Cook County Plaintiff-Appellant Appendix

7/27/2019 Cook County Plaintiff-Appellant Appendix

1/32

APPENDIX


2/32

APPENDIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Judgment Appealed From PagePeople v. Melongo, 10 CR 8092 (July 26, 2012) AI

II. Contents ofReport ofProceedings A7III. Contents of Supplemental Record Al3IV. Contents ofCommon Law Record A14v. Circuit Court Order in

People v. Christopher Drew, No. 10 CR 00046 (March 2, 2012) Al7VI. Notice ofAppeal (August 9, 2012) A29


3/32

IN THE CIRCUITO . l l ~COUNTY

Plaintiff'' v .... . . . .-, _. .- ,-

ANNABELK KitLONGO;Defendant.

ORDER()nJ1ffie 19 ,zoiz, this cowt granted defenpant, Annabel K. Melongo' s, motion to declare

; ' . ' ' _- ' . . Jtl:\


4/32

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

On November 14, 201 I, defendant filed an amended motion to declare the IllinoisEavesdropping Statute unconstitutional, arguing that the Statute is unconstitutional on its faceand as applied to defendant and violates substantive free speech, freedom ofthe press, petitionand due process guarantees.

On February 14, 2012, the State filed a response in opposition to defendant's motion todeclare 720 ILCS 5114 unconstitutional, atguing that the Eavesdropping Statute: (1) does notviolate the first amendment; (2) does not violate due process; and (3) is constitutional as appliedto defendant. .

On June 19, 2012, this court granted defendant's motion to declare the IllinoisEavesdropping Statute(720TLCS 5114-2) unconstitutional.

On June 22, 2012, .defendant filed an emergency motion requesting thatthis court amendits June 19, 2012 order declaring the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute unconstitutional in order tocomply with Supreme Court Rule 18.

ANALYSIS

All statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and the burden of rebutting thatpresumption 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:

I


5/32

so (A) with the consent of allelectronic communication **(2) Uses or divulges *** any infon1J.ationwmch he knows or reasorial:Jly

.- . .- - '- ' ' : . -.",- ' --:. .. ',. ,' ' ' ' ' _,shouldknowwas.obtained througl:t the use of an eavesdr


6/32

applies to audiO recordings of police officers in a public place where others can see and hearthem. The State argues that the facts in the instant case are distingUishable .from those in ACLUand 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. Inmaking this decision, thiscourt relied on a recent decisionby the UnitedStates Court ofAppealsforthe Seventh Circuit where the court held that the Statue was likely unconstitutional based onFirst Amendment considerations .and the issues presented in that case. The ~ o u r t subsequentlyissued a preliminary injunction enjoining the State's Attorney from applying the Statute againstthe ACLU and its employees or agents. ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 608 ( 7 t h C i ~ . 2012).

In ACLV, the court noted that the Statute is not closely tailored to the government'sinterest in protecting conversational privacy. Rather, . "the gravamen of the Illinois

. ' I .

eavesdropping offense is not the secret interception or surreptitious recording of a privatecommUhication. Instead, the statute sweeps much rriore broadly, banning all audio recording ofany oral communication absent consent of the parties regardless of whether the communicationis 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 Assemblyfrom enacting greater protection for conversational privacy than the common-lawtort remedy provides. Nor is the legislature limited to using the FourthAmendment "reasonable expectation ofprivacy" doctrine as a benchmark. But bylegislating 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 theeavesdropping statrite's means and its end. Rather than attempting to tailor the


7/32

A?ditiona}ly; this ,court relied on A s s q d a t ~ 'J4ge S ~ a l l ) ~ y , Sac! - '- ' ,;- -_,

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

: . ~ - ' i : . - - : - : . : . : : ; - : : : t - ' < ~ , " D _ ; , ; . : - : > ; . - : . i ;_;::- - ( - - - ~ / \ . :i _ ~ ' . - . : - _ : _ -'.:_:--:_;:;:-- . " . ; , , ~ - ,._ . - : ' _ - " ~ : ,_._- __ ._,_,_- . , . -. ,_: ,- __ _ , :- ... a ~ S P ~ P a ] ) ; y i n ~ ' c u l p ~ I e , ; ; ; . e n t ~ I state. ~ c ! i l i l i l l a J ~ w ? s e fora person Whe . c o . ~ y i q t e d p f afelon;y;

.c- i',:'{,i,O:;> , - , , _ , ~ 0 - " - - -_,__ ~ . - . ' -- > -:- . - - " ' ' , ,

finding nor will this cbUrf. filtef,the St&Me and,.deem certain sections to beconstitutiop.a! ad- ' ' ,', '' . ' .. _ '--- -";, ; o;- ,., - : ' - -.-- - ._ - - - .o1hers to be unconstitutioni!. .

Therefore, .bas.ea on the fore&oing dis


8/32

Thiscoi.rrt u t t h ; ; ~ ~ ~ s the statute cannot be constructed in a marmer that would preserve its.,. -' ': .;:, ,, ' ' '

validity, andjudgme1Jtcannot rest upon an alternative ground. Notice t ~ n d e r Illinois Supreme.. - _-- - . '' -; 'Court Rule19 has been given.

CONCLUSIONBased upon the foregoing discussion, this court grants defendant's motion to declare the

Illinois Eavesdropping Statute (720 ILCS 5/14-2) unconstitutional.

ENTERED:

DATED:


9/32

Report of ProceedingsVolume 1 of6May 18,2010Case assigned to Judge Brosnahan ............................................................................................. A3Continuance................................................................................................................................ B2Case transferred to Judge Brosnahan ......................................................................................... C2May 20,2010Arraigrunent (Case no, I 0 CR 8092) ......................................................................................... D3June 14,2010Continuance................................................................................................................................ E4July 26,2010Defendant's Motion to Reduce Bond-Denied ............................. :........................................... F9August I I, 2010Defendant's Motion to Dismiss- Denied.................................................................................. G25August 26, 2010Court Grant's People's Motion to Preclude Affirmative Defense ............................................ HIOSeptember 29, 2010Continuance................................................................................................................................ I2October 18, 2010Continuance ................................................................................................................................ J2October 27,2010Defendant's Motion to Reconsider ruling on Affirmative Defense- Granted .......... .............. K17November 16,2010Continuance ................................................................................................................................ 12December I, 20 I 0Continuance................................................................................................................................ M3December 13,2010Defendant's Motion to Dismiss- Denied .................................................................................. N17

A7


10/32

December 14,2010Continuance ...................................................................................................... : ........................ 06Volume2of6

January 12, 201 IJury TrialMotions in Limine ..................................................................................................................... P4Jury Selection ............................................................................................................................. P21JurySwom ................................................................................................................................. P172Opening Statements

People ............................................................................................................................. Pl75Defense ........................................................................................................................... P184

Stipulation ................................................................................................................................... P193Volume 3 of6January 13, 20 I I

Laurel LaudienPamela TaylorRobin SukaloJames FloodPeople RestMotion for Directed Verdict

-DeniedDana DePooter

DirectQ14Q36Q89Ql 15Ql29

Q130QI32

Defense Rests Ql 50Stipulation Ql 5 IJury Instruction Conference Q I 56

Cross30Q54Q104Ql21

. Q135

AS

Redir. Recr.

Q62QII IQl28

Q139

Q63Q113ql28

Q114


11/32

Closing ArgumentsPeopleDefenseRebuttal

Jury InstructionsVolume 4 of6

January 14,2011

Q162Q172Q183Q191

Prim Instruction ..................................................................................................................... R14Declaration ofMistrial ........................................................................................................... Rl6February 16,2011Continuance ........................................................................................................................... S6February 17,2011Continuance ............. , .................................................................... , ...................................... T2March 2, 2011Continuance ........................................................................................................................... USMarch 18, 2011Continuance ................... .J . .................................................................................................... V2December 7, 2011Tender of Discovery to Pro Se defendant .............................................................................. VV3Continuance ........................................................................................................................... VV17April 5, 2011Continuance ........................................................................................................................... X3April I I, 2011Continuance ........................................................................................................................... Y3April 25, 20 I IContinuance .......... ... . .. ... ........ ... ... ... ... ............. .... ................ .... ........ ..................... ........ ......... Z3May 19,2011Continuance ...... ..... .... ... ... . .. .......... .............. ................. ..... .............. ........ ..... ......................... AA2May 27, 2011Continuance ....... .. .... ... .... ... ...... ............... ....... ................ ............................................. ....... .... BB2

A9


12/32

June 24, 20 IIContinuance ... .... .... ..... ................................................................................ ...................... ..... CC 10July II, 2011Continuance ................................................................................................. ......................... EE4July 19, 2011Continuance ... .... ... . ..... .. . .... ..... ................................................................. ........................... FF8August II, 2011Defendant elects to proceed pro se ........................................................................................ HH8Continuance ............ : ............................................................................................................. HH20August 31, 2011Continuance ........................................................................................................................... II8September 14,2011Continuance ................................................................................ .......................................... JJ6September 20, 20 IIContinuance ................................................. ; ........................................................................ KKI6October 5,20 IIContinuance ........................................................................................................................... 1124October 13, 20 IICourt orders defendant released on electronic home monitoring ........ , ................................ MM12Continuance ..................................................................... ; .................................................... MM20October 18, 2011Continuance ...........................................................................................................................NN4October 25, 20 IIContinuance ..................................................................................................... , .................... 002

November I 0, 20 IIContinuance ........................................................................................................................... PP7November 14, 2011Court again orders defendant released on electronic home monitoring ................................ QQ8Continuance ........................................................................................................................... QQ8

