APPENDIX

APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.

Page

Judgment Appealed From

People v. Melongo, 10 CR 8092 (July 26, 2012)

AI

II.

Contents of Report of Proceedings

A7

III.

Contents of Supplemental Record

Al3

IV.

Contents of Common Law Record

A14

v.

Circuit Court Order in

VI.

People v. Christopher Drew, No. 10 CR 00046 (March 2, 2012)

Al7

Notice of Appeal (August 9, 2012)

A29

IN THE CIRCUITOO.ll~
COUNTY

Plaintiff''
... . . .

v ..

.-,

_.

.-

,-

ANNABELK KitLONGO;
Defendant.

ORDER
()nJ1ffie 19
;

'

,zoiz, this cowt granted defenpant, Annabel K. Melongo' s, motion to declare

.

'

'

_-

'

..

Jtl:\<)l11inpi$ Eave~;dr()ppihg. Stat\lte (720 ILCS 5/14"2)unconstitutional. Defendant has now filed

~6 ~@~~geJ;rcy hlotio!).requesting that this co~ aniend its

June 19, 2012 order declaring the

'

. I(lin(lisf\avesdtopping Statute 1illconstitutional iriotderto coinplywith Supreme Corui Rule 18.

BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged with

si~ counts o;feavesdropping .in violation ofno .ILCS ~/1

2(a)(l)(a)(3) (West 2008). Count I alleged that defendant "knowingly and intentionally used
eavesdropping devicec.Jor the purpose of recording a .conversation .... between [defendant]
Pamela Taylor. .. and without the consent of all parties such conversation." Counts II .
alleged the same acts against the same victim on two other occasions: Counts IV, V and
alleged that defendant "used or divulged any information which she knew or reasonably oucwu
have known was obtained through the use of an eavesdropping device ... an audio recording
conversation between [defendant] and Pamela Taylor. .. knowing that such a recording
obtained without Pamela Taylor's consent."

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 13, 2010, Judge Brosnahan denied defendant's motion to declare the
Illinois Eavesdropping Statute to be unconstitutional based on People v. Bearsley, 115 III. 2d 47
(1986).

On November 14, 201 I, defendant filed an amended motion to declare the Illinois
Eavesdropping Statute unconstitutional, arguing that the Statute is unconstitutional on its face
and as applied to defendant and violates substantive free speech, freedom ofthe press, petition
and due process guarantees.
On February 14, 2012, the State filed a response in opposition to defendant's motion to
declare 720 ILCS 5114 unconstitutional, atguing that the Eavesdropping Statute: (1) does not
violate the first amendment; (2) does not violate due process; and (3) is constitutional as applied
to defendant. .
On June 19, 2012, this court granted defendant's motion to declare the Illinois
Eavesdropping Statute(720TLCS 5114-2) unconstitutional.
On June 22, 2012, .defendant filed an emergency motion requesting thatthis court amend
its June 19, 2012 order declaring the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute unconstitutional in order to
comply with Supreme Court Rule 18.
ANALYSIS

All statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and the burden of rebutting that
presumption is on the challenger, who .must clearly establish a constitutional violation. People v.

Greco, 204 Ill. 2d 400 (2003).

The Illinois Eavesdropping Statue (the "Statute") provides:
"A person conrtnits eavesdropping when he:

so (A) with the consent of all

electronic communication ***

***

(2) .- Uses
. .- or divulges
' '
- '-

any infon1J.ationwmch
knows' or
reasorial:Jly
:.. -.",..- ,' '' he
'
_,
'

--:.'

',.

shouldknowwas.obtained througl:t the use of an eavesdr<J,pping device."

720 ILCS 5/14 et.seq.

TheSta,tuteallowscitizens to make

si~entvideo

of police officers pertcwming their

dutiesk~

in public.,.
72.0
ILC.SS/14
et seq.
However,
the Stat1)te <"_elevatesthis
col:ldu_ct
to a class l
. -,
. , . --.
-- .... -,_
-:'
- '
- -'"' _._,. . ---- ',-_ -,- ' .
' .__ -... - ', ... _ '- .
when a pers,on,aucUs .records all or .!WY part.of anY Conversation 11n\ess alL parties
conversation give tl:teit consent.

720 ILCS 5/14 et seq.

The Statute .applies '"' ""~;

01UJAunication regardless of whether the communication wasintende<;l to be private.

'"

5/14

et seq,

A party's consent 111ay be_ inferred.from.the slirroundingcircf1111stanc.es

that
agreed to the surveillance, but expressdisappr(lyal
defeats
any-:
' ., the party.. knowingly
-..
.
'

.,

'

---.

'

'

'-

,,

,_

._,,,_

of consent. 720 ILCS 5/14 et seq.

In the instant case, defendant argues that the Sta,tute is unconstitutional
because it violates her First Amendment and due process rightsc Defendant also argutis
Statute is. unconstitutionalasapplied to her because Ms. Pamela Taylor wasa
during the convers<Jtion and defendant had the right to receive the information
protected contentifshe so wished.
The State asks tl,lis court to interpret the co1)rt'.s r1.1ling in ACLU as a
Specifically, t!:teSt<Jte. contends
that the ACLU court only addressed the section
.
.

applies to audiO recordings of police officers in a public place where others can see and hear
them. The State argues that the facts in the instant case are distingUishable .from those in ACLU
and that the case should therefore move forward and go to trial.
As noted above, this court issued an oral opinion granting defelldant' s motion to declare
the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute (720 ILCS 5/14-2) uricori.stitutibnal on June 19,2012. In
making this decision, this court relied on a recent decisionby the UnitedStates Court of Appeals
forthe Seventh Circuit where the court held that the Statue was likely unconstitutional based on
First Amendment considerations .and the issues presented in that case. The ~ourt subsequently
issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the State's Attorney from applying the Statute against
the ACLU and its employees or agents. ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 608 (7thCi~. 2012).
In ACLV, the court noted that the Statute is not closely tailored to the government's
interest in protecting conversational privacy.
.

'

Rather, . "the gravamen of the Illinois

eavesdropping offense is not the secret interception or surreptitious recording of a private

commUhication. Instead, the statute sweeps much rriore broadly, banning all audio recording of
any oral communication absent consent of the parties regardless of whether the communication

is or was intended to be private." 1d. at 595. The court went on to note that:
"Of course, the First Amendment does not prevent the lllinois General Assembly
from enacting greater protection for conversational privacy than the common-law
tort remedy provides. Nor is the legislature limited to using the Fourth
Amendment "reasonable expectation of privacy" doctrine as a benchmark. But by
legislating this broadly - by making it a crime to audio record any conversation,
even those that aie not in fact private - the State has severed the link between the
eavesdropping statrite's means and its end. Rather than attempting to tailor the

A?ditiona}ly; this ,court relied on Assqdat~ 'J4ge S~all)~y, Sac!<( recent opinioil)n
,< jo'_;>:; .:t

::-:

, PIHmte v.. ofthe Statepflllindis .v. ChristopherDrew, ca~e nlU1lber 10 CR 00046 (March.2, 2012)
.. -"J'_cy

,_:.,-,-

(~!('.

h~

wl).e,re the cowt ruled that the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute was \,ll1constitutional on its f<tce and

;.i;_;_v~-:-,;-:;t;-,,--,

---:.'-~--

-----1

,~;,_----,";,-,,::~.-

--

._._,_--

---

--

--

(Is ~pJ>li,edto.;the.d~fenda,t].t, P,r.etfl,.i!t p; )2... In,Drew, th~ court ~t!lted *at, althoughtheStatl.\te
,

.. ;.-;---. ;'

_-_, _'------_

-'
' , ,., \ -.,
__ ___ ,. ,;,_

;.,

.. ' ' ;__

"-

'c

:.-

_.-,.- - -"

. .__.,

--.. _.

