Illinois
Illinois Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Protections (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 22, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 22, 2026. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Illinois law explicitly allows you to record police officers performing their public duties. The eavesdropping statute's affirmative-defense provision at 720 ILCS 5/14-2(e) protects recording on-duty officers because they hold no reasonable expectation of privacy in their official conduct, a right the First Amendment also protects.
The right to record police officers in Illinois has a turbulent legal history. Before 2014, Illinois had one of the harshest eavesdropping laws in the nation, and residents faced felony charges simply for recording police encounters. The Illinois Supreme Court struck down that law as unconstitutional in People v. Clark, 2014 IL 115776, and the replacement statute enacted in December 2014 explicitly legalized recording police and government officials performing public duties. Today, Illinois provides strong legal protections for individuals who record police activity.
The Legal Right to Record Police
The 2014 Reform
The current eavesdropping statute under 720 ILCS 5/14-2 was specifically drafted to protect the right to record police. Section 720 ILCS 5/14-2(e), added by P.A. 99-352 (eff. Jan. 1, 2016), states that nothing in the eavesdropping article prohibits a person who is not a law enforcement officer from recording a law enforcement officer performing official duties in a public place or in circumstances with no reasonable expectation of privacy, though an officer may take reasonable action to maintain safety and control, secure crime scenes and accident sites, protect the integrity and confidentiality of investigations, and protect public safety and order.
Recording State's Attorneys, judges, and other government officials performing their public duties is likewise generally lawful. That protection does not come from a provision naming them specifically; rather, a public official performing official duties has no reasonable expectation of privacy, so the conversation is not a private conversation under 720 ILCS 5/14-1(d) and the eavesdropping statute's private-conversation element is never met.
This exemption applies to both audio and video recording. You do not need to obtain consent from a police officer before recording their public activity.
Conditions for Lawful Recording
Your right to record police is protected when you meet these conditions:
-
The officer is performing public duties. This includes arrests, traffic stops, interactions with the public, crowd control, and any activity related to their official role.
-
You are in a place where you have a right to be. This means public sidewalks, parks, government buildings open to the public, your own property, and any location where you have lawful access.
-
You do not physically interfere with the officer's duties. You may record from a reasonable distance, but you cannot obstruct an arrest, block an officer's path, or physically intervene in police activity.
-
You are not trespassing on private property. Your right to record does not authorize entering private property without permission.
What "Physical Interference" Means
The non-interference requirement is the most commonly disputed aspect of recording police in Illinois. Courts evaluate interference based on the specific facts:
Not interference:
- Standing on a sidewalk and recording from a reasonable distance
- Recording from inside your vehicle during a traffic stop
- Recording from your porch or yard
- Holding up a phone to record without getting in the way
- Verbally asking questions while recording (without yelling or creating a disturbance)
May constitute interference:
- Moving into the path of an officer making an arrest
- Physically blocking a police vehicle
- Reaching toward an officer's equipment
- Refusing to move back when an officer establishes a safety perimeter at a crime scene
- Entering a restricted area at an active crime scene
The key standard is whether your recording activity physically impedes the officer from performing their duties. Simply recording from a reasonable vantage point does not constitute interference.
Before the 2014 Reform

The Old Eavesdropping Law
Illinois's pre-2014 eavesdropping law was one of the most restrictive in the country. It criminalized recording any conversation without all-party consent, with no exception for public conversations or police activity. The penalties were severe: recording a private citizen was a Class 4 felony, while recording a police officer was a Class 1 felony carrying 4 to 15 years in prison.
People v. Clark (2014)
The Illinois Supreme Court struck down the old statute in People v. Clark, finding it unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment. The Court held that the law criminalized a substantial amount of protected speech and activity, including recording conversations with no privacy interest and documenting the actions of public officials.
The companion case, People v. Melongo, reinforced this holding. Together, these decisions eliminated the felony threat that had been used to suppress citizen recording of police.