AIO


13/32

Volume 5 of6

May 3, 2012Continuance ........................................................................................................................... MMM9May 9, 2012Continuance ........................................................................................................................... NNN17May 30, 2012Continuance ...........................................................................................................................0002June 4, 2012Continuance ........................................................................................................................... PPP35June 19, 2012Supplemental Argument on Defendant'sMotion to Declare the Eavesdropping Statute UnconstitutionalDefendant ................................................................................................................... QQQ3

People ........................................................................................................................ QQQ7Rebuttal ...................................................................................................................... QQQ1 0

Court grants Defendant's Motion to Declare the Eavesdropping Statute Unconstitutional ..QQQ12Continuance ........................................................................................................................... QQQ18June 25, 2012Continuance ........................................................................................................................... RRR2July 19,2012Continuance .................................................................................................... , ..................... SSS2July 26,2012Court issues written ruling finding sta tute unconstitutional .................................................. TTT2Volume 6 of6November 17, 2011Continuance ........................................................................................................................... SS12November 28, 2012Continuance ........................................................................................................................... TT3November30, 2013Continuance ........................................................................................................................... UU3

All


14/32

December 28, 20I IContinuance OOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOoOOOooooooOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoOooooooooooooooOOOooooooooWWI6January II,20I2Continuance OOOOOOO OOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooX:XIOJanuary 23, 2012Continuance oooooooooooooooooooooOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOoOOooooooooOOOOoooooooooooOOOoOOOOOOooOoooooooooooOOOoOOYY6February 3, 2012Continuance ooooooooooooooOOOOOOO OooOOoooOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.ZZ20February I4, 2012Continuance 00 0000 0000000 000 000 00 o 0 0000 oOOOoo Oooo 0 00000 0 00 0000000000000 000000 0000 00000000000 00000000000000000 00000 0000000 ooooooAAA IIMarch 2, 2012Continuance o 000 oooo 000 ooO 000 oo 000 0000 o000 o000000000 0000000 00000000 000000 00000 ooooooooooooooooooooooooo 000000000000 000000 .. 000ooooBBB3March 6, 2012Continuance OOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOooOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooCCC31March 15,2012Continuance oooooooooooooooOOOOOOoOooOoOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOoOODDD5March I9, 2012Argument 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:ooooooooEEE3Peopleoooooooooo;ooOOOOooOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOooooooooooo ..oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooEEEIIDefendant 0000000 00 00 oo oooo o0 000000 0000000000 00000000 0000000 000 000 0000 0000 000 oooooooo 00000000000000 0000000000 ooooooooOoooooEEE16

Comi takes matter under advisement... o ooo .. OOoOo 0000000 000 000 0000 0 Oo000o00 OOoOOOOOOOoOOOO0. 00 0000 00000 000 000 oooooEEE24Continuance oooo.ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoOoOooooooooooooOOOooOoOooooooooEEE35April 5, 2012Continuance ooooooooooooooooOOOOOooOooOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo:ooooOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooFFF7April12, 2012Continuance oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOoOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooGGG6April 18, 2012Warrant Issued for Failure to Appearo .. oo .. OOoooOOooOOOOOOOOOOoOOOOOoOOOo0000:00 .. 00000oOOooOOooooooooooo..oooOooooooooHHH4April 19, 2012Motion to quash warrant denied oOOOOOoOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo0000000000,000000000oOoOOOOOOOoooooooooooooo .. oooiii2

Al2


15/32

April 20, 2012Continuance .......................................................................................................................... .JJJ2April 23, 2012Defendant released to electronic monitoring ......................................................................... KKK9April27, 2012Continuance ...........................................................................................................................11111

Supplemental RecordApril IS, 2010Continuance ........................................................................................................................... A 7April 20, 2010Continuance ........................................................................................................................... B29May 5, 2010Continuance ..........................................................................................................................C3May 12, 2010Continuance ........................................................................................................................... D2

A13


16/32

Common Law RecordVolume 1 of2

Placita ....................................................................................................................................... lMemorandum ofOrders ("Half Sheet") .................................................................................. 2CABS Mugshot Report ............................................................................................................ 16Arrest Warrant . ......... .... ... ..... .. ............. ........ ........ ........................ .. .............. ...................... .... 19Complaint for Preliminary Examination .................................................................................. 20Order of Special Conditions ofBond or Release ..................................................................... 21Prisoner Data Sheet ...................................................................................... ; .......................... 23Indictment ................................................................................................................................ 28May 18, 2010 order scheduling next court date ofMay 20, 2010 ........................................... 36May 20, 20 I 0 order scheduling next court date of June 14, 2010 ........................................... 37June 14, 2010 order scheduling next court date of July26, 2010 ............................................ 38Defendant 's Answer to Discovery ........................................................................................... 39Defendant's Motion for Discovery ............................................. ; ........................................... 40Defendant 's Motion to Dismiss Eavesdropping Charge (Filed Aug. 10, 2010) ...................... 48People's Motion to Strike, Motion in Limine

and Response to Defendant 's Motion to Dismiss (filed Aug. II, 2010) ..................... 52Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Eavesdropping Charge (filed Aug. 10, 2010) ....................... 56People's Answer to Discovery ................................................................................................. 60People's Bill ofParticulars ...................................................................................................... 62Defendant's Motion to Reconsider (filed Oct. 25, 201 0) ........................................................ 67Defendant's Emergency Motion to Allow Computer

