I'm not sure what rule or law you are referring do, but I'm guessing no. Illinois is a "two party" state as well and you cannot record audio of anyone with their consent, including a public official acting in a public capacity. However (at least in Illinois) this law does not apply to video. It is a relic from some wiretapping legislation that is being inappropriately applied to citizens attempting to document their experiences with public officials.
"Reasonable expectation of privacy" is refers to whether you are performing something in public or not. I can take a video of you standing in Main Street shouting about Hell opening up and devouring us all, because you don't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
However, Wikipedia [1] implies this is not civil, but in regards to the government's view of privacy to you, not yours to the government, and is highly unlikely to supersede areas where filming is expressly forbidden, and which is indicated to you when entering that area.
That's not true for police officers in two party notification states; I'm not sure whether this applies to private citizens or not.
In Illinois and other two party notification states, you can't record audio of police officers in public places [1]. Video is fine, but since all video cameras record audio, it's a bit of a Catch-22. People get arrested all the time in two party notification states for video taping law enforcement and it's because of the audio function of their device.
This has been a huge brouhaha lately. Most rational people would agree that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place, but the courts haven't actually ruled that way. See this guy's story for more:
