Illinois Compiled Statutes
725 ILCS 5/108A-5 (2026)
Orders Authorizing Use of an Eavesdropping Device
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(725 ILCS 5/108A-5)
(from Ch. 38, par. 108A-5)
Sec. 108A-5.
Orders Authorizing Use of an Eavesdropping Device.
(a) Each order authorizing or approving the use of an
eavesdropping device shall specify:
(1) the identity of the person who has consented to | the use of the device to monitor any of his conversations and a requirement that any conversation overheard or received must include this person; |
(2) the identity of the other person or persons, if | known, who will participate in the conversation; |
(3) the period of time in which the use of the device | is authorized, including a statement as to whether or not the use shall automatically terminate when the described conversations have been first obtained. |
(b) No order entered under this section may authorize
or approve the use of any eavesdropping device for any period longer than
30 days. An
initial or a subsequent extension, in no case for more than
30 days each, of an order may be granted but only upon
application made in accordance with Section 108A-3 and where
the court makes the findings required in Section 108A-4.
(Source: P.A. 92-413, eff. 8-17-01.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2017–2026 · leading case: People v. Brindley, 2017 IL App (5th) 160189 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017).
People v. Brindley, 2017 IL App (5th) 160189 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “725 ILCS 5/108A-1 (West 2012) (“any felony under Illinois law”); 725 ILCS 5/108A-5(b) (West 2012) (“No order entered under this section may authorize or approve the use of any eavesdropping device for any period longer than 30 days.”
People v. DeWitt, 2025 IL App (4th) 250187-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2025). “The court found the order requirement (725 ILCS 5/108A-5 (West 2024)) was violated because Judge Church signed the petition rather than issuing a separate written order, but this error did not warrant suppression because the violation was not deliberate and did not provide the…”
People v. Schlight, 2026 IL App (2d) 250155-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2026). “stated in her CAC interview that no sexual penetration had occurred; and that the overhear order was erroneously granted for 33 days, in violation of 725 ILCS 5/108A-5(3)(b) (West 2020), which only permits judicial authorization for 30 days at a time.”
— 725 ILCS 5/108A-5(3)(b) — 1 case
People v. Schlight, 2026 IL App (2d) 250155-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2026). “stated in her CAC interview that no sexual penetration had occurred; and that the overhear order was erroneously granted for 33 days, in violation of 725 ILCS 5/108A-5(3)(b) (West 2020), which only permits judicial authorization for 30 days at a time.”
— 725 ILCS 5/108A-5(b) — 1 case
People v. Brindley, 2017 IL App (5th) 160189 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “725 ILCS 5/108A-1 (West 2012) (“any felony under Illinois law”); 725 ILCS 5/108A-5(b) (West 2012) (“No order entered under this section may authorize or approve the use of any eavesdropping device for any period longer than 30 days.”
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.
|