ISBA Statehouse Review for the week of Jan. 26
ISBA Director of Legislative Affairs Jim Covington reviews bills in Springfield of interest to ISBA members. This week he covers: House bill 4077 (New crime), House Bill 4129 (Administrative support orders), House Bill 3943 (Eavesdropping) and House Bill 4098 (Judicial campaigns and disqualification). More information on each bill is available below the video.
New crime. House Bill 4077 (Kosell, R-Mokena) creates the new crime of making a false statement to a peace officer or investigator. A person commits the offense by (1) knowingly making a false statement to a peace officer or investigator regarding a criminal matter that the person knows to be under investigation by the officer; and (2) the person is first informed by a prosecutor during the interview that a knowing false statement constitutes a Class 4 felony.
Administrative support orders. House Bill 4129 (Costello, D-Belleville) sets forth filing and notification requirements for judicially registering an administrative support order. Provides that a nonregistering party seeking to contest enforcement of a registered administrative support order must (1) request a hearing within 30 days after the date of service of notice of the registration; and (2) the party seeking to do this or vacate the registration has the burden of proving one or more specified defenses.
Eavesdropping. House Bill 3943 (Zalewski, D-Chicago) makes it an exemption from the eavesdropping law for a peace office or designee to record what the officer believes is a felony violation of Illinois’ drug laws. No prior court approval is needed before the officer decides to do this. A companion bill is House Bill 4081 (Gordon, D-Peoria).
Judicial campaigns and disqualification. House Bill 4098 (Kay, R-Glen Carbon) requires the Supreme Court to establish rules allowing for the disclosure by that attorney and disqualification of a judge who has received more than $500 in political contributions in the last five years from that lawyer or law firm if a case is assigned to that judge.Â
Member Comments (1)
HB 4098 - Without regard to the merits of the bill, why just contributions from lawyers and law firms? What about contributions from other businesses with cases pending in the courts? And aren't the legislators a bit hypocritical by not restricting their own right to vote on legislation affecting their contributors? Concerning the bill itself, historically, the Illinois Supreme Court has rebuffed legislative attempts deemed by the Court to infringe on the right of the judicial branch to regulate itself (based upon constitutional separation of powers analysis). Although I have not read the bill, I think the legislators will have a hard time crafting a bill that will pass constitutional muster in the eyes of the Court.