ILCS » Chapter 720 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

720 ILCS 5/14-5 (2026)

Evidence inadmissible

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(720 ILCS 5/14-5) (from Ch. 38, par. 14-5)
    Sec. 14-5. Evidence inadmissible. Any evidence obtained in violation of this Article is not admissible in any civil or criminal trial, or any administrative or legislative inquiry or proceeding, nor in any grand jury proceedings; provided, however, that so much of the contents of an alleged unlawfully intercepted, overheard or recorded conversation as is clearly relevant, as determined as a matter of law by the court in chambers, to the proof of such allegation may be admitted into evidence in any criminal trial or grand jury proceeding brought against any person charged with violating any provision of this Article. Nothing in this Section bars admission of evidence if all parties to the private conversation or private electronic communication consent to admission of the evidence.
(Source: P.A. 98-1142, eff. 12-30-14.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: Blount v. Stroud, 915 N.E.2d 925 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Blount v. Stroud, 915 N.E.2d 925 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 2× “720 ILCS 5/14-5 (West 2000). However, contrary to defendants' assertions, Blount never introduced or sought to introduce the surreptitiously recorded conversations into evidence.”
People v. Davis, 2020 IL App (3d) 190272 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). · cites it 2× “Specifically, the State contends that neither the video nor the CI’s personal knowledge derived from the illegal audio recording.”
People v. Rodriguez, 730 N.E.2d 1188 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “" 720 ILCS 5/14-5 (West 1998). Our role in construing a statute is to give effect to the legislature's intent as determined in light of the objective the statute sought to achieve and the evils it desired to remedy.”
People v. Graves, 2012 IL App (4th) 110536 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “720 ILCS 5/14-5 (West 2008). ¶ 52 Here, videotaped evidence of defendant’s traffic stop included audio and video recordings of defendant while driving immediately prior to being stopped, immediately after he was stopped and performing various field sobriety tests, and…”
People v. Davis, 2021 IL 126435 (Ill. 2021). “) 720 ILCS 5/14-5 (West 2018). “This Article” is article 14 of the Code, the eavesdropping statute.”
People v. Armbrust, 2011 IL App (2d) 100955 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “720 ILCS 5/14-5 (West 2008). ¶7 Based on existing case law, we conclude that the use of the speakerphone feature on a cell phone does not transform the cell phone into an eavesdropping device under the statute.”
People v. Harris, 2020 IL App (3d) 190504 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). · cites it 2× “” 720 ILCS 5/14-5 (West 2018). The State sought to introduce evidence that was obtained in violation of section 14-3(q) of the Code.”
People v. Harris, 2020 IL App (3d) 190504 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). · cites it 2× “” 720 ILCS 5/14-5 (West 2018). The State sought to introduce evidence that was obtained in violation of section 14-3(q) of the Code.”
People v. Gariano, 852 N.E.2d 344 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “720 ILCS 5/14-5 (West 2000). I would also suppress Gariano's statement.”
People v. Brock, 2012 IL App (4th) 100945 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “720 ILCS 5/14-5 (West 2008); see also 725 ILCS 5/108A-9(a)(1), 108B-12(c)(1) (West 2008).”
People v. Graves, 965 N.E.2d 546 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “720 ILCS 5/14-5 (West 2008). ¶ 52 Here, videotaped evidence of defendant's traffic stop included audio and video recordings of defendant while driving immediately prior to being stopped, immediately after he was stopped and performing various field sobriety tests, and…”
People v. Davis, 2020 IL App (3d) 190272 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). · cites it 2× “Specifically, the State contends that neither the video nor the CI’s personal knowledge derived from the illegal audio recording. Consequently, the State contends that this evidence is not barred at trial.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.