Docket No . 104386.



### IN THE SUPRE ME COURT OF THE STAT E OF ILLIN OIS

THE PE OP LE O F TH E S TAT E OF I L LIN OI S, Appe llee, v.

RA ND ALL CO LE MA

N, A pp el l an t.
Opinion filed February 7, 2008.

JUSTICE FITZGERAL

D deliv ered the judgm

ent of the cour t , wit h op inion. Chi ef Jus t ice T homas and J ust ices Fr eeman, Kilbr i de, G ar man, Karmeier , a nd Bu rk e co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion.

OPINI ON

Defend ant Randal

l C olem an was a

rrested du ring a joint federal /stat e na rc o t ics inve st iga t io n. He wa s c ha r ge d in t he cir cu it
cour t o f Du Pa ge Co unt y wit h t wo co unt s o f unla wfu l de liver y of a contro ll ed subs t ance , c onvi cted , and sentenced to 22 years’ i m pri son men t. His co nvic t io ns a nd se nt en ce we r e a ffir med o n app ea l. No. 2–05–

0482 ( unp ubl i shed order

und er Suprem

e Court Ru

l e 23). The cen tral i ss ue i n th i s c as e is w

h eth er th e tr i al cou rt s h ou ld have suppressed

au dio re co rd ings o f co nver sat ions bet wee n t he de fendant and th e S tate ’s co nfident ial inf or mant, which we re aut hor ized by federal law, but violated t he Ill in ois proscription against
ea ve sd r o pp ing

. Fo rt he r ea so ns t ha t fo llo w, we affir m.-2- BACK GROUND In la te 2001, t he f

ederal Bureau of A

lc ohol, Tobacc o, Fi r ea rms and Exp l osi

ve s (A TF), the A ddi son pol i ce depa rtm en t, th e W he aton police department, and the Du P age Coun t y sheriff’s o ffi ce be gan a mult iple jurisd ictio n nar co t ics invest igat ion. Dur ing t his invest igat ion, t he de f en da n t wa s a rre ste d a n d i n di cte d on two co unts of unl awful del i very of a c on trol l ed su b sta n ce . C oun

t I all eged that on August 7, 2003, t he de fendant deliv

ered mo r e t ha n 1 5, bu t les s t ha n 1 00 , gr ams of co ca ine , in vio lat io n o f se ct io n 4 01 ( a) ( 2) ( A) o f t he I llino is Contro ll ed Su bs tance s Act (720 I LCS 570/401( a)(2) (A) (West 2000) ). Co unt II alleged t hat on Au gus t 4, 200 3, t he de fendant deliv ered mo r e t ha n o ne , bu t les s t ha n 1 5, gr ams o f co ca ine , in vi ol ati on o f se ct io n 40 1( c) (2 ) o f that ac t (720 ILCS 570/401(c)(2) (We st 2000 )). The de f en da nt p l eade d n

ot gui l ty an d f i l ed a m oti on to s upp ress au dio recordings of

conversations between h im self an d t he Stat e’s confi dentia l in formant, Eugene Sanders. The mot ion allege d t hat t he recordings were o b tai

n ed i n v i ol ati on of th e e av es dropp i n g s tatu te (720 ILCS 5/14–1 et seq . (We st 2000 )), a nd s hould b e suppressed under sec ti on108A–9 of the C ode of Crim in al Procedure o f 1963 ( 725 ILCS 5/108A–9 (West 2000)). T he def endan t acknowledged tha

t under fed er al la w t he r ec o r din gs we r e o bt ain ed law fully

. He als o acknowl edged

that under Illi

nois case l aw recordings

ma de durin g a joint f ederal /s tate i n v esti gat ion a

re admi ssi ble regardles s of wh

ether they co mply wi th the eav esd roppi ng s tatute, unl ess

there is evi dence of coll usi on between f

ederal and state agen

ts to avo id t he requirem en ts of that statut e. The def endan t contended that such col l us i on exi stedbecause

state agents had obtain

ed au thor iza ti on f rom a sta te c our t i n Ju l y an d A ug us t 20 03 wi

th re spe ct t o a different informant in

this in vestigation. The trial

courtdenied the defendant ’s
moti on. At trial , Detective Dan

Raysby of the Du Page C oun ty sheriff ’s off ic e n arcoti

cs un i t testi f i ed th e i n v esti ga ti on th at l ed to t he de fendant began i n 20 01 aroun

d the “ope n a i r drug m arket” at the B radf

ord Courtapartments i

n Addis on, Ill

in ois, and e ven tuall y targeted mi

dl evel dr ug d ealer s in ot her municipalities. In Ju ly 2003 , R aysby and ATF A gent Tom Murphy

me t with San

ders, a deal er and a

f rien d of another i n f orm an t us ed i n th i s i n v esti ga ti on , a n d S an dersag re ed to-3- pa rti ci pa te in a con troll ed pur ch as e of na rcoti csf rom his sup plier, t he de f en da n t. Mu rph y obta i ne d a uthori za ti on f or Sanders

