McHenry County Blog

Subscribe

Archive for the ‘Camera’

17-Year Old Crystal Lake Central High School Student Arrested for Unauthorized Video Recording in Boys’ Locker Room

March 07, 2013 By: Cal Skinner Category: Camera, Crystal Lake, Crystal Lake Police, Locker Room, Video, Video Recording

A press rele4ase from the Crystal Lake Police Department:

Pin-Hole Camera Located within Central High School – Crystal Lake

The Crystal Lake Police Department announces that an arrest has been made in the matter involving a pin-hole camera found in a boy’s locker room at Crystal Lake Central High School.

Crystal Lake Community High School

Crystal Lake Community High School

Luke Patrick Gildea (17) of Crystal Lake, a student at the school, has been charged with two (2) counts of Unauthorized Video Recording;

  • count 1 – 720 ILCS 5/26-4(a) a class 4 felony
  • count 2 – 720 ILCS 5/26-4 (d) a class 3 Felony (victim under 18 years of age).

Mr. Gildea will be transferred to the McHenry County Jail, where bond will be set by a Judge at 8:00 a.m.

The Department continues to work closely with School District 155 investigating this incident. Additional charges may be forthcoming.

While Mr. Gildea has been charged with these offenses, he is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty in a court of law.

= = = = =
The email to CLCHS parents is here.

The first press release from the CL Police Department is here.

The second email from District 155 is here.

Student Fingered in CLCHS Boys’ Locker Room Camera Indicent

March 07, 2013 By: Cal Skinner Category: Camera, Crystal Lake Central High School, Crystal Lake High School District 155, Crystal Lake Police, Locker Room, Video, Video Recording

Here’s the latest news from Crystal Lake Community High School about the camera found in the boys’ locker room:

Crystal Lake Community High School

Crystal Lake Community High School

Dear Parents,

We are contacting you with an update on the situation at Crystal Lake Central.

Due to the quick investigative work by our school resource officer, other members of the Crystal Lake Police, and our deans, the police now have a student in custody who they believe acted alone.

Still, we have searched all locker rooms and washrooms at each District 155 school, and have not found any additional recording devices.

Please understand that because there is an ongoing investigation, we cannot provide more details at this time.

Sincerely,

Dr. Johnnie Thomas
Superintendent

= = = = =

Here’s the original email to parents.

Here’s the press release from the CL Police Department.

Crystal Lake Police Asks for Information on “Pinhole Camera” Found at CHCHS Locker Room

March 07, 2013 By: Cal Skinner Category: Camera, Crystal Lake, Crystal Lake Central High School, Crystal Lake Police, Locker Room, Video, Video Recording

A press release from the Crystal Lake Police Department:

Pin-Hole Camera Located within Central High School – Crystal Lake

On Thursday, March 7, 2013, the Crystal Lake Police Department was contacted by District 155 officials after a student found a pin-hole camera secreted within the boy’s athletic locker room at Central High School.

Upon further inspection, the camera is a stand-alone device, which does not possess the capability of main streaming video to a wireless system.

Crystal Lake Community High School

Crystal Lake Community High School

This device was turned over to the Crystal Lake Police Department.

This matter is currently under investigation.

We will be using a forensic examiner to review any digital images.

Anyone with information relating to this incident is urged to contact the Crystal Lake Police Department at 815 356-3620.

Information can also be left anonymously via cellular phone by texting CLPDTIP along with the information to 847411 (tip411), through the web at http://www.citizenobserver.com/cov6/app/group.html?id=4930, or by calling Crime Stoppers at (800)762-7867.

= = = = =
Here is the email sent parents.

Hidden Camera Found in Boys’ Locker Room at Crystal Lake Central High School

March 07, 2013 By: Cal Skinner Category: Camera, Crystal Lake, Crystal Lake Central High School, Crystal Lake High School District 155, Crystal Lake Police, Locker Room, Video, Video Recording

And here’s what parents were told this afternoon:

Crystal Lake Central High School.

Crystal Lake Central High School.

Dear Central Parents,

We are writing to inform you of an unfortunate incident that occurred at Crystal Lake Central High School today. A student discovered what appears to be a video recording device in a boys’ athletic locker room.

We take incidents like this very seriously, and a full investigation was launched immediately by our school resource officer and other members of the Crystal Lake Police Department. We also immediately inspected every locker room and bathroom at Crystal Lake Central and the district’s other high schools. No other devices were found. The recording device has been turned over to law enforcement authorities.

We are fully cooperating with the police investigation, and are very disappointed that someone would commit such an act. Pending the results of the police investigation, we will pursue criminal and disciplinary action to the full extent possible under the law and school policy.