.,

'

,._; -. ,.

--

--

-,

'

"-'

'

' . - , ~--.,

.-

_:

".'>

'-'

,;- -_,

l&i$lywts.t'orth the'
prohi);litedphysieal acts; the. fault oftbe. Statute is that .it does noltreauiirean
;_;::-
.. :i_
-'.:_:--:_;:;:--

:.~-'i:.--:-:.:.::;-:::t-'. y<~,"D_;,;.:-:>;.-:.i

-(---~/\

~'.-.:-_:_

.".; 0 ,,~- ,._

.-:'_-"~: ,_._-

__ ._,_,_-

. - . .,_:

,- __ _.

:- ..

. a~SP~Pa]);yin~'culp~Ie,;;;.ent~I state. o~c!ililillaJ~w?se fora person Whe . co.~yiqtedpf afelon;y;

.c- i',:'{,i,O:;>

, -,,_,~0-"-

~.-.'

- -_,__

finding- nor will'

--

>

-:-

.-

- "

'

'

this
St&Me
' ,', cbUrf.
''. ' filtef,the
.. _ '--- -";,
.- ; o;- ,.,and,.deem
- :'
- -.-- certain
-._

sections
-- to
. beconstitutiop.a!

o1hers to be unconstitutioni! ..
Therefore, .bas.ea on the fore&oing dis<;1;1$sion,. this court finds that .the.
-:(f

..

Illinois .Supre!IieCourt Rule 18 ... This court holds that the Illinois. Eavesdropping Statute
;;

:: ; ~:-_.;

,_

'

1-s

ad

Thiscoi.rrt

futth;;~~~s ~at the statute cannot be constructed in a marmer that would preserve its
.,. -' ': .;:, ,, ~:

..
.
validity,
andjudgme1Jtcannot
rest upon an alternative ground. Notice
,

- _--

''

-;'

'

'

'

'

t~nder Illinois Supreme

Court Rule19 has been given.

CONCLUSION

!
\'

Based upon the foregoing discussion, this court grants defendant's motion to declare the
Illinois Eavesdropping Statute (720 ILCS 5/14-2) unconstitutional.

ENTERED:

DATED:

Report of Proceedings
Volume 1 of6

May 18,2010
Case assigned to Judge Brosnahan ............................................................................................. A3
Continuance................................................................................................................................ B2
Case transferred to Judge Brosnahan ......................................................................................... C2
May 20,2010
Arraigrunent (Case no, I 0 CR 8092) ......................................................................................... D3
June 14,2010
Continuance................................................................................................................................ E4
July 26,2010
Defendant's Motion to Reduce Bond- Denied ............................. :........................................... F9
August I I, 2010
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss- Denied.................................................................................. G25
August 26, 2010
Court Grant's People's Motion to Preclude Affirmative Defense ............................................ HIO
September 29, 2010
Continuance................................................................................................................................ I2
October 18, 2010
Continuance ................................................................................................................................ J2
October 27,2010
Defendant's Motion to Reconsider ruling on Affirmative Defense- Granted .......... ~ .............. K17
November 16,2010
Continuance ................................................................................................................................ 12
December I, 20 I 0
Continuance................................................................................................................................ M3
December 13,2010
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss- Denied .................................................................................. N17
A7

December 14,2010
Continuance ...................................................................................................... :......................... 06

Volume2of6
January 12, 201 I
Jury Trial
Motions in Limine .....................................................................................................................
Jury Selection .............................................................................................................................
JurySwom .................................................................................................................................
Opening Statements
People .............................................................................................................................
Defense ...........................................................................................................................

P4
P21
P172
Pl75
P184

Stipulation ................................................................................................................................... P193

Volume 3 of6
January 13, 20 I I

Direct

Cross

Laurel Laudien

Q14

30

Pamela Taylor

Q36

Robin Sukalo

Redir.

Recr.

Q54

Q62

Q63

Q89

Q104

QII I

Q113

James Flood

Ql 15

Ql21

Ql28

ql28

People Rest

Ql29

Motion for Directed Verdict

-Denied

Q130

Dana DePooter

QI32

. Q135

Q139

Defense Rests

Ql 50

Stipulation

Ql 5 I

Jury Instruction Conference

Q I 56

AS

Q114

Closing Arguments
People
Defense
Rebuttal

Q162
Q172
Q183

Jury Instructions

Q191

Volume 4 of6
January 14,2011
Prim Instruction ..................................................................................................................... R14
Declaration of Mistrial ........................................................................................................... Rl6
February 16,2011
Continuance ........................................................................................................................... S6
February 17,2011
Continuance ............. ,..................................................................... ,....................................... T2
March 2, 2011
Continuance ........................................................................................................................... US
March 18, 2011
Continuance ................... .J...................................................................................................... V2
December 7, 2011
Tender of Discovery to Pro Se defendant .............................................................................. VV3
Continuance ........................................................................................................................... VV 17
April 5, 2011
Continuance ........................................................................................................................... X3
April II, 2011
Continuance ........................................................................................................................... Y3
April 25, 20 II
Continuance .......... ... .... ... ........ ... ... ... ... ............. .... ................ .... ........ ..................... ........ ......... Z3
May 19,2011
Continuance ...... ..... .... ... ... .... .......... .............. ................. ..... .............. ........ ..... ......................... AA2
May 27, 2011
Continuance ....... .. .... ... .... ... ...... ............... ....... ................ ............................................. ....... .... BB2
A9

June 24, 20 II
Continuance ... .... .... ..... ................................................................................ ...................... ..... CC 10
July II, 2011
Continuance ................................................................................................. ~ ......................... EE4
July 19, 2011
Continuance ... .... ... ....... .. ....... ..... ................................................................. ........................... FF8
August II, 2011
Defendant elects to proceed pro se ........................................................................................ HH8
Continuance ............ :.............................................................................................................. HH20
August 31, 2011
Continuance ........................................................................................................................... II8
September 14,2011
Continuance ................................................................................ ~ .......................................... JJ6
September 20, 20 II
Continuance ................................................. ;......................................................................... KKI6
October 5,20 II
Continuance ........................................................................................................................... 1124
October 13, 20 II
Court orders defendant released on electronic home monitoring ........ ,................................. MM12
Continuance ..................................................................... ;..................................................... MM20
October 18, 2011
Continuance ...........................................................................................................................NN4
October 25, 20 II
Continuance ..................................................................................................... ,..................... 002
November I 0, 20 II
Continuance ........................................................................................................................... PP7
November 14, 2011
Court again orders defendant released on electronic home monitoring ................................. QQ8
Continuance ........................................................................................................................... QQ8

