­6353/Amend­ed-Motion-­To-Dismiss­-Illinois-­Eavesdropp­ing-Case

State response’s to Melongo’s motion: http://www­.scribd.co­m/doc/8175­0317/State­-Response-­Amended-Mo­tion

Melongo’s arguments on her motion to dismiss will be heard on March 13th, 2012. The presiding judge is Goebel.

That’s what mean being impartial. Tell the ENTIRE story. Not just a snippet of it.

stop shilling for the police

Submitted by OccuMikey on

amorro,


You have spammed this post all over the internet.  It is obvious you are robo-posting for the po-po (just Google 'People v. Melongo').  Good luck trying to convince anyone here that the cops are the victims of the press (funny stuff).


I took note that you strategically left out this part of your post from another site: "I'm extremely shocked at what's happening here. A complete assault on police whereas there are also other people outside the police force being recorded while performing their duties."


You know that "complete assault on police" stuff wouldn't fly on the Occupy LA website.  Nice try...not really.

Sue Basko's picture

Melongo does not involve police

Submitted by Sue Basko on

To OCCUPYMIKEY:  I think you maybe mistaken about the person posting as Amorro, who, yes, has posted around the internet to call attention to the Melongo case.  I have seen many posts, but have never seen one mention police.

 The Melongo case does not involve any police.  The Melongo case involves a lady named Mrs Melongo who recorded her own phone conversation with a court official because she was trying to prove that a court transcript had been falsified.  After reading the case, I think the biggest mistake Mrs Melongo made was insisting on acting as her own lawyer.  

Amorro, the person posting here and elsewhere, appears to be a friend of Mrs Melongo posting to try to gather attention to her case.  The posts would not be pro-police because Mrs Melongo is not the police, and there are no police involved in the case.  

The Melongo case is not really relevant to the issue of how the Eavesdropping law will affect recording audio at protests.  Allegedly, Mrs Melongo was surreptitiously recording a phone call.   

ONE THING I DID LEARN from reading the papers of the Melongo case is that the Cook County IL prosecutors office argued the Eavesdropping law as it if is still totally valid and enforceable.  I say this as BEWARE because with the upcoming NATO events in Chicago, everyone recording audio must be aware and know how to work with the law, which I explain in a different post on this site.   

 

 

Sue Basko, Lawyer

OCCUPY PEACE - Legal Info on How to Hold a Peaceful Protest or Occupation

 

never said it did

Submitted by OccuMikey on

Amorro has been spamming basically the same words since September 2011.  I don't know Amorro's intentions & neither do you.  You say "I have seen many posts, but have never seen one mention police."  Bzzzt...wrong answer!!!  Just read his post here ala "Maybe there’s a great bias in the press against police."  That is one mention.  Also, I quoted him in my earlier post talking about a "complete assault on police "  Here is the link: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110919/03455916010/il-court-eavesdropping-law-violates-first-amendment-when-used-against-people-recording-police.shtml

As far as the particulars of the 'People v. Melongo' case, I am not making any assertions about the police being involved.  I was alerting readers to his spamming & used keywords to do it.

No offense Sue, but to drag this tactic out again is really tiring.  I would believe that Amorro wasn't pro-police except his WORDS betray him.

Melongo's Eavesdropping Case Dismissed

Submitted by amorro on

*** italic words are links.

Upon the defendant's motion, Judge Goebel filed today his written order dismissing Melongo's eavesdropping case on June 19th, 2012. The state hasn't decided if it will appeal.

Additionally, the Illinois Attorney General is now throwing the Cook County State Attorney under the bus regarding melongo's cases. In its memorandum dated 01/18/2012, the Illinois Attorney General stated that it provided only "some technical assistance" in the prosecution of Melongo while at the same time undermining Melongo's eavesdropping case as being just about recording a court reporter. However, a day after Judge Goebel dismissed that case, the same Illinois Attorney General filed a supplemental memorandum reiterating its superficial involvement in  Melongo's cases.  

What the Illinois Attorney General isn't telling in these carefully grafted filings is that in masterminding Melongo's computer tampering charge, and long before the eavesdropping statute became a controversy, it once planned of charging Melongo under this statute; that its "limited technical assistance" provided the crucial evidence that led to the eavesdropping indictment, that Melongo is being prosecuted by a special prosecutor appointed by....the Illinois Attorney General Office!!! after ASA Lynn Palac, a regular prosecutor in Rolling Meadows,IL, refused to prosecute Melongo for lack of evidence in the computer tampering case, that the eavesdropping case was just a calculated exit from the computer tampering case once various bloggers revealed that Melongo's indictment was secured through several counts of perjuries of the state witness and finally that Melongo's complaint against improprieties of Illinois Attorney General Assistant Prosecutor, Kyle French, and forensic expert, Shahna Monge, regarding the computer tampering, was politely ignored.

The strange silence of Lisa Madigan toward the Illinois Eavesdropping controversy is indicative of the fact that she afraid of having her not so limited involvement in Melongo's cases aired. For someone who ambitions herself to be a U.S. senator or an Illinois governor, an involvement with Carol Spizzirri to create cyber laws and its consequential "limited technical assistance" in Melongo's cases, surely, aren't things to display in a political resume.

Melongo's Motion to Dismiss is here

State's Response to the Motion is here

 

 

 

Pages