to wear a
re co rd ingde vic e. Whe n R ay sb y wa s a sked

on c ros s- exam

i na ti on whether he sometim

es chose t he federal

process because

it was “ easier to obtain the

overhear,” he di

sagreed: “I wouldn’ t do it b eca

use i t’s e asi er. It ’s because

of what our intent ions were as in

chargi ng. So [if] this was goi

ng to be a Sta te ca se th at I kn ow th e f ederal gov er n men t w ou ld no t be in terested in per iod , t hen I wo uldn’t even bo t he r wit h t he wh o le federal process. Be ca us e a s mu ch as it m i gh t be asyou characterized, easier to get a federal wire, it’s a pa in. And I’d
muc h ass ume [ sic ] come i

n f ront o f a s

tate judge. Now, wi th what I understood was tha t if you’re goi n g to chargeso meo ne fe de r ally, you be l i ev e y ou’re going to charge
so meone federal

ly , you need to go t hrough the U.S

. Attorne y ’sOf f i ce a nd th at’swhat was

done .” Raysby testifi ed that on Augus t 4, 200 3, he met Sa nd er s a t his apa rt ment in

Gle n El l y n, Il l i noi s. San ders sp okewi th th e def en da nt on t he tel ep h on e th re e t imes; Raysby rec or ded t hese co nver sat ions. At 4:15 p.m., Ray

sby searched Sa nd er s, eq uip pe d h im

wit h a r eco rd ing devi ce, and gave hi

m $200 to p urchase drugs fr om th e def en da n t. Fr om a fen ce nearb y, Ray sby wat ched a s a woma

n dr ove a sport uti l i ty vehi cle i nto the a partm en t bui l di ng’ s pa rki ng l ot, where San ders
was wait ing. T he defend ant exi ted the vehi

cl e and wal

ked to an all

ey behind t he building wit h Sand er s. T he defen dant soon returned t o his
ve hic le and l

eft the pa rking l o t

. Sa nd er s t he n g av e R ays by a p las t ic bag con tai ni ng one -quarte

r of an oun ceof cr ack co caine. Sand er s no longe rhad t he money t hat Raysby gave him. Raysby t est ifi ed t hat he maintained sur veillance t hro ugho ut t his ent ire t ra nsac t ion. Raysby f urthe r testi f i ed th at on A

ugust 7, 2003, he agai

n m et San ders at his apartment. Sanders s

poke with the def

en da nt on t he t elepho ne four tim

es; Ra ys by recorded these conversations. At 3:30 p.m ., Raysby

searched Sand er s, e quip ped him with a r eco rd ingdevi ce, and gave hi

m $600 to purc

ha se d rugsf rom th e def endan t. Sand ers wait ed in t he alley next t o t he ap ar t ment building, a nd t he de fendant
soon dr ove into t he pa rk ing lot . R aysby wat ched , a ndvi deotaped, as t he defend ant dr ove into t he pa rki n g l ot, e x i ted h i s v eh i cl e, wal ke d to t he alle y w here Sande

rs was wai

ting, an d han ded hi m a plastic b ag.-4- The de fen da nt left t he pa rkin g lo t

. Sa nd er s t he n g av e R ays by a p las t ic bag contai

ni ng three-quarters of an

oun ceof crack coca

i ne . San ders
no longe r had the mo ney

that Raysb

y ga ve h im . Rays by ma in taine d survei ll ance throughout t his t ra nsac t ion, and he re called t hat Mur phy
was pr es en

t on A ug us t 4 and 7 . T he vid eo t ap e w as sh o wn t o t he jury. Ne xt, Sand er s t est ifi

ed. He s t at ed t hat he had t hre e pr ior felony convicti ons: two c onv

i cti ons f or pos se ss i on

o f a contro ll ed substance and o ne fo r p o ss es sio n o f a w ea pon by a f elo n. At t he t ime o f his t es t imo ny, he

wasserv i ng a pri son s en

tenc e. In Jul y 2003, S anders agr eed to cooperate wi

th Ra y sby and the ATF i n orde r to av oi d i nv es ti ga ti on of his own activ

ities, but he di

d not receive a ny i n du cemen

ts t o d o s o. At t hat t ime, Sa nder s had kno wn t he de fendant fo rt wo yea r s, an d h ad bo ug ht an d s o ld d rug s w it h him. Sande rs f ur th er testi f i ed th at on A ug us t 4, 20 03 , he m

et wit h Ra ys by at an apartmen

t buil din g in Gle n Elly n. Sanders m

ade t hre e t elepho ne calls t o t he de fendant , a ll of which Raysby re co rd ed. Raysby then search ed Sa nders , e quip ped him with a r eco rd ing device , a nd gave him mo ne y. S an de r s w ait ed in t he pa rkin g lot , a nd whe n t he defend ant arri

