725 ILCS 5/ Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963.

(725 ILCS 5/108B-4) (from Ch. 38, par. 108B-4)

Sec. 108B-4. Application for order of interception.

(a) Each application for an order of authorization to intercept a private communication shall be made in writing upon oath or affirmation and shall include:

(1) the authority of the applicant to make the application;

(2) the identity of the electronic criminal surveillance officer for whom the authority to intercept a private communication is sought;

(3) the facts relied upon by the applicant including:

(i) the identity of the particular person, if known, who is committing, is about to commit, or has committed the offense and whose private communication is to be intercepted;

(ii) the details as to the particular offense that has been, is being, or is about to be committed;

(iii) the particular type of private communication to be intercepted;

(iv) except as provided in Section 108B-7.5, a showing that there is probable cause to believe that the private communication will be communicated on the particular wire or electronic communication facility involved or at the particular place where the oral communication is to be intercepted;

(v) except as provided in Section 108B-7.5, the character and location of the particular wire or electronic communication facilities involved or the particular place where the oral communication is to be intercepted;

(vi) the objective of the investigation;

(vii) a statement of the period of time for which the interception is required to be maintained, and, if the objective of the investigation is such that the authorization for interception should not automatically terminate when the described type of communication has been first obtained, a particular statement of facts establishing probable cause to believe that additional communications of the same type will continue to occur;

(viii) a particular statement of facts showing that other normal investigative procedures with respect to the offense have been tried and have failed, or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried, or are too dangerous to employ;

(4) where the application is for the extension of an order, a statement of facts showing the results obtained from the interception, or a reasonable explanation of the failure to obtain results;

(5) a statement of the facts concerning all previous applications known to the applicant made to any court for authorization to intercept a private communication involving any of the same facilities or places specified in the application or involving any person whose communication is to be intercepted, and the action taken by the court on each application;

(6) a proposed order of authorization for consideration by the judge; and

(7) such additional statements of facts in support of the application on which the applicant may rely or as the chief judge may require.

(b) As part of the consideration of that part of an application for which there is no corroborative evidence offered, the chief judge may inquire in camera as to the identity of any informant or request any other additional information concerning the basis upon which the State's Attorney, or the head of the law enforcement agency has relied in making an application or a request for application for the order of authorization which the chief judge finds relevant to the determination of probable cause under this Article.

(Source: P.A. 92-854, eff. 12-5-02.)

(725 ILCS 5/108B-5) (from Ch. 38, par. 108B-5)

Sec. 108B-5. Requirements for order of interception.

(a) Upon consideration of an application, the chief judge may enter an ex parte order, as requested or as modified, authorizing the interception of a private communication, if the chief judge determines on the basis of the application submitted by the applicant, that:

(1) There is probable cause for belief that (A) the person whose private communication is to be intercepted is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense enumerated in Section 108B-3, or (B) the facilities from which, or the place where, the private communication is to be intercepted, is, has been, or is about to be used in connection with the commission of the offense, or is leased to, listed in the name of, or commonly used by, the person; and

(2) There is probable cause for belief that a particular private communication concerning such offense may be obtained through the interception; and

(3) Normal investigative procedures with respect to the offense have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or too dangerous to employ; and

(4) The electronic criminal surveillance officers to be authorized to supervise the interception of the private communication have been certified by the Illinois State Police.

(b) In the case of an application, other than for an extension, for an order to intercept a communication of a person or on a wire communication facility that was the subject of a previous order authorizing interception, the application shall be based upon new evidence or information different from and in addition to the evidence or information offered to support the prior order, regardless of whether the evidence was derived from prior interceptions or from other sources.

(c) The chief judge may authorize interception of a private communication anywhere in the judicial circuit. If the court authorizes the use of an eavesdropping device with respect to a vehicle, watercraft, or aircraft that is within the judicial circuit at the time the order is issued, the order may provide that the interception may continue anywhere within the State if the vehicle, watercraft, or aircraft leaves the judicial circuit.