Al4


17/32

and Cell Phone into Jail (filed Dec. I , 2010) ............................................................... 71December 2, 2010 order on defendant's emergency motion ................................................... 76Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (filed Dec. 13, 2010) ............................................................. 77People's Amended Answer to Discovery (filed Dec. 13, 2010) .............................................. 79People's Motion in Limine .....................................................................................................83Jury Instructions ....................................................................................................................... 86Jury Notes .......................................................................................................................... ..... 107January 14, 2011 order scheduling next court date ofFebruary 16, 2011 ............................... 111Appellate Court Mandate, People v. Melongo, Case No. 1-10-2064 (filed Feb 4. 2011) ....... 112January 26, 2011, Appellate Court Order denying defendant's motion for review ofbond .... ll4June 24, 2011 Order directing the Cook County Sheriff to provide

defendant two telephone calls to France ...................................................................... 120Defendant's ProSe Motion to Appoint Standby Counsel or to Mandate House Arrest .......... 127Electronic Monitoring Order (Oct. 13, 2011) .......................................................................... 132October 25, 2011 Order providing defendant with free transcripts ......................................... 137People's Motion to Revoke Bond and Electronic Monitoring(filed Nov. 10, 2011) .............. 139Novemqer 14, 2011 Order Admitting Defendant to Electronic Monitoring ............. , ............. l43Electronic Monitoring Order (Nov. 21, 2011) ......................................................................... 148Defendant's ProSe Motion to Sever Charges (filed Nov. 30, 2011) ....................................... 153Defendant's ProSe Memorandum On Why The Defendant

Was Temporarily Incarcerated And Released (filed Nov. 30, 2011) ........................... 155Defendant's ProSe Amended Motion to

Declare Statute Unconstitutional and Dismiss (filed Nov. 30, 2011) .......................... 172

A15


18/32

Notice ofAppeal .................................................................................................................... 245Volume 2of2

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

Al6

------ J


19/32

INTfflilClltCVlT Q I : i 1 T ~ ' CQitKqplJll/'l', t . t \ ' N Q J ~. . e ~ ~ ~ V J t f A R ~ N T . ~ A : L - l i l 1 ~ 1 - .' ' .. ,.,,,, .., .. ''>,.,._, . .. . y: ''>'lii!! ,'"""'O""'ll,""'"''lhilt:i\'1'< i""'1"" " ' " ' i " L - oomt 4 ' i ; . . ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ! ~ ~ , ~ ~ - _ t .'?_ '' .. - - : ~ - - - ~ ~ ~ ; [ - - ~ - - - " . , ~ ! t t - - . , .. ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ P , p . : _______ ~ 1 \ \ 4 :

.,{l!)

(2)

_,._,


20/32

l l . . \ ~ < i ? . t 1 N DOn P!l"lomf31lt 2, 2099 at approximatc!y 1:15 vm ~ ~ M i ~ of tAe C h l c ~ o

Police Pepi'UinieP.t, a!!)pg 'With 6llier :police officers w e r ~ .ill. dQ'Wi:ltbW!l Chicago. A1aRPtoximately 1 3 N.. $1'lltli!, whiJ.e d ~ g a tlb!i'leland Si:rlt,y .ch!il>:k. flie o 1 1 t l ' e t ~oh!lerved Drew. offering art p < t ~ h e ' s f o t s a l e ' f ~ f $t,Q9 U,$:.0. Drew was w ~ ~ l\.p/.lnchP. Wi.\b si$fis 1m i t (t'ront&:. back} i l t t : l i p ; ! t i ~ " ~ $!lie ~ U J o , i ' S ~ . iMJ.w

1 J . p P t ~ a c i h e d ~ w and infl!ltiMd .h1m ~ ~ t h!lCQRld 11 iitventocy his Pl'O)lerty, ie. the e c o r ~ r ! J M thtJ.(l!P

By a Motion to Suppre.$s he :u,risu.ccel!sfully challenged the officer's I!UtiwtitY tolisten to the content!! of he tap!l on the recorder.

2


21/32

PROCElJyRAL IDSTORY"---- ,,hf{ . . . 't . d . d l i . al.!tt ''"' .z ~ ~ ~ r te .. ,.,.