AIO

Volume 5 of6
May 3, 2012
Continuance ........................................................................................................................... MMM9
May 9, 2012
Continuance ........................................................................................................................... NNN17
May 30, 2012
Continuance ........................................................................................................................... 0002
June 4, 2012
Continuance ........................................................................................................................... PPP35
June 19, 2012
Supplemental Argument on Defendant's
Motion to Declare the Eavesdropping Statute Unconstitutional
Defendant ................................................................................................................... QQQ3
People ........................................................................................................................ QQQ7
Rebuttal ...................................................................................................................... QQQ1 0
Court grants Defendant's Motion to Declare the Eavesdropping Statute Unconstitutional .. QQQ12
Continuance ........................................................................................................................... QQQ18
June 25, 2012
Continuance ........................................................................................................................... RRR2
July 19,2012
Continuance .................................................................................................... ,...................... SSS2
July 26,2012
Court issues written ruling finding statute unconstitutional .................................................. TTT2

Volume 6 of6
November 17, 2011
Continuance ........................................................................................................................... SS12
November 28, 2012
Continuance ...........................................................................................................................TT3
November30, 2013
Continuance ........................................................................................................................... UU3

All

December 28, 20I I

Continuance OOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOoOOOooooooOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoOooooooooooooooOOOooooooooWWI6
January II,20I2
Continuance OOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooX:XIO
January 23, 2012
Continuance oooooooooooooooooooooOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOoOOooooooooOOOOoooooooooooOOOoOOOOOOooOoooooooooooOOOoOOYY6
February 3, 2012
Continuance ooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOooOOoooOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.ZZ20
February I4, 2012
Continuance 00 00000 00000000 000 000 00 oo00 0000 oOOOoo Oooo 00000000 00000 0000000000000 000000 0000 00000000000 00000000000000000 00000 0000000 ooooooAAA II
March 2, 2012
Continuance oo0000 oooo 000 ooO 000 ooo 000 0000 o0000 o0000000000 0000000 00000000 000000 00000 ooooooooooooooooooooooooo 000000000000 000000 .. 000 ooooBBB3
March 6, 2012
Continuance OOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOooOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooCCC31
March 15,2012
Continuance oooooooooooooooOOOOOOoOooOoOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOoOODDD5
March I 9, 2012
Argument on Defendant's Motion to Declare the Eavesdropping Statute Unconstitutional
Defendant 0000000 00 000 o, 00,0 000 0000000000 000000 00 00000 00000000 0000000000 00000 ooOoOOOOOoOOOO oooooooooooooooo ooooooooo:ooooooooEEE3
Peopleoooooooooo;ooOOOOooOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOooooooooooo... oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooEEEI I
Defendant 0000000 00 000 oo oooo o00 000000 0000000000 00000000 0000000 000 000 0000 0000 000 oooooooo 00000000000000 0000000000 ooooooooOoooooEEE 16
Comi takes matter under advisement... oooooo .. OOoOo 0000000 000 000 0000 00OOo000o00 OOoOOOOOOOoOOOO 0.. 00 0000 00000 0000 000 oooooEEE24
Continuance oooo.ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoOoOooooooooooooOOOooOoOooooooooEEE35
April 5, 2012
Continuance ooooooooooooooooOOOOOooOooOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo:ooooOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooFFF7
April12, 2012
Continuance oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOoOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooGGG6
April 18, 2012
Warrant Issued for Failure to Appearo .. oo .. OOoooOOooOOOOOOOOOOoOOOOOoOOOo0000:00 .. 00000oOOooOOooooooooooo .. oooOooooooooHHH4
April 19, 2012
Motion to quash warrant denied oOOOOOoOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo0000000000,000000000oOoOOOOOOOoooooooooooooo .. oooiii2
Al2

April 20, 2012

Continuance .......................................................................................................................... .JJJ2
April 23, 2012
Defendant released to electronic monitoring ......................................................................... KKK9
April27, 2012
Continuance ...........................................................................................................................11111

Supplemental Record
April IS, 2010
Continuance ........................................................................................................................... A 7
April 20, 2010
Continuance ........................................................................................................................... B29
May 5, 2010
Continuance .......................................................................................................................... C3
May 12, 2010
Continuance ........................................................................................................................... D2

A13

Common Law Record

Volume 1 of2
Placita ....................................................................................................................................... l
Memorandum of Orders ("Half Sheet") .................................................................................. 2
CABS Mugshot Report ............................................................................................................ 16
Arrest Warrant . ........ ... .... ... ..... .. ............. ........ ........ ........................ .. .............. ...................... .... 19
Complaint for Preliminary Examination .................................................................................. 20
Order of Special Conditions of Bond or Release ..................................................................... 21
Prisoner Data Sheet ...................................................................................... ;........................... 23
Indictment ................................................................................................................................ 28
May 18, 2010 order scheduling next court date of May 20, 2010 ........................................... 36
May 20, 20 I 0 order scheduling next court date of June 14, 2010 ........................................... 37
June 14, 2010 order scheduling next court date of July26, 2010 ............................................ 38
Defendant's Answer to Discovery ........................................................................................... 39
Defendant's Motion for Discovery ............................................. ;............................................ 40
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Eavesdropping Charge (Filed Aug. 10, 2010) ...................... 48
People's Motion to Strike, Motion in Limine
and Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (filed Aug. II, 2010) ..................... 52
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Eavesdropping Charge (filed Aug. 10, 2010) ....................... 56
People's Answer to Discovery ................................................................................................. 60
People's Bill of Particulars ...................................................................................................... 62
Defendant's Motion to Reconsider (filed Oct. 25, 201 0) ........................................................ 67
Defendant's Emergency Motion to Allow Computer
Al4

and Cell Phone into Jail (filed Dec. I, 2010) ............................................................... 71

December 2, 2010 order on defendant's emergency motion ................................................... 76
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (filed Dec. 13, 2010) ............................................................. 77
People's Amended Answer to Discovery (filed Dec. 13, 2010) .............................................. 79
People's Motion in Limine ..................................................................................................... 83
Jury Instructions ....................................................................................................................... 86
Jury Notes .......................................................................................................................... ~ ..... 107
January 14, 2011 order scheduling next court date of February 16, 2011 ............................... 111
Appellate Court Mandate, People v. Melongo, Case No. 1-10-2064 (filed Feb 4. 2011) ....... 112
January 26, 2011, Appellate Court Order denying defendant's motion for review ofbond .... ll4
June 24, 2011 Order directing the Cook County Sheriff to provide
defendant two telephone calls to France ...................................................................... 120
Defendant's ProSe Motion to Appoint Standby Counsel or to Mandate House Arrest .......... 127
Electronic Monitoring Order (Oct. 13, 2011) .......................................................................... 132
October 25, 2011 Order providing defendant with free transcripts ......................................... 137
People's Motion to Revoke Bond and Electronic Monitoring(filed Nov. 10, 2011) .............. 139
Novemqer 14, 2011 Order Admitting Defendant to Electronic Monitoring ............. ,.............. l43
Electronic Monitoring Order (Nov. 21, 2011) ......................................................................... 148
Defendant's ProSe Motion to Sever Charges (filed Nov. 30, 2011) ....................................... 153
Defendant's ProSe Memorandum On Why The Defendant
Was Temporarily Incarcerated And Released (filed Nov. 30, 2011) ........................... 155
Defendant's ProSe Amended Motion to
Declare Statute Unconstitutional and Dismiss (filed Nov. 30, 2011) .......................... 172