The National Context
The right to record police is well-established in federal law. Multiple U.S. Courts of Appeals have recognized recording police as a First Amendment right, including the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits. The Seventh Circuit, which covers Illinois, is the controlling circuit and held in ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012), that the First Amendment protects openly recording police officers performing their duties in public places. Illinois later codified this right at 720 ILCS 5/14-2(e) (P.A. 99-352, eff. Jan. 1, 2016).
In 2012, the Department of Justice sent a letter to the Baltimore Police Department stating that individuals have a First Amendment right to record police officers in the public discharge of their duties. This position has been consistently maintained by the DOJ.
Body Camera Laws in Illinois

The Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act
Illinois enacted the Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act (50 ILCS 706) to regulate the use of body cameras by police officers. The Act establishes requirements for when officers must activate cameras, how footage is stored, and who can access recordings.
When Officers Must Activate Cameras
Under the Act, officers equipped with body cameras must activate them during:
- All law enforcement interactions with the public that occur during enforcement activities, including traffic stops, pedestrian stops, arrests, searches, and pursuits
- All interactions during response to calls for service
- Any encounter that becomes adversarial after initial contact
Officers may deactivate cameras during:
- Conversations with confidential informants
- Certain sensitive situations involving victims of sexual assault or domestic violence who request privacy
- Administrative and non-enforcement activities
Retention and Access
Body camera footage must be retained for a minimum period:
- General footage: 90 days minimum
- Footage flagged as evidence: Until the case is resolved, including all appeals
- Footage involving use of force, complaints, or arrests: Extended retention periods apply
Members of the public who are recorded by body cameras may request access to footage under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (5 ILCS 140). However, certain exemptions allow law enforcement agencies to withhold footage in specific circumstances, such as ongoing criminal investigations.
SB 1796 and Body Camera Reforms
The Illinois General Assembly has continued to refine body camera requirements. Senate Bill 1796 in the 104th General Assembly proposed amendments to body camera activation requirements and footage retention standards. SB1796 was re-referred to Assignments on April 11, 2025, indicating it stalled in committee and was not enacted. It does not change current law.
What to Do When Recording Police

Practical Guidelines
When recording a police encounter in Illinois:
- Stay calm and keep recording. You have the legal right to record.
- Maintain a safe distance. Do not approach so closely that you interfere with the officer's activities.
- Do not physically obstruct. Stay on the sidewalk, in your car, or in another safe location.
- State your rights if questioned. You may calmly inform the officer that you have a legal right to record under Illinois law.
- Do not resist if an officer unlawfully orders you to stop. Comply in the moment and seek legal recourse afterward. Resisting arrest adds criminal charges regardless of whether the underlying order was lawful.
- Back up your footage. Use automatic cloud backup if available so that footage is preserved even if your device is seized.
If an Officer Orders You to Stop Recording
An officer who orders you to stop recording police activity in a public place is issuing an unlawful order. However, the practical reality is that refusing to comply may lead to arrest, even if the arrest is ultimately found to be unlawful. The safest approach:
- Calmly state that you believe you have a right to record
- If the officer insists, comply to avoid escalation
- Note the officer's name and badge number
- File a complaint with the police department's internal affairs division
- Contact an attorney about your options, including a civil rights lawsuit
If Your Device Is Seized
Police officers can often lawfully seize your recording device without a warrant, such as incident to an arrest or based on probable cause. What they generally cannot do without a warrant is search its digital contents: the U.S. Supreme Court held in Riley v. California (2014) that police need a warrant to search a cell phone's data, even after a lawful seizure. If an officer seizes your device:
- Do not physically resist the seizure
- State clearly that you do not consent to the seizure or search
- Note the time, location, and identifying details of the officer
- Contact an attorney immediately
- File a complaint with the department
Enhanced Penalties for Recording Private Police Communications
The Distinction Between Public and Private Police Activity
While recording police performing public duties is legal, unauthorized eavesdropping on private law enforcement communications carries enhanced penalties under 720 ILCS 5/14-4:
| Offense | Classification | Prison Sentence | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eavesdropping on law enforcement (first offense) | Class 3 Felony | 2 to 5 years | up to $25,000 |
| Eavesdropping on law enforcement (subsequent) | Class 2 Felony | 3 to 7 years | up to $25,000 |
"Private law enforcement communications" includes internal police radio channels, confidential informant conversations, undercover operations, and non-public investigative discussions. The enhanced penalty reflects the state's interest in protecting the integrity of ongoing investigations.
