Carrollton parent illegally videotapes private meeting at school

By Editor | March 2, 2022 |

By Carmen Ensinger

While masks are now optional for children in all three school districts in Greene County, a Carrollton parent might be in some hot water over an incident that happened concerning the mask issue at the end of January.
At the Feb. 28 meeting of the Carrollton School Board, Carrollton Superintendent Mark Halwachs informed the board of a letter that was sent to a parent admonishing this parent for illegally videotaping a meeting between administration and staff as well as a student without their consent to do so.
The letter states:
“The Illinois Eavesdropping Act requires all parties in a conversation to consent to the audio recording of a conversation – a “private conversation being any oral communication between two or more persons when one or more of the parties intendent the communication to be of a private nature under the circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation…
“A violation of the Eavesdropping Act is a Class 4 felony and for a first time offense punishable by imprisonment of not less than one year or more than three years and fines of up to $25,000. The district expects that you will no longer record conversations with district personnel and administration without obtaining consent to record the conversation. The district has reported this incident to the Greene County States Attorney’s Office to consider criminal charges.”
Halwachs did not mention who the parent was, but a copy of the police report, which was filed after the event took place on Jan. 31 was obtained from the Carrollton Police Department.
According to this police report, which was filed on Feb. 4 by Carrollton Police Chief Mike McCartney, the Carrollton Police Department was contacted by the Greene County Sheriff’s Department to respond to the Carrollton Elementary School to meet with Marissa Rosentreter in reference to her juvenile daughter. Rosentreter advised dispatch that her daughter was at school and refused to put a mask on and the principal had her in her office and she (Rosentreter) wanted an officer to respond due to she (Rosentreter) believes it is against the law to have her in a separate room from the rest of the kids.
“When I arrived at the grade school, I was met by Principal Ronda Smith. She advised me that the juvenile had come to school without a mask. They offered her one to put on but she advised them that she was not going to wear a mask due to her mother (Marissa Rosentreter) telling her she did not have to,” McCartney said in his report. “Principal Smith advised the juvenile that she would have to stay in her office and they would do all of the lessons for the day there due to her not being able to be in the school around other children without a mask on.”
McCartney said he arrived at the school before Rosentreter did and met her at the front door.
“She advised me that the school was breaking the law on how they were treating her daughter,” McCartney said. “She personally has a lawsuit against the school on the mask mandate. I told her we needed to go see Principal Smith to see what is going on.”
Rosentreter advised Smith that they were breaking the law which is why she requested the police be present. Smith advised Rosentreter and McCartney that they should not be discussing the issue in front of the students and they needed to go into her office.
“As we entered the office, Principal Smith tried explaining about the mask mandate and that she tried to have her daughter in her office so she could receive her lessons for the day,” McCartney said. “Rosentreter kept stating the whole time that they have a lawsuit against the school for this and that the school is wrong. I finally stopped her and advised her that until the lawsuit had a judge rule on it that the rules are if you don’t have a mask on you cannot come to school.”
The report goes on to say that Rosentreter advised that that was fine – she was going to take both of her children home. Principal Smith advised them to get the other child from class so they could go home with their mother.
“Myself, Principal Smith and Rosentreter went to where her daughter was sitting and her daughter asked her mother what was going on and she (Rosentreter) advised her that they were going to go home,” McCartney said. “The juvenile advised that she did not want to go home – she would put a mask on to stay at school. Rosentreter told her no – ‘we are getting your sister and we will all be going home.’ The juvenile got very upset, started crying and kept stating that she wanted to stay at school. Then she went into an asthma attack.”
At this point, the school nurse went and got an inhaler for the juvenile as Principal Smith went and got some water for her. The younger daughter then came to the office wearing a mask and Rosentreter took both girls home.
McCartney said approximately 15 minutes later he received a phone call from Principal Smith, who was very upset, and she advised him that Rosentreter had videotaped the conversation and posted it on Facebook.
“Principal Smith advised me that she knew it was against the law for that to happen and she wanted to file charges,” McCartney said. “I then contacted Rosentreter and advised her that it was illegal to record people without their knowledge. Also, that it would be in her best interest to take down the post. She then advised me that she would.”
“On Feb. 1, Superintendent Halwachs contacted me and advised me that the Carrollton Grade School wanted to pursue charges at this time,” McCartney said. “I advised him that I would do a report and send it to the States Attorney’s Office and that he can check the status of the charges with the States Attorney’s Office.”
A copy of the police report was given to States Attorney Caleb Briscoe on Feb. 4. However, Briscoe was not in his office when the report was dropped off by McCartney.
Halwachs was informed on Feb. 10 by Briscoe that he would not be filing charges against Rosentreter, even though by moving the conversation into Smith’s private office this clearly met the standards of an expectation of privacy that would not have been present in the hallway.
Briscoe explained his decision Tuesday morning.
“The evesdropping statue is what it is and is pretty clear,” he said. “But the next section in the criminal code book are all the exceptions to that which wouldn’t make it a violation and that is about three to four times as long as what the statue is so anytime your exceptions to your law are that much longer than your law, it proposes some issues. In talking with both law enforcement and school officials, it appeared that more than one of those exceptions would apply which would create a defense.”
When asked what specific exception or exceptions that was, Briscoe said he couldn’t say specifically what they were because he didn’t have the file in front of him.