A15

Notice of Appeal .................................................................................................................... 245

Volume 2of2
Exhibits to Defendant's Motion (cont.) ................................................................................... 252
November 30, 2011 order scheduling next court date of December 7, 2011... ........................ 335
Defendant's Pro Se Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Order (filed Jan. II, 2012) ........................... 337
Defendant's ProSe Motion to Appoint Experts (filed Feb. 3, 2012) ...................................... 341
People's Petition for Rule to Show Cause (filed Mar. 6, 2012) .............................................. 348
Defendant's ProSe Motion to Be released on !-Bond (filed Mar. 15, 2012) .......................... 365
April23, 2012 Electronic Monitoring Order ......................................................................... 375
ProSe Memorandum of Defendant's Argument on amended Motion to Dismiss .................. 386
Defendant's ProSe Demand for Trial.. .................................................................................... 390
Defendant's ProSe Emergency Motion to Request Amended Order (filed June 22, 2012) .... 397
Court Order Finding the Eavesdropping Statute Unconstitutional (July 26, 2012) ................ .406

Al6

------

INTfflil ClltCVlT CQI:i1T~' CQitKqplJll/'l', tt.t\'NQJ~

. . e~~~VJtfAR~NT. ~A:L-lil1~1- .
' ' . ,.,,,, ..,... ''>,.,._

, . .. . y:

'U:rU:lPtEOllnm $TA1lfQF.itt;iN.t1ts, ~

Pl{Untift~~S.PJ;l)!4t\nt;
,,

''<Y<>;

}
. ,)

'J.-~.L :\JI!~IJ:
~~' ll ~!

Z&tl

~Q~a000M)