. t b t o u ~ lludio reiKJr4ill.S' Q l l d ' t i t ! S ~ ~ f d"efendilnf's intettion WitlHb.e ! ~ l t 9 ! 1 ~ t l , i i e ! \ ' ~ U l lstteettlii:l Mt \ > ~ i t J . J t e a 1 i ' } ! l v . ~ t i i ! i n : " 1:\!i ~ : e t fQflh m. thtl e t w e s ~ o f W i ~ ~ s t a m ~ ~ ~

~ 1 8 ; 2010 the N f u t i ~ ~ W I M ! i i i l : J 3 . i ~ ,0L'$eptemb.er .:\'2, Zl!fD ~ w ~ l e . i : t a l t ! l l ~ t l riJ 8 J ? J l ! l i l s ~ . s ~ n J m ~ ~ . 8.

we!:!lllM4 1)1ier,. the c o ~ m ~ n t s I'd' the Q J ~ ) : l S ! ! l i ~ i t ! l . l . Q l ~ ~ ~ t 1 f t l ~ J " t . lt>n: Niitemli.er 21..t!QJV l ! ~ ? v f o : t i t h ! ' . w S , \ i p p t c M ~ W i ! S ' d ~ : n i e . U : .

.On Mw '2l)IJ l,i}tl!!'! ~ 4 .a. Mo'tfiJn ta>Pl.e.ad J b i ~ m p t f e ; t t , . ~ J : ! i ~ b ~ o i l w ~s u b ~ 1 . 1 ~ n t 1 ~ m e d affet.lt' ) . @ t l ~ S t ; t l k ~ I : J t l . ! ! U i Y ~ ( ~ p t e m l i e r i;, Z.lliii:) ; ~ w : I n ~ \\, .4rftf!ift)ed.Nottr:e oJ ntent to f e : q d J l J x e m ~ t ! i : ! l i , W h ! Q h i . M P ~ i o l ' ! ~ ! l , ~ i s M f f l l j ; ~ e n d f ~ t ~

T h ~ Clli'Tilt Matian to ~ e c l q l ' ! l r i ~ ' J l ; ( J S S/14. f / . f l c ~ t J ; i . t i j U / i t i 1 J r : f k wli$ t l l ~ d , O c t & b ' i i tJS, 2011.. .Argpme!lts were heard. on : e b r J ~ g r y 1 , 2 V 1 1 ~

"A:!) fVil t.nte:l'lttan and'.an unlawful qclionmust eMeur in arderto o n $ t z ' t u ~ a l l . r f m ~ : Comma'f/Wealth v. MiJer, #01 Mass. Hi. 9JN . ~ . 249 (1910}.

C!lrtttal t( ) D r e w ' ~ W " ~ e p . t that section 5114 {lUinols .Eave.s\lroppifl:g Jaw) .J.smconst.iwtional is fflat se.c'!loll .S/14 d.oes '(t()t require a .cUlpable n r e n ~ l s t ~ ~ . t e (ll.J\4.

3


22/32

therefore p u n i $ h e ~ wholly il:u}ot:rit ccm4:uct). Ayotahig:!y, tl\ls .court ~ n : u s t cleWIW!newbl:.ihlll.' section 5114 requires acUlpable !llental St/lte.

This. o1.!1't'sreview of themew ofdefend;ll)t'$ . c p ~ h J t J . ! ) b , l } 1 ~ r u l e q ~ is g W ~ dby d!lihvfu:g p , l ' l b c i J ; ! t e ~ ) ~ ~ t u t e s ate presumed e.onstfmtiom\l;lm4 ! I ; P a r t ~ ~ ~ ~ l l ~ l ! l n l lthet J;tt!. dem:iye


23/32

S . ~ ' ~ n o11{a) IUs a . v i ( ) b i U < > I l o f t h i ~ vll.al!Jterfot:(l} a r s O ! l . W i , t b : o . ~ ! J . ~ t b o r i t y fu do sa.

~ d a t n a g ' e avehicle.or til g e o rtettroY\l My pl!lTPVIJ; v ~ ~ b j ~ l ~ ;(?) 4.p\lrsn, wjm9ut a!Motieytodo @, to tllmfl!tr with a v1UclMt o ill itl9111t l ' i t W < ' I ~ l l ; . ~ t a t f e m p ~ ~ ~ w o ~ l l ; i l l l Y..offtspw, or set 9 r a ~ m p t : to it inmot'ii:llt",

U ~ 4 l : ! t l'l:!lnDts V'li.Wlt 1\'Z!lde (&1!5 .m, Ct!mp.. S'mt. ~ : 0 1 : ~ (il) ( W e ~ t ~ i l 9 l 1 ace!!Wil ~ l l f v i ~ l ' S I \ l ' r ~ u i w l i rp. !k(lep ~ f ' ! r i l i l ~ I u d l r ! ~ the: . e ~ ; m a k e ~ I D 1 4 m l i ! ~ of'!!:.lfm PI v e ~ f e ; t b : ~ i!txllil.&m!fi ~ q r . o ~ ' . ~ v ( ! l ! i f ! l ~ i t l i ~ dare1 o:tl aeqmsilinn fl:tl t i n ~ ~ or

v e h i ~ l e ; the n;ooe @q 1!!4\.ltes'S ~ t ' ' i ' J l ~ J Y ~ \ ' ! b i JJ:qm. wll!;'ll!li tlle l;flll!t l!tt ebl$le Wl!S'