What we can discuss about this situation is very limited because it involves an ongoing police investigation, but if you have any questions or concerns, please contact Steve Olson. In addition, please be aware that we have our full array of social workers, counselors, and school psychologists available to support your child should he or she have any issues processing this situation. If you or your child has any information regarding this incident, they should contact the Crystal Lake Police Department directly.

The safety and welfare of all of our students is a top priority and we continue to work with the Crystal Lake Police to ensure that this issue is resolved in a thorough and expedient manner. Thank you for your support of our school district and our students.

Sincerely,

Dr. Johnnie Thomas, Superintendent and Steve Olson, Principal

= = = = =
Here is the Crystal Lake Police Department’s press release.

Hearing Planned on Cameras and Recording in McHenry County Courtrooms

January 18, 2013 By: Cal Skinner Category: Camera, Court

The seal of the 22nd Circuit Court.

The seal of the 22nd Circuit Court.

A press release from the McHenry County Circuit Court:

Twenty Second Judicial Circuit Seeks Input on Extended Media Coverage

On February 1, 2013, at 2:00p.m., the Twenty Second Judicial Circuit of McHenry County will be hosting an open forum meeting to discuss the possibility of entering the Illinois Supreme Court “pilot project” which allows members of the media to bring cameras into the courtrooms.

Joseph Tybor, Press Secretary for the Illinois Supreme Court and Tom Jakeway, Deputy Court Administrator for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Boone and Winnebago Counties will be in attendance to answer questions and address concerns about the project.

Members of the media, McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office, McHenry County Public Defender’s Office, McHenry County Sheriff’s Office, McHenry County Clerk of the Court, McHenry County Bar Association, McHenry County Administration, Court Administration and judges of the Twenty Second Judicial Circuit are invited to attend this meeting. I

Interested members of the public are also invited to attend.

The meeting will take place in the McHenry County Jury Assembly area located on the third floor of the McHenry County Government Center located at 2200 N. Seminary Avenue in Woodstock.

On January 24, 2012, Chief Justice Thomas Kilbride issued order MR2634 authorizing extended media coverage in the circuit courts of Illinois on an experimental basis.

Extended media coverage, under certain restrictions pursuant to the Policy for Extended Media Coverage in the Circuit Courts of Illinois, allows members of the media to bring both still and video cameras into the courtrooms to photograph or video record proceedings.  For additional information about MR2634 and the policy concerning extended media coverage please go to www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Announce/2012/012412.pdf

For questions or other information pertaining to the meeting on February 1st, please contact Dan Wallis, Trial Court Administrator at jdwallis@co.mchenry.il.us or (815) 334-4351.

Wolf Camera Closes in Crystal Lake

June 23, 2012 By: Cal Skinner Category: Camera, Closed, Crystal Lake, Wolf Camera

Crystal Lake’s Wolf Camera with doors locked.

Imagine my surprise as I walked up to Wolf Camera on Route 14 and discovered the store closed.

That’s where I bought my camera and had taken it back to be shipped off to be cleaned.

The sign on the door said Vernon Hills would have all photos left there and, presumably, my camera when it comes back from the repair shop.

Sign on the door of the closed Wolf Camera store in Crystal Lake.

You will remember the Ritz Camera merged with, maybe bought, Wolf.

The Ritz location near Best Buy then closed.

Now the second chain camera store in Crystal Lake is gone.

Cameras Coming to Boone and Winnebago

April 29, 2012 By: Cal Skinner Category: Boone County, Camera, Court, Courthouse, Winnebago County

Boone County Courthouse

Springfield’s State Journal-Register is running a story about the Circuit Courts in Winnebago Counties allowing cameras in their courtrooms.

Winnebago County Courthouse

Think Belvidere.

Think Rockford.

The order will be issued on Monday.

Associated Press reports that Boone and Winnebago will make 13 counties where local judges allow photo taking and videoing.

Illinois Supreme Court Allowing Cameras in Court for “Established” News Media

January 23, 2012 By: Cal Skinner Category: Camera, Court

Here is an article worth sharing from Illinois Statehouse News:

Illinois Supreme Court gives OK for cameras in trial courts

January 23, 2012

By Scott Reeder | Illinois Statehouse News

SPRINGFIELD — It is time for Illinois courts to become more transparent by allowing cameras into courtrooms, Illinois Chief Justice Thomas Kilbride told Illinois Statehouse News in an exclusive interview.

On Tuesday, the state Supreme Court is expected to announce it will allow trial court proceedings to be filmed and tape recorded for the first time in the state’s 194-year history, Kilbride said.

Illinois is one of 14 states where cameras in trial courtrooms are either not allowed or not used, according to the Radio Television Digital News Association, a professional organization serving the electronic news profession and dedicated to setting standards for news gathering and reporting.

“The idea behind this is simple. We need to have the courts be more open. By having the public keeping an eye on what is going on in the courtroom, it can act as a check in the balance of power,” Kilbride said.