-~

),

1;
}

:Q!a!l:
1""" ~'"'i"L- 1'" oomt !4'i;..~
~'I'C('t'n~u..,.,
~'iii~. b>>'lii!!
~~~~~~:!~~,~~-_t
.'?_ '' ,'"""'O""'ll,""'"''lhilt:i\'1'<
i~..~--:~---~~~;[ --~---".,~!tt--.,i""'
..~~"~~~~P,p.:
_______
~1\\4:

.,

{l!)

(2)

_,._,

ll..\~<i?.t1ND
On P!l"lomf31lt 2, 2099 at approximatc!y 1:15 vm ~~ Mi~ of tAe Chlc~o
Police Pepi'UinieP.t, a!!)pg 'With 6llier :police officers wer~ .ill. dQ'Wi:ltbW!l Chicago. A1

aRPtoximately 103 N.. $1'lltli!, whiJ.e d~g a tlb!i'leland Si:rlt,y .ch!il>:k. flie o11tl'et~
oh!lerved Drew. offering art p<t~he's fotsale'f~f $t,Q9 U,$:.0. Drew was w~~ l\. t~d
p/.lnchP. Wi.\b si$fis

1m

it (t'ront&:. back} iltt:lip;!ti~ "~ .~ $!lie ~UJo,i' S~. iMJ.w

1J.pPt~acihed ~w and infl!ltiMd .h1m ~~t h!l CQRld 11<1t ~!il.<Ue

m.{!. ~~4 ~a ..,,t)rew

when. /Wt!!d, imU\.\ilt'4. tll.a~ hi!' did not ll:a' a ~~e11a ll~tls~t Qtew iu:ltt~~~j);\1!~ h~t
WPv14 not {!t1s{~t ~. ;pedd\l~g, Ml:t0ra t6id' lliewtbatif''h~4kl: riot ~9Jli p~d1W,g. :mr

would !: .att:e~.. ~$W l.fl$,l'fnd~)im ~~~JJ,ce1 1(1 Qlr~ an:d ~llt!l, ~wi
:P~i!!JI~ ~w tmder mest

at the p.oU!le .$;tati6t,~.. }))~\~ i&*~};l:g wl!& ~~cited.,

j,1'9P:9.h1l d(}J:t~~ n\'lllletous items :that !hewwa~ ~elfin~, in~ oftl!!t!?P.~~"~~.:PtJliCI'l.

t~!.'!liete4.ilri Olymp~ t)l~ \laic~ ~amer,

'The ~o~ w!!~ !)ll !W,ij tllcbt{J~J5 . ~\&'

~e.. Ji'~!lt ipv~imtl~ @~ me, polill~ at the ilmfi~) :ln4ii:l~t!l!:lt :!IJ4t ~~w

lm:4

. unb~k!lo~;to tl!e Wil!c~ beebt~t!:lfll.g tJW.~I)'jl~tsation wfth.ll!e"pliifflii~Wlm~~~~~

Sttt. Utew wa~r then :cba;tg
!)f,. e;;tveslttQJWfr!g.
- W,ith lJl!\1 C~!i l f~{QW
--...
.. DrcewJtll3
-

J,u:v!lt challenged the lt:g~ity ofhis t)..rfest fur {a) pe!J.\llin,g ~tl!m:!t q. Jlense. (&u;::.c. 11

J44-Q30), and (gD

peddlin~ in

a prohibited district t~J:.C.G, 4-2.44+1.0 4),

!l~t ~. he

eballet~,ge(l tht: police's rlghttl> iitventocy his Pl'O)lerty, ie. the ~ecor~r!JM thtJ.(l!P<! :wttl\.iri

By a Motion to Suppre.$s he :u,risu.ccel!sfully challenged the officer's I!UtiwtitY to

listen to the content!! of the tap!l on the recorder.

PROCElJyRAL IDSTORY
"----

,,<,_,,_,., ,-'

- -______ ---

Dtew was arrested on December 2. 2l!OfJ.. At 11. ~llminary h~$ on Det.tlmb~r

9; 2009 the

court (J. J)e Boni) enwet.l a: 'flnd1n!! of prob!ible ca\lae.

$u~$!i\l~1Yi

on:

December 30, .JiJ9 Qrew'~ cli$e waS, ~~grt~\1 to this oourt and 15rew :ttts: lU't"!i'@eQ:, ~
Mar~h

26, 2010 Drew nted .his im'til!l MatJoil

~v~~~<!pping A.ct was 'unduly

.......AI....
"""~

tq pi~n#ss

on

tae !Pll6is tbilt ~

hr:oag oo4 f~i:l:i~U:ve' JID4' 1fwsl}\ vfatat.ed bfs. long

'F'i
""" , A~ t '"'tt''
..t.>hf{oml:lruoran
... 't . d. ~~.J\IL~.
. d li . al.!tt'Y>.z
''"' ~~~r
<il."l!IUbl'te :w~t
. u:st rwt!:in"t:!.'~\l
.. ,.,.

.tbtou~ lludio reiKJr4ill.S' Qlld'tit!S~ ~f d"efendilnf's intettion WitlHb.e X!~lt9!1~tl,iie!\'~Ull

stteettlii:l Mt e\>~itJ.Jte a '1i'}!lv.~tii!in:" 1:\!i ~:et fQflh m. thtl etwes~ofWi~~ stam~~ ~

~18;

2010 the .Nfuti~~ WIM!iiil:J3.i~,

0L'$eptemb.er .:\'2, Zl!fD ~w ~le.i:t aNlt!ll~tl riJ 8J?Jl!lils~. s~nJ m ~~~. 8.

we!:!lllM4 1)1ier,. the co~m~nts I'd' the QJ~):lS !!li~it!l.l. Ql~ ~~t1ftl~J"t. lt>n: Niitemli.er 21.
.t!QJV tl!~?vfo:tith!'.w S,\ipptcM~Wi!S' d~:nie.U:.

.On Mw ~. '2l)IJ l,i}tl!!'! ~4 .a. Mo'tfiJn ta>Pl.e.ad Jbi~mptfe;tt,. ~J:!i~b ~oilw~

sub~1.1~nt1 ~med affet.lt' J).@tl~ St;tlk~I:Jtl.!!UiY~ (~ptemlier i;, Z.lliii:) ;~w :In~ \\, .

4rftf!ift)ed.Nottr:e oJintent to Pfe:qdJlJxem~t!i:!li, Wh!Qhi.MP~io l'!~!l,~isMffll j;~endf~t~

Th~ Clli'Tilt Matian

to ~eclql'!l ri~'Jl;(JS S/14. f/.flc~tJ;i.tijU/iti1Jr:fk wli$ tll~d,Oct&b'iit

JS, 201 1.. .Argpme!lts were heard. on F:ebrJ~gry 14, 2V11~

t.nte:l'lttan and'.an unlawful qclion

must eMeur in arderto con$tz'tu~ a lll.rfm~:
Comma'f/Wealth v. MiJer, #01 Mass. Hi. 9J
N.~. 249 (1910}.

"A:!) fVil

C!lrtttal

t()

Drew'~ W"~ep.t

that section 5114 {lUinols .Eave.s\lroppifl:g Jaw) .J.s

mconst.iwtional is fflat se.c'!loll .S/14 d.oes

'(t()t

require a .cUlpable

nren~l st~~.te (ll.J\4.

therefore

puni$he~

wholly il:u}ot:rit ccm4:uct). Ayotahig:!y, tl\ls .court

~n:ust

cleWIW!ne

wbl:.ihlll.' section 5114 requires a cUlpable !llental 'St/lte.

This. o1.!1't'sreview of the mew ofdefend;ll)t'$ .cp~hJtJ.!)b,l}1~ruleq~ is gW~d

by th~ fd!lihvfu:g p,l'lbciJ;!te~) ~~tutes ate presumed e.onstfmtiom\l;lm4 !I;Part~~~~ll~l!lnll

the<\Willitiwtionillio/ of It ~~has .~. ~urden of establishin~ its inia!tditr,

P~op~e 1!

Ltrtl(Z~ 18~ UtZtl ~43, 2S4, 23.& 111 D~~-

59c4. n~'N.~~. M4 (l'2!19J Plu;smmt ~o.t~

police power! :the le~~ .lm$ Wi411'

4it~teti:~~

W ii!@lbl.f~ J!P~~Jf~

f~t

retimlnitt

offenses, but ibis di!mr:etloni$1iill.it~ :by .tb,e ~!l$:tif!;ltrqu;U ~~~~~~ .a,yersonmat

Ui'>t J;tt!. dem:iye<J gf l$b~ without d pto~S$ n Jaw. In~~ E',{t,. Jli lU,~Il!~lJ~r .~Q.

~~!tnt Plle .p~/n~;m:;i~a ~~lXf~~~)

S~jtl!lo (JJJ

$~eQMiio{liJ

''A person commits: theft when hekno~gly:

(S) ol:!wns. llrexel't$e<mttl.il <ict ,ptqJ:l~l$5r"lh ~e
ell$to'Uy ()~ !ll!Y l1tW e,(;)ti'itentag:eney