(Source: P.A. 102-538, eff. 8-20-21.)

(725 ILCS 5/108B-6) (from Ch. 38, par. 108B-6)

Sec. 108B-6. Privileged communications. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to authorize the interception, disclosure or use of information obtained from privileged communications.

(Source: P.A. 85-1203.)

(725 ILCS 5/108B-7) (from Ch. 38, par. 108B-7)

Sec. 108B-7. Contents of order for use of eavesdropping device.

(a) Each order authorizing the interception of a private communication shall state:

(1) the chief judge is authorized to issue the order;

(2) the identity of, or a particular description of, the person, if known, whose private communications are to be intercepted;

(3) the character and location of the particular wire communication facilities as to which, or the particular place of the communications as to which, authority to intercept is granted;

(4) a particular description of the type of private communication to be intercepted and a statement of the particular offense to which it relates;

(5) the identity and certification of the electronic criminal surveillance officers to whom the authority to intercept a private communication is given and the identity of the person who authorized the application; and

(6) the period of time during which the interception is authorized, including a statement as to whether or not the interception shall automatically terminate when the described communication has been first obtained.

(b) No order entered under this Section shall authorize the interception of private communications for a period of time in excess of that necessary to achieve the objective of the authorization. Every order entered under this Section shall require that the interception begin and terminate as soon as practicable and be conducted in such a manner as to minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception. No order, other than for an extension, entered under this Section may authorize the interception of private communications for any period exceeding 30 days. Extensions of an order may be granted for periods of not more than 30 days. No extension shall be granted unless an application for it is made in accordance with Section 108B-4 and the judge makes the findings required by Section 108B-5 and, where necessary, Section 108B-6.

(c) Whenever an order authorizing an interception is entered, the order shall require reports to be made to the chief judge who issued the order showing what progress has been made toward achievement of the authorized objective and the need for continued interception. The reports shall be made at such intervals as the judge may require.

(d) An order authorizing the interception of a private communication shall, upon request of the applicant, direct that a communications common carrier, landlord, owner, building operator, custodian, or other person furnish the applicant forthwith all information, facilities and technical assistance necessary to accomplish the interception unobtrusively and with a minimum of interference with the services that the carrier, owner, building operator, landlord, custodian, or person is affording the person whose communication is to be intercepted. The obligation of a communications common carrier under the order may include conducting an in-progress trace during an interception. Any communications common carrier, landlord, owner, building operator, custodian, or person furnishing the facilities or technical assistance shall be compensated by the applicant at the prevailing rates.

(e) A communications common carrier, landlord, owner, building operator, custodian, or other person who has been provided with an order issued under this Article shall not disclose the existence of the order of interception, or of a device used to accomplish the interception unless:

(1) he is required to do so by legal process; and

(2) he has given prior notification to the State's Attorney, who has authorized the application for the order.

(f) An order authorizing the interception of a private communication shall, upon the request of the applicant, authorize the entry into the place or facilities by electronic criminal surveillance officers as often as necessary for the purpose of installing, maintaining or removing an intercepting device where the entry is necessary to conduct or complete the interception. The chief judge who issues the order shall be notified of the fact of each entry prior to entry, if practicable, and, in any case, within 48 hours of entry.

(g) (1) Notwithstanding any provision of this Article, any chief judge of a court of competent jurisdiction to which any application is made under this Article may take any evidence, make any finding, or issue any order to conform the proceedings or the issuance of any order to the Constitution of the United States, or of any law of the United States or to the Constitution of the State of Illinois or to the laws of Illinois.

(2) When the language of this Article is the same or similar to the language of Title III of P.L. 90-351 (82 Stat. 211 et seq., codified at, 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq.), the courts of this State in construing this Article shall follow the construction given to Federal law by the United States Supreme Court or United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

(Source: P.A. 92-854, eff. 12-5-02.)

(725 ILCS 5/108B-7.5)

Sec. 108B-7.5. Applicability.