The key distinction: recording what officers do and say in public is legal. Intercepting their private, internal communications without authorization is a serious felony.
Civil Rights Remedies
42 U.S.C. Section 1983 Claims
If a police officer violates your right to record by arresting you, seizing your device, or using force to stop you from recording, you may have a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. This federal statute allows individuals to sue government officials who violate their constitutional rights.
Potential claims include:
- First Amendment retaliation: Arresting or threatening someone for exercising their right to record
- Fourth Amendment seizure: Seizing a recording device without a warrant
- Fourth Amendment excessive force: Using force to stop lawful recording
Successful Section 1983 plaintiffs can recover compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees. Qualified immunity may shield officers from liability in some cases, but the right to record police is sufficiently well-established that qualified immunity defenses are becoming harder to sustain.
Filing Complaints
In addition to civil litigation, you can file complaints about officers who violate recording rights with:
- The police department's internal affairs division
- The Illinois Attorney General's office
- The U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division
- Local civilian review boards (in jurisdictions that have them)
Recording at Public Meetings and Government Buildings
Open Meetings Act
The Illinois Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120) requires certain government meetings to be open to the public. Recording is generally permitted at:
- City council meetings
- County board meetings
- School board meetings
- Township meetings
- Park district meetings
- Other public government proceedings
Government bodies cannot prohibit recording at public meetings that are required to be open under the Act.
Courtroom Recording
Recording in Illinois courtrooms is subject to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 44, which generally restricts cameras in courtrooms (Rule 63 covered this before a December 2020 order moved the language to Rule 44). Permission from the presiding judge is typically required before recording any courtroom proceeding.
More Illinois Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording
Back to Illinois Recording Laws
More Illinois Recording Topics
More Illinois Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record police officers in Illinois?
Yes. Illinois law explicitly allows recording police officers performing their public duties. The 2014 eavesdropping statute reform protects your right to record when you are in a place where you have a right to be and do not physically interfere with the officer's duties. This covers both audio and video recording.
Can a police officer tell me to stop recording in Illinois?
An officer does not have legal authority to order you to stop recording police activity in public. If an officer issues such an order, you may calmly state your right to record. If the officer insists, it is safest to comply in the moment to avoid arrest, then seek legal remedies afterward through internal affairs complaints or a civil rights lawsuit.
Do Illinois police have to wear body cameras?
The Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act (50 ILCS 706) requires officers equipped with body cameras to activate them during enforcement activities, including traffic stops, arrests, and responses to calls for service. However, not all departments have fully deployed body cameras to every officer.
Can police seize my phone if I record them in Illinois?
Police can often lawfully seize your phone without a warrant, such as incident to an arrest or on probable cause. What Riley v. California (2014) requires a warrant for is searching the phone's digital contents, not the initial seizure. If an officer seizes your device, do not resist physically. State that you do not consent to any search of it, note the officer's identifying details, and contact an attorney. You may have a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
What is the penalty for illegally recording police private communications?
Unauthorized eavesdropping on private law enforcement communications is a Class 3 felony for a first offense, carrying 2 to 5 years in prison and up to a $25,000 fine, and a Class 2 felony for a subsequent offense, carrying 3 to 7 years in prison and up to a $25,000 fine. This applies to intercepting internal police communications, not to recording officers performing public duties.
