(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.
lawyer at desk

Ask a legal question, get an answer ASAP!
Click here to chat with a lawyer about your rights.

Terms Used In Illinois Compiled Statutes 725 ILCS 5/108B-7.5

  • Probable cause: A reasonable ground for belief that the offender violated a specific law.
  • State: when applied to different parts of the United States, may be construed to include the District of Columbia and the several territories, and the words "United States" may be construed to include the said district and territories. See Illinois Compiled Statutes 5 ILCS 70/1.14
  Previous section
Next section  
 Article 108B Contents