ISBA Statehouse Review for the week of March 22
ISBA Director of Legislative Affairs Jim Covington reviews bills in Springfield of interest to ISBA members. This week he covers House Bill 3944 (Eavesdropping), Senate Bill 3763 (Victim impact statement), House Bill 5214 (SCRAM devices and DUIs), House Bill 5262 (Video interrogations) and House Bill 5434 (Post-judgement procedures). More information on each bill is available below the video.
Eavesdropping. House Bill 3944 (Nekritz, D-Des Plaines) creates an exemption from prosecution for eavesdropping. It allows a citizen to record a law enforcement officer performing public duties in a public place. “Public place" means any place to which the public has access and includes, but is not limited to, streets, sidewalks, parks, and highways (including inside motor vehicles), and the common areas of public and private facilities and buildings. This was defeated in the House yesterday on a 45-59-1 vote.
Victim impact statement. Senate Bill 3763 (Jones, D-Chicago) requires any person who pleads guilty or receives supervision for DUI to attend a victim impact panel and adds Victim Impact Speakers to the list of organizations permitted to run victim impact panels. (Now discretionary with the judge.) Scheduled for Senate Judiciary Committee Monday.
SCRAM devices and DUIs. House Bill 5214 (Ramey, R-Carol Stream) allows a driver to obtain an MDDP using a SCRAM device as an alternative to a BAIID device. It also allows a court to require its use as a condition of supervision, conditional discharge, or probation in a DUI case. On second reading in the House.
Videotaped interrogations. House Bill 5262 (Turner, D-Chicago) allows the use of statements made by adults and minors in homicide cases and other death investigations to be used in a later criminal proceeding even if the statement was not electronically recorded. On second reading in the House.
Post-judgment procedures. House Bill 5434 (Williams, D-Chicago) amends the Code of Civil Procedure to address concerns with insufficient process and notice for body attachments and other post-judgment collection procedures. (1) Citations and rules to show cause should be served by process instead of mail; (2) there should be confirmation of the judgment debtor's ability to pay from non-exempt assets; and (3) the court should confirm the existence of non-exempt assets before approving pay plan orders. On second reading in the House.
Member Comments (1)
HB 5434 does nothing except make more work for busy Judges and the Courts. It solves, nothing. First, proper service of citations and rules are already covered by the Code and whether or not they were properly served is a function for the Judge. Most Judges require personal service of a Rule to Show Cause prior to issuing an attachment. the present scheme also allows alternate service of a rule in the event Defendant is avoiding service.
Secondly, there is no detail on who and when a verification of whether amounts can be paid from non-exempt assets is to be held. Right now, it can be done, if necessary, at the time the Defendant appears for the Citation. How is anyone to know prior to that information, anyway, prior to the examination.
Thirdly, its the Debtor's choice whether to protect exempt assets from being subject to collection. If Debtor waives the exemption, either voluntarily or by default, then Creditor ought to be able to reach the asset. The bill would also prevent a Debtor from using exempt assets to pay a debt if the Debtor voluntarily decides to do so.