ILCS » Chapter 725 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

725 ILCS 5/108B-3 (2026)

Authorization for the interception of private communication

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(725 ILCS 5/108B-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 108B-3)
    Sec. 108B-3. Authorization for the interception of private communication.
    (a) The State's Attorney, or a person designated in writing or by law to act for him and to perform his duties during his absence or disability, may authorize, in writing, an ex parte application to the chief judge of a court of competent jurisdiction for an order authorizing the interception of a private communication when no party has consented to the interception and (i) the interception may provide evidence of, or may assist in the apprehension of a person who has committed, is committing or is about to commit, a violation of Section 8-1(b) (solicitation of murder), 8-1.2 (solicitation of murder for hire), 9-1 (first degree murder), 10-9 (involuntary servitude, involuntary sexual servitude of a minor, or trafficking in persons), paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (a) of Section 11-14.4 (promoting commercial sexual exploitation of a child), subdivision (a)(2)(A) or (a)(2)(B) of Section 11-14.3 (promoting prostitution), 11-15.1 (soliciting for a sexually exploited child), 11-16 (pandering), 11-17.1 (keeping a place of commercial sexual exploitation of a child), 11-18.1 (patronizing a sexually exploited child), 11-19.1 (juvenile pimping and aggravated juvenile pimping), or 29B-1 (money laundering) of the Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012, Section 401, 401.1 (controlled substance trafficking), 405, 405.1 (criminal drug conspiracy) or 407 of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act or any Section of the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act, a violation of Section 24-2.1, 24-2.2, 24-3, 24-3.1, 24-3.3, 24-3.4, 24-4, or 24-5 or subsection 24-1(a)(4), 24-1(a)(6), 24-1(a)(7), 24-1(a)(9), 24-1(a)(10), or 24-1(c) of the Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012 or conspiracy to commit money laundering or conspiracy to commit first degree murder; (ii) in response to a clear and present danger of imminent death or great bodily harm to persons resulting from: (1) a kidnapping or the holding of a hostage by force or the threat of the imminent use of force; or (2) the occupation by force or the threat of the imminent use of force of any premises, place, vehicle, vessel or aircraft; (iii) to aid an investigation or prosecution of a civil action brought under the Illinois Streetgang Terrorism Omnibus Prevention Act when there is probable cause to believe the interception of the private communication will provide evidence that a streetgang is committing, has committed, or will commit a second or subsequent gang-related offense or that the interception of the private communication will aid in the collection of a judgment entered under that Act; or (iv) upon information and belief that a streetgang has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a felony.
    (b) 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, may authorize, in writing, an ex parte application to the chief judge of a circuit court for an order authorizing the interception of a private communication when no party has consented to the interception and the interception may provide evidence of, or may assist in the apprehension of a person who has committed, is committing or is about to commit, a violation of an offense under Article 29D of the Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012.
    (b-1) Subsection (b) is inoperative on and after January 1, 2005.
    (b-2) No conversations recorded or monitored pursuant to subsection (b) shall be made inadmissible in a court of law by virtue of subsection (b-1).
    (c) As used in this Section, "streetgang" and "gang-related" have the meanings ascribed to them in Section 10 of the Illinois Streetgang Terrorism Omnibus Prevention Act.
(Source: P.A. 103-1071, eff. 7-1-25.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2002–2024 · leading case: People v. Allard, 2018 IL App (2d) 160927 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Allard, 2018 IL App (2d) 160927 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 2× “See 725 ILCS 5/108B-3 (West 2014) (authorized applicant must be "designated in writing or by law to act for the State's Attorney and to perform his duties during his absence or disability").”
People v. Allard, 2018 IL App (2d) 160927 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 2× “) 725 ILCS 5/108B-3(b) (West 2014). ¶ 11 B.”
People v. Spears, 2024 IL App (1st) 181491 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). “725 ILCS 5/108B-3(a) (West 2012). As in Allard, the ESO applications in the present case did not mention anything about the state’s attorney delegating authority.”
People v. Farris, 2021 IL App (2d) 190960-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). · cites it 3× “See 725 ILCS 5/108B-3 (West 2014). The order at issue in this case was sought and authorized pursuant to article 108A of the Code, which governs authorization for the use of an eavesdropping device where one party has consented to such monitoring.”
People v. Edwards (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 2× “Pen-Register and Eavesdropping Orders Constitutionality of the Nonconsensual Electronic Surveillance Orders Defendants contend that the three electronic surveillance orders entered pursuant to section 108B-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/108B-3 (West…”
— 725 ILCS 5/108B-3(a) — 2 cases
People v. Spears, 2024 IL App (1st) 181491 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). “725 ILCS 5/108B-3(a) (West 2012). As in Allard, the ESO applications in the present case did not mention anything about the state’s attorney delegating authority.”
People v. Farris, 2021 IL App (2d) 190960-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “See 725 ILCS 5/108B-3 (West 2014). The order at issue in this case was sought and authorized pursuant to article 108A of the Code, which governs authorization for the use of an eavesdropping device where one party has consented to such monitoring.”
— 725 ILCS 5/108B-3(b) — 2 cases
People v. Allard, 2018 IL App (2d) 160927 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “) 725 ILCS 5/108B-3(b) (West 2014). ¶ 11 B.”
People v. Allard, 2018 IL App (2d) 160927 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “See 725 ILCS 5/108B-3 (West 2014) (authorized applicant must be "designated in writing or by law to act for the State's Attorney and to perform his duties during his absence or disability").”
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.