People v. Armbrust
2011 IL App (2d) 100955
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Defendant Armbrust charged with harassment by telephone for threatening estranged wife.
- Defendant moved in limine to exclude content of the call on eavesdropping grounds.
- Wife placed the call on speakerphone so a friend could hear, allegedly converting the device to an eavesdropping device.
- Trial court held the speakerphone made the cell phone an eavesdropping device and excluded the content.
- State appealed challenging the legal characterization of speakerphone under the eavesdropping statute.
- Court reverses and remands, concluding speakerphone does not transform a cell phone into an eavesdropping device.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether speakerphone makes a cell phone an eavesdropping device | State argues yes under statute | Armbrust argues no, device not transformed | Speakerphone not an eavesdropping device |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gervasi, 89 Ill.2d 522 (Ill. 1982) (phone not eavesdropping device unless altered to transmit)
- People v. Shinkle, 128 Ill.2d 480 (Ill. 1989) (extension listening does not transform phone)
- People v. Gaines, 88 Ill.2d 342 (Ill. 1981) (eavesdropping statute not aimed at non-altered phones)
- People v. Bennett, 120 Ill. App.3d 144 (Ill. App. 1983) (switchboard not eavesdropping device)
- People v. Petrus, 98 Ill. App.3d 514 (Ill. App. 1981) (receiver held so both could hear did not alter device)
- State v. Christensen, 102 P.3d 789 (Wash. 2004) (distinguished; speakerphone amplifies, not transmits)