JurisdictionIllinoisTopicRIGHTS AND REMEDIES
Ch. 725CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 725 ILCS 5/Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963.
Art.Title II - Apprehension And Investigation
This text of Illinois § 108B-7.5 (Applicability) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
(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 intercep
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
(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.