' T : h l } . f ~ i u r e t ! Q i t e e o t a IUl}j Qfrue .eypecro\1 i ! J t Q r m ! l l t l \ i l l ! : f ~ ~ I J I ' ! t ) ~ t u t e ~ , l ! , . ~ ! l l l 'f p i ~ I I P r ~ u r : ~ ,

''ltl:s n t l ~ ~ f o r . ~ ] e i f j } . n J q 12!wn ~ t : to : p l : ~ t e . ~ Y .ln9Jot vehfalehoot h ~ ; ~ lmow:st9

J l l i \ ~ ~ c w t Y I ( o . ~ ; MY, person to kti{/Winglyinstall, r ~ a t e , bwl4, or \ l : ~ a t inl!liy i ~ t o rv,ebi&litl\fqls:e lJCCtt o m p ; ! ( t t t ) i e n t ! '

''Aperaon cl:lp:\Wits:fli'e ( ) t ' J ; ' e ~ o f i t i e n t i t y ' ~ f twhnhe o:r ~ n e l > u q w i n g l y : ..(7}es a i l Y P ~ r s o ! a lide!ltlfkatlon.mfop;n!J.QOll or Plll'BPPid i q e n t i f i ~ o ntlOCIMe):lt of o t l r f o r the U I ( I l o s e u f ~ u i n ~a:OO\lss to any til!cord ofi!le ~ t c t i o ! l S t l \ k ~ , I J O ~ ( U d ~ ! i , t i ! 1 ~nrllde q;r ~ i ' \ i e ~ , e t d t h ~ r ~ c t i v i t i e s pr r a n s ~ t i 9 n so'fthatJ!l!$n, wllbc:\1,1! !M ptfotexpress pel'ililssion5


24/32

of that person."A criltlinal s t l l t u t ~ that ~ s 11,\lttequj):tnlll Wllawthl p l . l , l , ' p ( l ~ e s w i ; e J i ! ~ too ,.liifuii.tlly

by purushitig i n n o c ~ n t (!!$well. II$ \ ! l p i t b l e cbridllet . ! ? ~ o p f e v .Wick, 107 fit2u 6 ~ 41HN.E.7d 976; 19$Slll. LexidM; 89 fit e c . $ ~ 3 (19$5)

4\s preVio1J$ly s ~ s t a t u t e ~ are p ~ 1 1 1 1 1 p t t v e l w c Q ! J . S t ! J A ~ ~ . ~ '!be b u m ( ! ~


25/32

pplice .tJfticers tt l break up (encing operations J:lj)ea\ISe, wr).ttep, i t subjected itmacelltpersons to u n i ~ h m ~ m t ,

$ e ~ t i < m {HH {!I) ($) Uld criminalize:the ~ 9 n s o ( ~ J)Qli11 e'\'iAt;lJ:Ice ~ e 9 . M t \ l i l l l )who tQok: rom 11 police t'!:J:ll.l:t (onlife keQj:>bigc the' pro:ceeds o( a t:Ueft thlit the p l l l i ~officer had e c e i : v e ~ rmd that tile :p9lille I:!JJiel?r.gave tp t!ie eVidence techni,cian with:.tlle

t ~ r e s e n t a t i o n tbat the ~ l : l d $ were lltofen,

~ C t ) n l l t l ~ . ( c !

rl;l it ~ ~ 9 1 1 1 . 2 \ i ' ~ 4 ~ ; 7 l 4 1 ) l , E ~ i ; l ~ 1 ; i99!Hll L&iis ~ 5 1 ~ ~ : l f J l l . : t l e ! l , 512

lllfuois $uptllll'le CtQun b.eto J:bB.t. !ll1.e : a ~ t \ ' 1 1 1 ~ ~ i ~ . i ' Q ~ $ . W ~ p l i too b r o l l t ! ~ y : anda ~ p t ! k l to pl:Ulish persons with w ~ & , l ~ y i n ~ M < W t ! J t i 4 ( i ~ ; ~ ~ ~ t e fu q.ue.snon

# i i i w s ~ a ~ s g h l w l i a l i ~ J l i t y ; ..Exau.Wles o(mnocem o 0 m i ~ ~ t h t ! t ~ ' W ~ $ ' t t ~ i ~ !!i petsqu toC t i ~ l p r Q s : ~ q l > , l \ ~ (JJ l'l ~ o o P . who enters an M l ~ k ~ llaf'W 'lillfii. ! I ' l l ' ~ b ~ P l l ~ t s 'violatJ:s the t l \ t u ~ . @d is s q . Q j ~ 'ta;l'l o n ~ ~ e l l ! ' ~ ! ! t l . ~ e n c e l (2) aperson wJl:o demws thebrldt: and groom''il oar dmmll !I w . e d i : . ! i l i g , ~ l l ) : o ' I J y i s r ; u ~ J ~ f l t t o ~ a t SllfictlO"rrs, Otherei!runples of innocem conduc.t" !hat wop}(! s J , J , l , l j ~ t ~ p e t ~ o n tl.l ctlfu:mal n ~ n a h i ~ 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}.