which is explicitly r~t:efient~li ip.biU) .by
!\1\Y l~tw ~nfot~~:r;~t ofti~~ ur mtY i)14ivici:Ual
acilil~ in b~hlllf ohlaw ~uf<>rc~J:laentl!i~oy

i!s ~ing stoi~Q.''

A)_o

S.~'~no (~J

{a) IUs a.vi()biU<>Ilofthi~ vll.al!Jterfot:

(l} a ~rsO!l. Wi,tb:o.~ !J.~tbority fu do sa.
~datnag'e a vehicle. or til ~geor
tettroY\l My pl!lT PVIJ; v~~bj~l~;
(?) 4.p\lrs<>n, wjm9ut a!Motieytodo @,
to tllmfl!tr
a v1UclMt ~o ill itl
9111t l'itW<'I~ll;.~tatfemp~ ~~wo~ll;illlY
. offts pw, or set 9ra~mpt: to s~t it in mot'ii:llt",
11

with

U~4l:!t th~ l'l:!lnDts

V'li.Wlt 1\'Z!lde (&1!5 .m, Ct!mp.. S'mt. ~:01:~ (il) (We~t

~il9l1a

ce!!Wil ~llfvi~l'SI\l' r~uiwli rp. !k(lep ~f'!rili l~Iudlr!~ the: y.e~;make~ID14 mli!~ of'!!:

.lfm PI ve~fe; tb:~ i!txllil.&m!fi ~qr. o~'.~ v(!l!if!l~i tli~ dare1 o:tl aeqmsilinn fl:tl tin~ ~ or
vehi~le;

the n;ooe @q 1!!4\.ltes'S

~t ''i'Jl~ JY~\'!bi

JJ:qm. wll!;'ll!li tlle

l;flll!t

l!tt

ebl$le

Wl!S'

'T:hl}.f~iuret!Qiteeota IUl}j Qf rue .eypecro\1 i!JtQrm!lltl\ill!:f~~ IJI'!t)~tute~,l!,.~!lll'

fpi~IIP r~ur:~,

''ltl:s tntl~~for.~]eifj}.nJq 12!wn ~t:t

o:pl:~te. ~Y .ln9Jot vehfaleho ot sh~;~ lmow:s

t9 <!()llfli.m 11ft\l~ or &eltt oqq),l)~e~t. U

i~ Jlli\~~cwtYI (o.~; MY, person to kti{/Wingly

install, er~ate, bwl4, or 1\l:~at inl!liy ni~tor

v,ebi&litl\fqls:e l:l~ lJCCtt ~omp;!(ttt)ient!'

''Aperaon cl:lp:\Wits:fli'e ()t'J;'e~ ofitientity'~ft

whnhe o:r ~nel>uqwingly: . (7}es ailYP~rso!al
ide!ltlfkatlon.mfop;n!J.QOll or Plll'BPPid iqentifi~on
tlOCIMe):lt of ~otlrfor the pUI(Iloseuf~uin~
a:OO\lss to any til! cord ofi!le ~tctio!lS tl\k~, IJO~(Ud~!i,ti!1~
nrllde q;r ~i'\ie~, etdth~r ~ctivities pr trans~ti9ns
o'fthat J!l!$n, wllbc:\1,1! !M ptfot express pel'ililssion

of that person."
A criltlinal stlltut~ that d~s 11,\lttequj):tnlll Wllawthl pl.l,l,'p(l~e swi;eJi!~ too ,.liifuii.tlly

by purushitig innoc~nt (!!$well. II$ ~\!lpitble cbridllet. !?~opfe v.. Wick, 107 fit2u 6~ 41H
N.E.7d 976; 19$Slll. LexidM; 89 fit bec.$~3 (19$5)

4\s preVio1J$ly s~ statute~ are p~11111pttvelw cQ!J.St!JA~~ .~ '!be bum(!~ <if

e~tablishm~ the lJt)t;!l'fiStitUY~til!ll:fJ g"fa $'t!UUW is

on the patty attM!ptfu~ ~Q'cstii:Jilli~IJ:.~

invalidity; Lqntz, su~ta. ttl all. ofthe p~vi'o~JSly ~ef forth Sl1emtri~'tb\T'HllJJ!l1s~ten1e

Courtf'gund th'l:lsf!lbtf$ ttlis:ofilltiWit!~?IDJI.

B!!ei!~!!~Jal
Tlti.~'Ul!,l)()ts ~I:!Rt~e <lolflthmlitllll~ ~<~ause.the ~i!'~ell. H!;!i.t~ltit~~~~o~

t!lqWe iP1 ur#fiW/tll f;}itPtJte. lit s~g atlte ilie slittU~ SWll:flltE!Q htl!l!idly lilY' ~~l\i~g
-

-'

'

-- ---- -- -

' :.

,::

'

'": -~

--

inneetmt' JJ..d.uct .as :welJ ~ lpll11l.lf t;'~)l;l\llUt. the ~~ WI~ due f!l:o.cess,,
Cl()Urt

- -- -

Th.~

cited as ru:t eJI'IItl\ple 'J!)fUm~t 9<i~dtle,r tll1!tf!OIJI!i~TIIltlh~ 4~f~ttQ a Elll!Js:

:X sentence .,. the t'atmer wiw bu:vus .\11!1'~ hl$. d~~ti.ot.a~4 :~ w~~M?Mii f'~t '4 aew
ofj.e, d a fireman stancijng IIMQY is mj.ured.: l~.jl.~ fife',.. I!'i. Wi:i;k, ~ fit~ q;~~l,IIX~Iif at
4efndf s pla~tt o.;(bl,)si,nl!$5. Afltemaawas injured 1ightU!g the tlre.

1'he theft statute held

be unconstitutional. since. it fill:led to reqUite a culpablec

m!lntal state. People v, Zaremba, 1$8l}l,2d 36; ~~() N.E. 2d 797, 1994 illl&ltis 6; 19.6
Ill. Dec . 6J2 0~.94).

the statute was not reasonably 1el~.!l'4 to the:p\ll'PQ's.eqfenl\bling

pplice .tJfticers ttl break up (encing operations J:lj)ea\ISe, ~ wr).ttep, it subjected itmacellt
persons to puni~hm~mt,
$e~ti<m {HH {!I) ($) Uld criminalize:the ~9ns o(~ J)Qli11 e'\'iAt;lJ:Ice ~e9.Mt\lilll)

who tQok: rom 11 police t'!:J:ll.l:t (onlife keQj:>bigc the' pro:ceeds o( a t:Ueft thlit the pllli~

officer had tecei:ve~ rmd that tile :p9lille I:!JJiel?r.gave tp t!ie eVidence techni,cian with:.tlle
t~resentation tbat the ~l:ld$ were lltofen,

~Ct)nlltl~.(c!

~n rl;l it C.~ ~~9111.2\i' ~4~; 7l41)l,E~i;l~1; i99!Hll L&iis ~51~ ~:lfJll.:tle!l, 512

lllfuois $uptllll'le CtQun b.eto J:bB.t. !ll1.e :a~t\'111 ~~i~.i'Q~ $.W~pli too brollt!~y: and
a~pt!kl to

pl:Ulish persons with

w~&,l~y in~M<Wt !Jti4(i~; ~~ ~te

fu q.ue.snon

#iiiws~a~sghlw liali~Jlity; .. Exau.Wles o(mnocem o0mi~~ tht!t~'W~ $'tt~i~ !!i petsqu to

Cti~l prQs:~ql>,l\~

(JJ l'l ~ooP. who enters an Ml~k~ llaf'W 'lillfii. !I'll'~ b~Pll~ts'

violatJ:s the ~tl\tu~. @d is .sq.Qj~ 'ta;l'l on~ ~ell!' ~!!tl.~encel (2) a person wJl:o demws the

brldt: and groom''il oar dmmll !I w.edi:.!ilig,~ll):o'IJyis r;u~J~fltto ~at SllfictlO"rrs, Other
ei!runples of innocem conduc.t" !hat wop}(! sJ,J,l,lj~t ~ pet~on tl.l ctlfu:mal n~nahi~ are set:
. fl,)rtb in the $qpreme Cotitt's opinion.

(!ena'rlo ~)

People V, WJ'lght, 194lll.2d 1; 740N.E.2d 755: 2000Ill. J4xls 1234; 251

ru. J)ec,

469 (2000}.

,+ )_)

Th~Jlllnoi~ Vehicle Code pr(}Yisiqus ~\litllf& qe,ttaitl, individl!llls to ket\p recotds

(Cla~ ~. felpny) a,re unconstitutional because they potentially }ilumsb nwocent ~;onq~Jct in
wol<lti!:m ofd!l pro cellS beca!llle they lite not teasonablJ designed to achieve the P~i>I!S