McHenry County Courthouse entrance.

But the value of cameras in courtrooms goes beyond accountability to help instill public trust in the court system, said Al Tompkins, a senior faculty member at the Poynter Institute, a nonprofit center for journalism studies in St. Petersburg, Fla.

“If we don’t have cameras in courtrooms, it’s left up to shows like Law & Order to give the public an impression of what is going on in the judiciary,” he said. “Of course, what is going on in the courts is much better than that, and the public should be able to see what is really going on.”

The Illinois high court unanimously approved the measure this month, and it will be part of the court’s policy Tuesday.

The move is a positive step toward holding judges, state’s attorneys and other elected officials who work in courtrooms accountable, said Mike Barnhart, president of Sunshine Review, a national organization that promotes government transparency and accountability.

Kilbride said that when he was seeking to be retained on the Supreme Court in 2010, several news reporters asked whether cameras should be allowed in courtrooms.

Winnebago County Courthouse

“I told them I favored it, but that I was just one vote on the court,” he said. “It’s happening, quite frankly, because I pushed for it, and a majority of the justices agreed to it.”

The new policy includes some restrictions:

  • Jurors and potential jurors may not be photographed.
  • Cameras and recording devices will not be allowed in juvenile, divorce, adoption, child custody and evidence suppression cases.
  • No more than two television cameras and no more than two still photographers will be allowed in a courtroom at one time.
  • Victims of violent felonies, police informants and relocated witnesses may request that the judge prohibit them from being photographed.

Although the policy goes into effect Tuesday, the chief judges of Illinois’ 23 circuit courts are responsible for implementing the policy. Once a chief judge of a circuit court applies and is approved by the Supreme Court, news media may request to cover eligible cases electronically in that circuit court.

Members of the news media are responsible for applying for electronic coverage each time they want to cover a particular case. Specific details of the application process will be released Tuesday.

At this point, the program is being billed as “pilot project,” so chief judges may choose not to have their circuit courts participate. Kilbride said the effectiveness of the pilot project will be reviewed by the high court at a future date and a decision will be made on whether to continue this program.

Boone County Courthouse

The new policy only allows for members of the “established” news media to photograph, film or tape record sessions. Residents and those working for non-traditional news organizations, such as Internet blogs, initially are being excluded from filming or recording court sessions.

But the high court may review the policy later regarding electronic coverage of courts by residents and non-traditional media.

“I can understand a court’s desire to preserve decorum — whether it’s a photographer from a newspaper or an ordinary citizen using their cell phone to take a picture — but it important to remember that the nature of the media has changed radically in the last 10 years,” Barnhart said. “While I think this is a step in the right direction, it does distress me that some are included in this policy, and others are excluded.”

The policy does not address the use of cell phones. The intent is for only professional-quality cameras and recording devices.

Kilbride resides in Rock Island, which is part of the Quad-Cities, a metropolitan area that includes parts of Iowa and Illinois.

“I know from my experience living in the Quad-Cities that cameras in the courtroom have worked quite well on the Iowa side. They have been well accepted by judges and lawyers. I have no reason to believe that won’t be the case in Illinois,” Kilbride said.

He said the new Illinois policy is modeled after the Iowa policy, which has been in effect since 1979.

Roger Ruthhart, managing editor of The Rock Island Argus and The (Moline) Dispatch, called the new policy a positive step.

“I don’t look for this to be something we use every day, but in bigger cases, such as murder trials, I do anticipate sending a photographer,” he said. “Right now, we send a sketch artist to these types of trials. By being able to photograph, we will be able to provide the public with a more accurate depiction of what is happening in a court case.”

Although Illinois has not allowed photography or audio recordings in the state’s trial courts, it has allowed news cameras in the Supreme Court and the Illinois Appellate Court since 1983. The Supreme Court also posts audio and video of all oral arguments on its website the same day they occur.

Kilbride said he sees another benefit to the new policy.

“It will serve as a good civics lesson for people to see what is happening within the courts,” he said.

To the Back of the Room for Photo Taking and Recordings at Grafton Township Meetings

April 21, 2011 By: Cal Skinner Category: Ancel Glink, Barbara Murphy, Betty Zirk, Cal Skinner, Camera, David Moore, Flash Photography, Gerry McMahon, Grafton Township, Illinois Attorney General, Keri-Lyn Krafthefer, Linda Moore, Open Meetings Act, Photograph, Public Access Couselor, Public Access Division, Robert LaPorta, Steve Silverman

David Moore sits in the front row unobtrusively taping a Grafton Township Board meeting. From left to right at the table are Grafton Township Trustees Barb Murphy, Betty Zirk and Gerry McMahon, all of whom voted to banish videographers, photographers and those making audio recordings to the back of the room. Reporter Pete Gonigam sits to his far right taking notes. Trustee Rob LaPorta left the meeting early.

