People v. Armbrust
956 N.E.2d 580
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Armbrust charged with harassment by telephone for threatening his estranged wife.
- Motion in limine sought to exclude content of the phone call as obtained in violation of eavesdropping statute.
- Trial court held that speakerphone made the cell phone into an eavesdropping device and granted exclusion.
- State filed a timely certificate of impairment and appealed the ruling.
- Appellate Court reviews de novo because issue is one of law (not fact).
- Court concludes speakerphone on a cell phone does not transform it into an eavesdropping device under the statute; reverses and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is speakerphone an eavesdropping device under 720 ILCS 5/14-2? | Armbrust asserts speakerphone changes device to eavesdropper. | Armbrust contends speakerphone alters function, making it eavesdropping. | Speakerphone is not an eavesdropping device. |
| Does consent or burden affect admissibility under eavesdropping statute? | State notes consent issue for exclusion. | Defendant contends exclusion should apply regardless of consent. | Consent issue not reached; exclusion rejected because speakerphone not an eavesdropping device. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gervasi, 89 Ill.2d 522 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1982) (phone not eavesdropping device unless altered)
- People v. Shinkle, 128 Ill.2d 480 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1989) (extension listening does not transform phone into eavesdropping device)
- People v. Gaines, 88 Ill.2d 342 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1981) (unmodified phone not eavesdropping device when extension listened to)
- People v. Bennett, 120 Ill.App.3d 144 (Illinois Appellate Court, 1983) (switchboard not eavesdropping device)
- People v. Petrus, 98 Ill.App.3d 514 (Illinois Appellate Court, 1981) (receiver held so both could hear not eavesdropping device)
- People v. Perez, 92 Ill.App.2d 366 (Illinois Appellate Court, 1969) (apparatus added to allow others to hear constituted eavesdropping device)
- State v. Christensen, 153 Wash.2d 186 (Washington Supreme Court, 2004) (distinguished on statutory basis; focused on design to transmit vs hear)
- People v. Larsen, 323 Ill.App.3d 1022 (Illinois Appellate Court, 2001) (de novo review when purely legal question)