7


26/32

T h ~ J l l l n o i ~ Vehicle Code pr(}Yisiqus \ l i t l l f & qe,ttaitl, individl!llls to ket\p recotds l a ~ felpny) a,re unconstitutional because they potentially }ilumsb nwocent ~ ; o n q ~ J c t inwol I ! Sfor wfach tbe ! M ~ e Wllli e ~ ~ ~ ~ te, tti:I#Iking in stolen vehicl!ls ot ]!lifts. A'i:lindi'lilduatwho k n a ~ y f ~ l . S l o ~ I X ~ t1ul !Wlt>r f g ~ i 1 J S l ~ vebicle.coufd be nvicled9f (alli,Jre tp lcti!lp records, even 1fthatlatlm'e ' \ ' ~ .caused l>M I U ~ ~ J j t y , , f a ~ t ~ i l l " clli.sls ar

Steparin(e)P . e ~ p t e 11, C w . p . e f l t ~ l ' . Gt(r!'b,ttlqf, A f i i ~ l l ! \ s ' - , ~ l f l 9 ( C ! ! n & O i f d a t e d } ~ l l 1 l i . d : U Q ~ ; .

8'88 N1.E.2d lOS; 2008 Ut ~ l ~ > ~ : 1 4 ; 3 ~ 1 1 llt J:leq,, . ~ ~ ~ ( ~ O Q ~ ) $


27/32

o f f i ~ t : t s has no criminal purpost}," PeQple v. Carpenter, '3.68 UL App.M 288 S56 N.E.4d551, 303 m. Dec. 746 (4006)

s c e n a r l ~ CftPedjile v. /!{il(/rigal, 241 Il1.2d 463; !M& N,B_.2d 5 9 1 ~ Mtl nt. Lelt>i$.454:; ~ ~ ( ! ) UL

I ) t ~ o . 31! {ZOll)S ~ J b p ~ : g r a p b (11}(7) oft!). I ~ p t i ~ ' f h e i : l S ~ ~ t e doe$ nut tequite ctin11naHntent,

ciib:itnal k n o w , l e d ~ e , Qf -11; 9):limlnal p ~ $ 1 ! 1 w . t d ~ t9 ~ u } ) j ~ .. P ~ ! ? ~ t& it ( ~ I o n ) 'oonViction and punislunlmt.

' " l ' ' l e p ~ ~ b ' ! e m with stion t'6!{f) 15 ~ ) {''!)! tbep; f t h ~ t i , t ! I t ~a eul- -- hie _ ......... me - t i l i . l ~ - n - ! t i ( W : t ~ : t t : . t m l i i ~ : , " ' , . . . , --lle_, Pit. mwUKW , , . . . , ~ .' ~ __ }iJ !{ , . , _ ! ) f . . . , . . , ~ " ~ " ! . !tlira pel1J!\'Ill t ~ : l : l , ~ J l , V ; I . t ~ > ! t ~ l m ~ , B ' ~ l l S U h e Statl.itep o t e n ' t l l i l l l y : p u u t d i ! t ! S ' - ' i ' l i & f g u . f t l ~ t w:!l.Q,Y!it f w ! j ) U y l ! m ~ e f t tcl>rui. '"t " ' t_ r_ ~ t e _ .i:tlil". sta_ ute4s_ ,_.,._.......s _w_e.4!_ t i : t _ - _ - . ' ~ - "e;:.rw_:t. ,'\!?. Jlo . . ' - ' - ' ~ ' ...., ___ . '-"'""'1


28/32

(a) who falls Within t h ~ . reach of the law or (b) what conduct is prohibited. /.l$o, if acri!llinal staMe i n t t u d ~ s into beJwvior (ccmduct) t h ~ t ls illllocent it rp.ay b\:. render,invalid due to. its v e r b r ~ a t h ,-- . . ,, , - - .