Just as whites were more privileged than blacks on Montgomery Alabama, buses, those trying to video or audio tape and photograph Grafton Township meetings seem to be now less equal than print reporters with pencil and pad.

This picture of David Moore was taken at a December, 2009, Grafton Township Board meeting. Donna McMahon and attorney Keri-Lyn Krafthefer sit to his right.

The Public Access Division of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office has issued a non-binding ruling to yours truly and Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore seemingly affirming the resolution passed on April 8, 2010, restricting

“the use of audio and video recording equipment and photography equipment to either the final row of seats or behind the final row of seats in the meeting room,”

as Assistant Public Access Counselor Steve Silverman puts it in his letter of April 14, 2011.

David Moore tapes from the front row. Note how he is not obstructing anyone's view of the meeting.

When I received a communication asking if I had any rebuttal to what was sent in by former Grafton Township Attorney Keri-Lyn Krafthefer of the law firm Ancel Glink, you can bet I did.

You can read it here.

But, it apparently fell short.

The “Determination” is not a binding opinion, so it cannot be appealed to Circuit Court under Administrative Review Act.

The Determination, in which I have separated the sentences to make it easier to read on a screen, follows:

Determination

Section 2. 05 of OMA provides that “any person may record the proceedings at meetings required to be open by this Act by tape, film or other means. The authority holding the meeting shall prescribe reasonable rules to govern the right to make such recordings.”

5 ILCS 140/ 2.05. In an informal opinion ( a copy of which is attached hereto), the Office of the Attorney General previously advised that ” reasonable rules” under Section 2. 05 are ” guidelines which protect the integrity of a public meeting and those participating in it” and “guidelines that prevent interference with the overall decorum and proceedings of a meeting.”

Thus, the right of the public to record open meetings should only be limited pursuant to prescribed rules of the public body, and only to the extent truly necessary to prevent disruptions or safety hazards.

Based on the available information, it appears that the Board’ s restriction on the use of photography and recording equipment constituted a reasonable rule governing the right to record under Section 2. 05 of OMA.

The meeting minutes show that the Board member who made the motion to approve the rule indicated that Board members had been distracted during meetings by close range flash photography.

At an October meeting Trustee Gerry McMahon got so out of control that Trustee Barb Murphy (on the left) moved to censure him. The motion passed.

The restriction limited Mr. Skinner’ s choice of angles for photographing Board members, but did not bar Mr. Skinner or any other individual from photographing or recording meetings.

This shot of the meeting room shows the amount of space behind the tables where the public officials sit.

We also note that, in light of the relatively small size of the meeting rooms used by the Board, restricting the use of photography and recording equipment to either the last row of seats or behind the last row of seats constituted a relatively minor limitation which did not substantively interfere with the statutory right to record meetings.

Therefore, we conclude based on the information at our disposal that the action taken by the Board on April 8, 2010 to restrict the placement of individuals operating recording and photography equipment did not violate the public’ s right to record Board meetings under Section 2. 05 of OMA.

Here's a view of a regular meeting room from the back.

This Board subsequently enacted a comprehensive ordinance to establish rules for recording, including a similar restriction on the placement of individuals operating video and photography equipment.

That ordinance is not at issue in this determination letter as the Board enacted it after Mr. Skinner filed his Request for Review.

A November, 2009, shot of the officials' table and space behind.

However, Mr. Skinner objected to parts of the ordinance in his reply to the Township’ s response to his allegations and we are concerned that certain portions may constitute unreasonably restrictive rules under Section 2.05.

 

A view of the not-so-small room from its back.

Most notably, the ordinance requires that individuals provide advance notice of their intent to record meetings by signing a sign- in sheet, and authorizes the Board to ” prohibit the recording of any audience member who objects to being recorded.”

It is not readily apparent why those rules and certain other restrictions in the ordinance are necessary to prevent disruptions or safety hazards at Board meetings.

We strongly suggest that the Board review the entire ordinance for compliance with Section 2. 05 of OMA based on the standard for ” reasonable rules” set forth above.

This letter will serve to close this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (312) 814- 6756.

Sincerely,

Steve Silverman
Assistant Public Access Counseloriz

Camera Needed to Shoot Pictures in the McHenry County Board Room After First Amendment New Restrictions Go Into Effect

April 27, 2007 By: Cal Skinner Category: Camera, First Amendment, Friends of McHenry County College, McHenry County Board., Open Meetings Act

McHenry County Blog has some very imaginative readers.

More are beginning to make creative contributions.

This fake ad came yesterday and it was a good thing I was not in a school hallway in Prairie Grove, because I was laughing so hard. Note the small print: “flash not included.”

It was inspired by the proposed, new “you can take pictures in our dark county board meeting room, but only from the back corners” rule.

First the wanted poster cracked me up, now this creation.