Sec. 108B-5. Requirements for order of interception.

359 words·~2 min read·/il/chapter-725/act-5/108b-5

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

(a)Upon consideration of an application, the chief judge may enter an ex parte order, as requested or as modified, authorizing the interception of a private communication, if the chief judge determines on the basis of the application submitted by the applicant, that:

(1)There is probable cause for belief that

(A)the person whose private communication

is to be intercepted is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense enumerated in Section 108B-3, or

(B)the facilities from which, or the place where, the private communication is to be intercepted, is, has been, or is about to be used in connection with the commission of the offense, or is leased to, listed in the name of, or commonly used by, the person; and

(2)There is probable cause for belief that a particular private communication

concerning such offense may be obtained through the interception; and

(3)Normal investigative procedures with respect to the offense have been tried and have

failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or too dangerous to employ; and

(4)The electronic criminal surveillance officers to be authorized to supervise the

interception of the private communication have been certified by the Illinois State Police.

(b)In the case of an application, other than for an extension, for an order to intercept a communication of a person or on a wire communication facility that was the subject of a previous order authorizing interception, the application shall be based upon new evidence or information different from and in addition to the evidence or information offered to support the prior order, regardless of whether the evidence was derived from prior interceptions or from other sources.

(c)The chief judge may authorize interception of a private communication anywhere in the judicial circuit. If the court authorizes the use of an eavesdropping device with respect to a vehicle, watercraft, or aircraft that is within the judicial circuit at the time the order is issued, the order may provide that the interception may continue anywhere within the State if the vehicle, watercraft, or aircraft leaves the judicial circuit.