for wfach tbe !M~e Wllli e~~~~ te, tti:I#Iking in stolen vehicl!ls ot ]!lifts. A'i:l
indi'lilduatwho kna~y f~l.Slo ~IX~ t1ul !Wlt>r 6fg~i1JSl~ vebicle.coufd be nvicled

9f (alli,Jre tp lcti!lp records, even 1fthatlatlm'e )'\'~.caused l>M IU~~Jjty,, fa~t~ill" clli.sls ar

Steparin(e)
P.e~pte 11, Cw.p.eflt~l'. Gt(r!'b,ttlqf, .~ Afii~ll!\s'-,~lfl9 (C!!n&Oifdated}~ll1li.d :UQ~; .

8'88 N1.E.2d lOS; 2008 Ut ~l~> ~:14; 3~11 llt J:leq,, .~~~ (~OQ~) $<!'ction t:26I,j,. tefeued
til'

AA tM Bi44en Gom)?llrltnentlf Law wc~;~ll$11itllti'"~ .~

vi~l!!'ttv~ u~ au~~.~tive dl,'la

:i)J'Cl9Cflll!.~rlml:ees. ~:tile ~tttte ~weeps mP btoa~, :p.at~nJ1r4TJ!l1rtr/#Jrtt}J~slitg 'ittni;Je,~fft

t;Ql!l/uf),t.

''~i:rt'gtb!\tct p\u:Pqsl!'~tblli"W~~tb.e,Iaudablego!!F.

p. t:.p~. :o.t)!.9<lntrnll~
. Q. ~ll
. :. ~s. .p.. .. 1)1.i'Cf4>tn
<H.m. ..u:punis~'
. . . . ~.lh
. . ~..w
....~
. ....m.< ~..
.... '"w an
. .a.. ..
.dlegi4
{j)~l\Jt$;.\'l!m~.n~t 0.~i~~w.hll"thei"'
tm.

'Ui~.t'!l4WtS 4d9P~ artilt reasonable method ot:accomptfsbln~

tbe desired oh~.tive,' (~itatioil$ iltmttl:i:l) we hold jt l$ not;''

''The Statute !)Otentlafly mimU;ui}i~~ iOOtl\\ei1t eondt~ct, as it v:Jslts'

the &tatus.l)lraf~lon JtP9ll yP.U W}):l) 9~~ or operates. a

veh.icle be at She know$ .to contain a f!Use.or ~eQ.~e( cPtl!P~el,!t,

defined !IS one: JntenMd !IDd l:\sign~;d to. c~!'i'eal tlj,e conipillt!Uel:!t
or i~ contn't$ ftoltj: law fdl'Cillntent officers. The contents
O'f '!he compartment dP not have to be illegal for a convietfun to
r1.1s.ult. In these cases, thetlll was in fact nothing iHegal found within

the coropl!liWnts.''

As th1.1 appellate coutt noted in Carpenter, ''an owner or: driver wlw

~~ lifs

concealed. I!Qll}partn!.ent to kep legl\lly .possessed items from. view of law . l!lnt:orc~nt

offi~t:ts has

no criminal purpost}," PeQple v. Carpenter, '3.68 UL App.M 288 S56 N.E..4d

551, 303 m. Dec. 746 (4006)

scenarl~ Cft

Pedjile v. /!{il(/rigal, 241 Il1.2d 463; !M& N,B_.2d 591~ Mtl nt. Lelt>i$.454:; ~~(!) UL
I)t~o.

31! {ZOll)
S~Jbp~:grapb (11}(7) oft!). I~pti~ 'fhei:lS~~te doe$ nut tequite ctin11naHntent,

ciib:itnal

know,led~e, Qf

-11;

9):limlnal

p~$1!1

wQ.td~ t9 ~u})j~ . $P~!?~ t& it (~Ion)'

oonViction and punislunlmt.

'"l''lep~~b'!em with stion t'6!{f) 15 ~) {''!)! tbep; Mfth~ti,t !It~
a,eul--Pit.
- hie mwUKW
_ .........~; ,,...
me, ~
-tili.l~-n:.tmlii~:,"',...,
.' ~ __ }iJ! ti(!{:W:t~:tt
, . ,_!)f...,..,~
"~"!.!--lle_

tlira pel1J!\'Ill t~:l:l, ~Jl,V;I.t~> ~~ !t~lm~,

B'~llSUhe Statl.ite
poten'tllillly:puutdi!t!S'-'i'li&fgu.ftl~t w:!l.Q,Y!it gfw!j)Uyl!m~eftt
1 ~te_.i:tlil"
cl>rui.
''"t Jlo
"'t_ r_ce
..,~ ....
-sta_,tute
sf.!, . e.4!__iti:t_-_-.'~"e;:.rw_
.. ,'\!?.
.~
.
'-'-'~'
___..4 s_,,_.
'-"'_ ,._""'.......
1<-".
. p~" "'
. o:t
aeli@<~ fltat.tnlal'!MU'{Ition<ll way. q1\lli\r~i!!lg ~ll' f!f~:ibl~tf!,.pf
t-'+n
thJl:fW
'''9'' ~'Til
1(ISL~,.
f"~~.\i~~~~'l~
' ... ,;., :Rt~"'~
-~"~;..'t\!4
"'1\' ,~
.,..XIIi);!.})'
...
_w_

.ljy' be st!l.filt:c:i arul'}IDssible;c:rin:lUt!tl SJmQJJoru; !!Na~t

s .

fj. 4!tthi
~!'<"' . .. " . \
; . Jl'.tb:~- ... :1;!pr@!U~ ~:lllt(:),Pill!Q~il

O.m: Qffhlil ~'ll#ill FfitPosi\ls.9ffh~ "C-al.Co4!11'J?fl~(l~,,,(~Uve JM.l.lllcyl,

1962) is. s.et &rth 11'17~() J'L~$ $/14-.(b)

''Denne adequat<~~y fue-Qct and m~ntqlatate wbic!J:'-!lol!s.iifut!l'
'11~h oft'~!r$e, and li!'f4~ fue 11.Qn:~nmatj~ ~filondo:cl as

crln:i.inalwhen lt iSJWithout fault.''

Subsectfun (b) addresse.s the CQncem that the Code

nmst clell!'ly ekplafu :acts ll!ld

related lhentm state's fall within the gamb~t of the c~ l11w, while aimultimeously

a:v:<)iditlg the i!Wlusion of behavior that does not

m.er~t

or a!low -for crilninalizati. A

&flmiAallaw viC!iate$ dUl' procel!s if it fails to extend notice to the. gener;d popull\ce a:ln:>ut

/1 2-_J . . . . . -

(a) who falls Within th~. reach of the law or (b) what conduct is prohibited. /.l$o, if a

cri!llinal staMe inttud~s into beJwvior (ccmduct) th~t ls illllocent it rp.ay b\:. render,
invalid due to. its overbr~ath,
I

-- .

. ,, ,

- .

(a}. a personflomnnts eavt!sdropping whenbe:

(:}); lmow~~ly imt;!Jntiiitf!i.o:tiqll}! U$~ ~
(:\!:VIl~!ifilppmg:Mvi~ f~n tb.ep~ose
qfhllllritrs 'lrw<~e'l~~ .all !ilfl!lir p!U(t
o.f~y~v~J#lh~, . W1),\WS ~! dp,~~,s~
(A~witll the eollSlmt;oli'iUt ofJhe,pal'ti!:!s
to:suli.~.n.v~i:lft!tJ$,,

'Eav~mdtqy~ otaPf)ficc,Qjlfj'Cc!lf's ~'r.!lmv~t{l!\tioo'!',Jl,i!! Cli~S$ l'fi:!l@nrilttl'b.~~PI

asenwnceofptoblltiO'nupto:fffieeu r.eat~in.tMl\)ellften-~
\:V'l1i!~ tQP e!We~~~P~ ~mil@ se,ts :fotth: two reqtiitem~ntll eott!l.emifi~

thte a!lts

lif lbe P~rlle.ll;t<~~l'fltfulgp; he !lcl47t~wingl,Y .d irttllfl/it!~ in' ~<i-g :thl.l p~y~~

~Wts o~ ~!lJ..mt tM teffiqtl'!illg ~!!Vie. !!!1d ~'Qta~~thtl cJmt~at:ion.('Un~oqtJo

th!.l other P!U:W)> th\'1' ~~ves<'b-oppin~..~t f.l9!lS nl.lt. set l:!U~;l!li,Y evil ill;J.t!lt (m~ x~} that
mustacoti1J:)lliill~ tbe: acts (actus reus),

In Ct11pentu, supra. The Hidden Compit.tth'rents Law prel:iil:>ited .a petsen fitiill