(a) The requirements of subdivisions (a)(3)(iv) and (a)(3)(v) of Section 108B-4, subdivision (1)(b) of Section 108B-5, and subdivision (a)(3) of Section 108B-7 of this Article relating to the specification of the facilities from which, or the place where, the communication is to be intercepted do not apply if:

(1) in the case of an application with respect to the interception of an oral communication:

(A) the application is by the State's Attorney, or a person designated in writing or by law to act for the State's Attorney and to perform his or her duties during his or her absence or disability;

(B) the application contains a full and complete statement as to why such specification is not practical and identifies the person committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted;

(C) the judge finds that such specification is not practical; and

(D) the order sought is in connection with an investigation of a violation of Article 29D of the Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012.

(2) in the case of an application with respect to a wire or electronic communication:

(A) the application is by the State's Attorney, or a person designated in writing or by law to act for the State's Attorney and to perform his or her duties during his or her absence or disability;

(B) the application identifies the person believed to be committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted and the applicant makes a showing that there is probable cause to believe that the person's actions could have the effect of thwarting interception from a specified facility;

(C) the judge finds that such showing has been adequately made;

(D) the order authorizing or approving the interception is limited to interception only for such time as it is reasonable to presume that the person identified in the application is or was reasonably proximate to the instrument through which such communication will be or was transmitted; and

(E) the order sought is in connection with an investigation of a violation of Article 29D of the Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012.

(b) An interception of a communication under an order with respect to which the requirements of subdivisions (a)(3)(iv) and (a)(3)(v) of Section 108B-4, subdivision (1)(b) of Section 108B-5, and subdivision (a)(3) of Section 108B-7 of this Article do not apply by reason of this Section shall not begin until the place where the communication is to be intercepted is ascertained by the person implementing the interception order. A provider of wire or electronic communications service that has received an order as provided for in subdivision (a)(2) may upon notice to the People move the court to modify or quash the order on the ground that its assistance with respect to the interception cannot be performed in a timely or reasonable fashion. The court shall decide such a motion expeditiously.

(Source: P.A. 97-1150, eff. 1-25-13.)

(725 ILCS 5/108B-8) (from Ch. 38, par. 108B-8)

Sec. 108B-8. Emergency use of eavesdropping device.

(a) Whenever, upon informal application by the State's Attorney, a chief judge of competent jurisdiction determines that:

(1) there may be grounds upon which an order could be issued under this Article;

(2) there is probable cause to believe that an emergency situation exists with respect to the investigation of an offense enumerated in Section 108B-3; and

(3) there is probable cause to believe that a substantial danger to life or limb exists justifying the authorization for immediate interception of a private communication before formal application for an order could with due diligence be submitted to him and acted upon; the chief judge may grant oral approval for an interception, without an order, conditioned upon the filing with him, within 48 hours, of an application for an order under Section 108B-4 which shall also recite the oral approval under this Section and be retroactive to the time of the oral approval.

(b) Interception under oral approval under this Section shall immediately terminate when the communication sought is obtained or when the application for an order is denied, whichever is earlier.

(c) In the event no formal application for an order is subsequently made under this Section, the content of any private communication intercepted under oral approval under this Section shall be treated as having been obtained in violation of this Article.

(d) In the event no application for an order is made under this Section or an application made under this Section is subsequently denied, the judge shall cause an inventory to be served under Section 108B-11 of this Article and shall require the tape or other recording of the intercepted communication to be delivered to, and sealed by, the judge. The evidence shall be retained by the court, and it shall not be used or disclosed in any legal proceeding, except a civil action brought by an aggrieved person under Section 14-6 of the Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012, or as otherwise authorized by the order of a court of competent jurisdiction. In addition to other remedies or penalties provided by law, failure to deliver any tape or other recording to the chief judge shall be punishable as contempt by the judge directing the delivery.

(Source: P.A. 97-1150, eff. 1-25-13.)