People v. Melongo, 2014 IL 114852

Defendant Annabel Melongo was charged with eavesdropping and related use/divulgence offenses arising from recording conversations with a court reporter and posting them online.
The charged statute, 720 ILCS 5/14-2, includes recording (a)(1) and publication/divulgence (a)(3) provisions.
Melongo secretly recorded three conversations with a court reporter and posted transcripts online.
Melongo claimed an exception under 14-3(i) allowed recording because another party potentially committed a crime; the State disputed applicability.
The circuit court ruled the statute facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional as applied; trial ended in mistrial; issue then reviewed by Illinois Supreme Court.
Court affirmed circuit court’s rulings, holding both recording and publishing provisions unconstitutional on First Amendment and overbreadth grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is 14-2(a)(1) unconstitutional under the First Amendment?	Melongo contends overbreadth and vagueness render (a)(1) unconstitutional.	Melongo argues statute burdens substantial speech rights and chill protected expression.	Unconstitutional on its face; burdens substantially more speech than necessary.
Is 14-2(a)(1) unconstitutional as applied to Melongo?	Melongo asserts the conduct falls within First Amendment protections as applied.	State argues no applicable exemptions since parties were not all consenting.	Unconstitutional as applied; recording not protected by the statute’s current framework.
Is 14-2(a)(3) unconstitutional as written?	Publishing provision criminalizes disclosure regardless of consent, overbroad.	State defends by tying disclosure to prior illegality and jury instructions.	Unconstitutional and overbroad, particularly when recording is unconstitutional.
Are Bartnicki v. Vopper and related doctrines controlling?	Melongo relies on Bartnicki to prevent naked prohibitions on disclosure.	State attempts to distinguish based on how illegality of obtaining is treated.	Publishing provision struck in light of Bartnicki; disclosure ban barred where recording is unconstitutional.

Alvarez v. American Civ. Liberties Union of Illinois, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012) (first amendment analysis guiding approach to overbreadth and vagueness)
Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (U.S. 2001) (naked prohibition against disclosures invalid if information public interest and illegally obtained)
Clark, People v., 2014 IL 115776 (Ill. 2014) (guiding authority on recording provision under First Amendment)
Ceja v. People, 204 Ill. 2d 332 (Ill. 2003) (implied consent under eavesdropping statute by surrounding circumstances)
United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2010) (overbreadth concerns when evaluating statute scope)
People v. Madrigal, 241 Ill. 2d 463 (Ill. 2011) (statutory presumptions and constitutional review standards)