oWllin~

or opetating a !)'loter v~~:l~ tl!lit P.<: ~~w ~n,f!!if!~. 4c,s~t C)tlm~~!lt 6r

frlJm knowingly ibstallll:lg ~ s~e.t eomplti'tillellt. Tl:le stawt as lm!ic!ltelt ettrl~,. wa,s
potentially prohibited il)nocent conduct, as not everything pl!!ced the secret compllltment
weuld constitute contraband or be illegal to .pessess or. own.

10

",

Irt the EaWsdtOppill;g

Statute, th~ statufe clearly sets forth .the prol:tibited physihl

acts. The falllt of the statute. is that it d<!es not requite an a~CP~panymg culpable mental
state, or crhninal purpo/le fora pefson tQ be conv!tlld Qf ~.felony.
The fi1intm EavesdtOPJ)ing $tatut~t.pot~mtiallyp~$lles, !IS. a fe~py a Wl.de ~ay

of wholly int\oent conduct. For ex-im!ple, a juror llSfug an .audio. rerr to r!lcPrd
diiectlons to the cotuJllouse fot juw dUtY given by a palice office would be Jn viPlllti<m.

O.f the *t:Ute lf he recorde,d the

~l:!nvel'Sat}!)n

witMut the consent of the afficet;

Repof4ing>Jfa P<>!tce officet's.m~h'llsti~ ~n w.\ulre to l!f\Y~ ~eedmg t.icke~ or wl!.ere a

towed vehic~ could be picked liP womc;l vtolli~e th~ ~taJt~ illli!U:Il ~~itbl\!ut the ~;!ls'en~. ()i.'

me ofil..er:
c

-.. ,; .' ,' ~ 'II( -

.-

A PM~ IMkiPll m!a!Wfl:J ~4Qot~$ O,.f'd!eit chlid's~ ~e,J:!Ut inddfu~ so

hil]?p~ns tit rec.ord jJe,nt!iy ~nve~!'IM

w()tJl ~e

1u viql\ltioo of tlie Eavesdt~piiJg

$taMf.l. Alth\Jugpi~ l$ !ri,ti;Y .~ll<:~lY:tf11!l tina rliltingp~U~t WQuJ~ .f:!e ~thll(~~ with 11
f~lony pft'en~e- the fa.~t ,1'\'lpmlnso tol.lt .~hfl'eP\.!11'1- tll1;1.1!1~ '~~ UwQm't.~qnd'4llt,

''The .Ea~esdrqP;Pmg $.tiitliltl} blfB. th!l ~w mwrl!ll!f' to

ptO~Q~

tmw\\11ted invasion!! of ~vi!Qy, ntmoJs citizen& ate entitled, to b.e

nnii.vidUil!i Pi~

sat'e~ded

uQm

necessary governtllehtal il,)~i'l5!l into tliliir privacy, The Eavesdropping Statute is

ran<mally related t() the ptll:iUciJiterest .(;lf privacy.

Hl'1Wew~r. tile means ru:I!i!pted are J:iQt a

reasonable .method 9f accpn:tptisllfug the t:jslt objeqtive, becau~ ...;it ~ubJ!!ets wb<lUY

innocent condu.ct !9 crhnin!\1 penalty without requiring a culpable fuentlll state beyond
mere knowledge'' (para 10 DREW'S MOTION TO DECLARE 720 ILCS 5114

UNCONSTITUTIONAL).

11

Whetefore, the court

gt'arit~ th~

IltQ'titin to dismiss

findin~

that the llli,ripis

BavesPJ;opping Statute lacks .a culpable mental sta~e li+\4 $Ubj~t$ wholly inno.cent

conduct to prosecution. Unll.edllinois Supreme CQurt.lWle lB. the. ()o\Ut tm4s the .I{linoi~
Eave~-opp.ffig St~~tute. IS. ~Cl)J;l$titu,tig11#\

oil Jts faee and as: applied to c,ic,~11dMt .!lll the

statute is vlohltive <1 sttbmap,tJYe du Ji!'(!lless.

substantive due pt:oc~s

G<>n$tl.tmlt>n

w.s.

lmtil$

The court tfuds that the statute viplates

the Vt~Urt~n~ A:!n~lidQ!llt

()mt Amend.

XIV>

w the Unites S:tates

an<l Mi~le I,. &~.ii\Uon" 2 of tll!l U~<lls

Cort$titution {Ill. CO'l)~t. t9{1l, ~ I, Sec.2). 'the: oo\Ut Wer fl!l tt the ~Wilt!~
cannotlk cpn$tl:ltc;t~ in a. !l):W):Det th~ :WoP.Id presill'VI\) its V,alidity ran.IJ!fqd~t ~

rm 11'f!l!ll1l:lnwt-tive gmqp:d. 1\!01,1. WJd~r: Illinois SJl:l!ltenm.~mtB~!ll9 'W<\8 ~"'en.

lllN'fE.RED

DATEll:

JUDGasr~wu;v 1 ~MKs. tsll

MAR 0:2 2012

12

r;:

1_'.,

STATE OF ILLINOIS )

AUG 0 \1 2012

) ss
COUNTY OF COOK

~;

08~~T~Xc~~~k~ .

)
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT.OF COOK COUNTY
COUNTY DEPARTMENT-CRIMINAL DIVISION

II

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Plaintiff-Appellant,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

vs.
ANNABEL MELON GO,
Defendant-Appellee.

Case No. IOCR-8092

Honorable
Steven J. Goebel,
Trial Judge

NOTICE OF APPEAL
An appeal is taken from the order or judgment described below:
1.

Court to which appeal is taken: Supreme Court of Illinois

2.

Name of Appellee's Attorney and address to which notices shall be sent:

Name: Annabel Melongo, Pro Se
Address: P.O. Box 5658
Chicago, IL 60680

If Appellee is indigent and has no attorney; does he want one

appointed? _ _ _ __
3.

Name and address of Appellant's attorney on appeal:

Name:

Cook County State's Attorney

Address: 309 Richard J. Daley Center

Chicago, Illinois 60602
Phone:

312-603-5496

-J

4.

Date of Judgment of Order: July 26, 2012

5.

Appeal is taken from: Trial court's ruling that the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute, 720
ILCS 5/14, is unconstitutional.

~u
Notice filed date:
Appeal check date:

5 -~ -I 2..._

ROBERTPODLASEK
Assistant State's Attorney

0 -22H 2.

CU0245

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that this brief conforms to the requirements of Rules 341 (a) and (b). The
length of this brief, excluding the pages containing the Rule 341 (d) cover, the Rule 341
(h)(!) statement of points and authorities, the Rule 341 (c) certificate of compliance, the
certificate of service, and those matters to be appended to the brief under Rule 342(a), is
26 pages.

By:

~C~/"-_
-=========---.

ALAN J. SPELLBERG,
Assistant State's Attorney