(a}. apersonflomnnts eavt!sdropping whenbe: (:}); l m o w ~ ~ l y imt;!Jntiiitf!i.o:tiqll}! $ ~ ~ ( : \ ! : V I l ~ ! i f i l p p m g : M v i ~ t b . e p ~ o s eqfhllllritrs l r w < ~ e ' l ~ ~ .all !ilfl!lir p!U(to . f ~ y ~ v ~ J # l h ~ , .W1),\WS ~ ! d p , ~ ~ , s ~

( A ~ w i t l l the eollSlmt;oli'iUt ofJhe,pal'ti!:!st o : s u l i . ~ . n . v ~ i : l f t ! t J $ , ,

' E a v ~ m d t q y ~ otaPf)ficc,Qjlfj'Cc!lf's ~ ' r . ! l m v ~ t { l ! \ t i o o ' ! ' , J l , i ! ! C l i ~ S $ l ' f i : ! l @ n r i l t t l ' b . ~ ~ P IasenwnceofptoblltiO'nupto:fffieeu . e a t ~ i n . t M l \ ) e l l f t e n - ~

\ : V ' l 1 i ! ~ tQP e ! W e ~ ~ ~ P ~ ~ m i l @ se,ts :fotth: two r e q t i i t e m ~ n t l l e o t t ! l . e m i f i ~ thte a!ltslif be P ~ r l l e . l l ; t < ~ ~ l ' f l t f u l g p ; he ! l c l 4 7 t ~ w i n g l , Y .d i r t t l l f l / i t ! ~ in' ~ < i - g :thl.l p ~ y ~ ~

~ W t s ~ ! l J .mt tM teffiqtl'!illg ~ ! ! V i e . !!!1d ~ ' Q t a ~ ~ t h t l c J m t ~ a t : i o n . ( ' U n ~ o q t J oth!.l other P!U:W)> th\'1' ~ ~ v e s < ' b - o p p i n ~ .. t f.l9!lS nl.lt. set l : ! U ~ ; l ! l i , Y evil ill;J.t!lt ( m ~ x ~ } that

m u s t a c o t i 1 J : ) l l i i l l ~ tbe: acts (actus reus), In Ct11pentu, supra. The Hidden Compit.tth'rents Law prel:iil:>ited .a petsen itiill

o W l l i n ~ or opetating a !)'loter v ~ ~ : l ~ tl!lit P.


29/32

",

Irt the EaWsdtOppill;g Statute, statufe clearlysets forth .the prol:tibited physihlacts. The falllt of the statute. is that it d

The fi1intm EavesdtOPJ)ing $ t a t u t ~ t . p o t ~ m t i a l l y p ~ $ l l e s , !IS. a e ~ p y a Wl.de a yof wholly int\oent conduct. For ex-im!ple, a juror llSfug an .audio. rerr to r!lcPrddiiectlons to the cotuJllouse fot juw dUtY given by a palice office would be Jn viPlllti


30/32

Whetefore, the court g t ' a r i t ~ IltQ'titin to dismiss f i n d i n ~ that the llli,ripisBavesPJ;opping Statute lacks .a culpable mental s t a ~ e li+\4 $ U b j ~ t $ wholly inno.centconduct to prosecution. Unll.edllinois Supreme CQurt.lWle lB. the. ()o\Ut tm4s the I { l i n o i ~

E a v e ~ - o p p . f f i g S t ~ ~ t u t e . IS. ~ C l ) J ; l $ t i t u , t i g 1 1 # \ oil Jts faee and as: applied to c , i c , ~ 1 1 d M t .!lll thestatute is vlohltive


31/32

III

I

r;: ~ ;1_'.,STATE OF ILLINOIS ) AUG 0 1 2012) ssCOUNTY OF COOK ) 0 8 ~ ~ T ~ X c ~ ~ ~ k ~ .

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT.OF COOK COUNTYCOUNTY DEPARTMENT-CRIMINAL DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOISPlaintiff-Appellant,vs.

ANNABEL MELONGO,Defendant-Appellee.

))))))))

Case No. IOCR-8092

HonorableSteven J. Goebel,Trial Judge

NOTICE OF APPEALAn appeal is taken from the order or judgment described below:

1. Court to which appeal is taken: Supreme Court of Illinois2. Name ofAppellee's Attorney and address to which notices shall be sent:

3.

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

IfAppellee is indigent and has no attorney; does he want oneappointed?____Name and address ofAppellant's attorney on appeal:Name: Cook County State's AttorneyAddress: 309 Richard J. DaleyCenter

Chicago, Illinois 60602Phone: 312-603-5496

4. Date of Judgment ofOrder: July 26, 2012 -J5. Appeal is taken from: Trial court's ruling that the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute, 720

ILCS 5/14, is unconstitutional.

Notice filed date: 5 ~ -I 2..._Appeal check date: 0 -22H 2. ~ uOBERTPODLASEKAssistant State' s Attorney

CU0245


32/32

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that this brief conforms to the requirements ofRules 341 (a) and (b). Thelength 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, thecertificate of service, and those matters to be appended to the brief under Rule 342(a), is26 pages.

By: ~ C ~ / " - _ =========---.ALAN J. SPELLBERG,Assistant State's Attorney

Cook County Plaintiff-Appellant Appendix

Documents

Transcript of Cook County Plaintiff-Appellant Appendix