Updates
Corrected the citation for Illinois's statutory right to record on-duty police: the page previously cited 720 ILCS 5/14-3 or 14-3(i) (the unrelated fear-of-crime exception) in four places; the real basis is 720 ILCS 5/14-2(e). Also fixed a mischaracterization of Riley v. California, which requires a warrant to search a seized phone's contents but not to seize the phone in the first place, and replaced a dead Illinois Attorney General website link.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the law enforcement eavesdropping penalty (KeyTakeaways, penalty table, and FAQ) to the statutory Class 3 felony (2-5 years) for a first offense and Class 2 felony (3-7 years) for a subsequent offense under 720 ILCS 5/14-4(b); a prior fix wave had wrongly changed a correct FAQ answer to match an incorrect Class 1 felony figure elsewhere on the page.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Spoke propagation refresh. Corrected eavesdropping penalty from Class 4 to Class 2 felony (up to 5 years) per 720 ILCS 5/14-4 and parent hub audit. Corrected law enforcement eavesdropping penalty from Class 3 to Class 1 felony (4 to 15 years). Corrected fear-of-crime exception from 14-3(i) to 14-3(h) where misattributed. Fixed SourcesList prop (sources to citations). Updated More Illinois Laws anchor text. Added People v. Clark and ACLU v. Alvarez citations where missing.
Spoke propagation refresh (2026-05-15) left one error this pass corrects: the codified right to record on-duty police is 720 ILCS 5/14-2(e), not 14-3/14-3(i) (14-3(i) is the unrelated fear-of-crime exception). Also fixed a Riley v. California seizure-vs-search inversion (a warrant is required to search a seized phone's contents, not to seize the phone itself) and replaced a dead Illinois Attorney General domain link.
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 720, Act 5 (Criminal Code of 2012)
§ 14-2Elements of the offense; affirmative defenseIn forcecited in 13 of our articles
(a) A person commits eavesdropping when he or she knowingly and intentionally: (1) Uses an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner, for the purpose of overhearing, transmitting, or recording all or any part of any private conversation to which he or she is not a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all of the parties to the private conversation; (2) Uses an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner, for the purpose of transmitting or recording all or any part of any private conversation to which he or she is a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all other parties to the private conversation; (3) Intercepts, records, or transcribes, in a surreptitious manner, any private electronic communication to which he or she is not a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all parties to the private electronic communication; (4) Manufactures, assembles, distributes, or possesses any electronic, mechanical, eavesdropping, or other device knowing that or having reason to know that the design of the device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious overhearing, transmitting, or recording of private conversations or the…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ilga.gov
Also relied on in: Illinois Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Illinois Audio Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Illinois Security Camera Laws: BIPA, Audio Rules, and Placement (2026)
United States Code Title 42
§ 1983Civil action for deprivation of rightsIn forcecited in 50 of our articles
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 282,365 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal (Supreme Court of the United States 2009, 556 U.S. 662)“…its brought against state officials under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983.” Hartman, 547 U. S., at 254, n. 2. Cf.…”
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of Catrett (Supreme Court of the United States 1986, 477 U.S. 317)“…policeman as she left. Petitioner brought an action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 claiming that the refusal of service a…”
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs. (Supreme Court of the United States 1978, 436 U.S. 658)“…decided less than two decades ago. Focusing new light on 42 U. S. C. § 1983 , that decision widened access to the f…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Alabama Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Limits, Alaska Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Limits (2026), Arkansas Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Limits (2026)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- 720 ILCS 5/14-2 - Elements of Eavesdropping Offense(ilga.gov).gov
- 720 ILCS 5/14-3 - Exemptions(ilga.gov).gov
- 720 ILCS 5/14-4 - Penalties(ilga.gov).gov
- 50 ILCS 706 - Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act(ilga.gov).gov
- 5 ILCS 140 - Illinois Freedom of Information Act(ilga.gov).gov
- Illinois Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120)(ilga.gov).gov
- 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 - Civil Rights Remedies(law.cornell.edu)
- ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012)(courtlistener.com)
- People v. Clark, 2014 IL 115776 (Ill. 2014)(illinoiscourts.gov).gov