The Illinois Supreme Court this week ruled that cameras will be allowed in courtrooms throughout the state.

The state’s highest court began allowing cameras and audio recording devices in courts four years ago as an experiment. Since then, the court has approved the use of cameras and audio recorders by the media in 15 of the state’s 24 judicial circuits. The experiment was made permanent by this week’s order, opening the door for all courts. Participation is optional. The Seventh Judicial Circuit, which includes Sangamon County, submitted an application to the state Supreme Court last year but has not yet completed local rules required before cameras can start rolling.

Statewide rules set by the state’s highest court are far short of anything goes. The rules consume nine pages and include a requirement that witnesses be given a chance to object to cameras. Trial judges must approve cameras on a case-by-case basis. Cameras and recording devices can’t be used in juvenile proceedings or divorce, child custody or adoption cases. Neither cameras nor audio recorders can be used to capture jurors or testimony from sexual abuse victims.

Trial judges who approve cameras must file reports with the circuit’s chief judge stating the type of electronic coverage allowed, the date, time, location and nature of proceedings that were subject to electronic coverage and a statement of any problems encountered. The chief judge must submit quarterly reports to the Supreme Court containing the same information, plus a breakdown of how many requests to allow cameras were received and how many were denied.

By contrast, the rules in Washington State, which ended its ban on courtroom cameras in 1976, consume a half-page, essentially saying that judges decide whether to allow cameras in courtrooms and set conditions for their use. The rules were amended in 2005 so that there is now a presumption that cameras and recording devices should be allowed. No such presumption exists in Illinois.

In Florida, courts are also presumed open to cameras and recording devices, and judges decide to what extent spectators other than journalists can use cameras or recording devices. And spectators with recording devices can spell trouble for judges. In Georgia, a judge made headlines last year when a spectator recorded him threatening to jail poor defendants without lawyers who couldn’t pay fines. An Alabama judge was censured last month after he was recorded telling defendants without money that he would send them to jail if they didn’t donate blood at a courthouse blood drive.

In Illinois, use of cameras and recording devices in courtrooms is limited to journalists. And what is a journalist in this day of bloggers and self-appointed government watchdogs?

“That’s a good question, and I don’t have an answer to that,” says Jim Grimes, chairman of an Illinois Broadcasters Association committee on cameras in courts. “The court does talk about media organizations (in its order allowing cameras). It’s kind of broad. What is an organization? I’m sure that will evolve as time goes on.”

Grimes said that media in Illinois have been asking for cameras in courtrooms since at least 1978.

“The basic argument was, ‘These are our tools, this is how we do our job,’” Grimes said.

Grimes said he’s unaware of any problems in courts where cameras have been allowed since the experimental program began in 2012. Still, some lawyers and judges privately worry that lawyers will play to cameras. None would comment on the record for fear of drawing the Supreme Court’s wrath.

“I know everyone’s scared to death of it,” said one central Illinois judge. “I know in my heart it’s not going to be a problem.”

Former Sangamon County Circuit Court Judge Patrick Kelley, who retired last year, said that he once opposed courtroom cameras. Trials, he said, are complicated affairs, and courtroom cameras seemed an additional problem. He said that he changed his mind after a friend who is a court administrator in Wisconsin, where cameras have long been allowed, told him that cameras have never been a problem.

“The courthouses have not collapsed,” Kelley said. “Most jurisdictions have cameras in courtrooms. I’ve become a supporter of it.”

Contact Bruce Rushton at [email protected].