ve d, he ex changed m

oney f or crack cocai ne . San ders gave the drugs to Raysb

y. On August 7, 2003, San

ders ag ai n met wi th Ra ysb y. Sanders m

ade four teleph

one calls to the defe

nda nt , al l of whi ch Raysby re co rd ed. Raysby aga in sear ched Sand ers , eq uip pe d h im wi th a r eco rd ing device , a nd ga ve him money. H e wa ited in the par king lot, and when

the defe ndan t arrived, he exch

anged the m

oney fo rcr ac k c o ca ine

. S an de r s g av e t he dr ug s t o Ra ysb y. Clai re Don ag h ey , a f oren si c s ci en ti st f or th e Du P ag e C oun

ty sherif f ’soff i ce, testif i ed th ere w ere6. 68 gr ams of cocai ne i n the b ag obtaine d on August 4 and 19.55 grams of cocai ne i n the b ag obtain

ed on August 7. Wi ll ia m Cool ey , a W he aton pol i ceof fic er , t est ifi

ed t hat t he defend ant wa s a

rre ste d on

A ug us t 2 0, 200 3. Co oley sp ok e wit h t he defend ant in

a squad car aft er his arr est . T he defen dant surm is ed that
so meone had set hi

m up. W hen Cooley asked t he defend ant if he worked, t he d efe ndant respo nded that selli ng drugs is al

l h e knows, and all heis

good at . The def

endan t did not admi

t t hat he sold drugs to Sanders on A

ugust 4 and 7. The St at e r est ed it s ca se. The defend ant pr ese nt ed S ande rs’ “so ur ce o f inf or matio n” agr eement i

n to evi dence an d al so rested.-5- T he jury found def

endan t guil ty on both counts. The def endan t fi le d a po st t rial mot ion, ar guing that t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed in d en ying his
moti on to su ppr es s. The cou rt de ni ed the de f en da nt’ s p osttri

al moti on an d s en ten ce d th e def en da n t to 22yea

rs ’ i m pri son men t. The appe l l atecou

rt af f i rm ed , f i nd i ng “no compell i

n g r ea son to ab an don establi sh ed case l

aw that all

ows the admission of evi

dence obtaine d i n v i ol ati on of t he I lli nois e aves dr op ping statut e when it has been obtaine d, absen

t collus ion, i

n the course of a joint st at e and federal inve st iga t io nan

d i s i n c om pl i an cewi th f edera l l aw .” N o. 2–05–0482 (un

pub l i shed order

und er Suprem

e Court Rul e 23). The court no t ed t hat for mor e t han 20 years , I lli nois c ou rt s have uphe l d t he adm is si bi li ty of suc h ev ide nce, an d the le gis la

ture h as remai

ned silent on th

i s iss ue . No. 2–05–0482 (unpubl is hed order un de rSu pr eme CourtRul e 23). We al lowed th e def en da n t’s peti ti on f or l ea v e to appe al . 210 Il

l . 2d R. 3 15(a).

AN AL YSIS The ce nt r al is sue i

n th i s c as e i s w

he the r au dio rec ordi

ng s of
co nver sat ions bet wee n t he de fendant and San ders, which

com pl y wi th federal law, but violat e t he st at e ea vesd ro pping st at ut e, sho uld have been sup pr esse d. The Stat e contends that t he def endan t has f orfei ted
our review of thi s i ssue. Acc ording to the State, the de fendant’s
su ppr es si on motion argued onl

y tha t t here was col

lus ion b etween federal and s t at e au t hor ities t o c ircu mvent t he ea vesd ro pping statut e. He never made

the argumen

t t hat he m

akes be fo r e t his co ur t –n ame ly, that thi s c ourt shou

l d overtu rn appe l l atecou

rt cases holdi

ng that ele ct r o nic sur ve ill ance ev ide nce gathered pursuan

t t o federal

la w dur inga j oint f

ederal /state inv estigat ion is a dmis sible in a n I llino is t r ial. Essenti ally

, the Stat e asks us to reject the def endan t’s ap pea l simp ly beca use he neve r a ske d t he t rial co ur t t o d epa rt fro m the precedent he now chall enges. Ce r t ain ly, to preserve an

is sue f or appellate revie

w, a def endan t must both objec

t at t rial and presen

t t he sam e i ssue in a written postt rial motion

. People v. Phelps , 211 Il l . 2 d 1, 10- 11 ( 200 4) . T he defen dant did just that here. He argued bef ore and after

t rial t hat t he audi o r ecord in

gs should be suppressed. The fact that he did not ask t he tria l court to ign

ore appe l l ate court

precedent i s unsurpri si

ng: t he1 The defendantra ises no federa l constit utiona l issu e in this ca se. Indeed, t he re is n o co nsti tutio nal i ssue h

ere : “[E]av

esd rops m ade wi th o ne -part y conse ntsare no t i n v io lati on of the fo urth amen dm en t.” See People v. O’Dell , 84 Ill. A

pp. 3d 359 , 36 4 ( 198 0) ; ac co

rd People v. Woollums , 93 Ill. App. 3d 144, 149 (1981).
-6- de cis io ns o f o ur ap pe llat e c o ur t ar e b ind ing o n a ll circui t co urt s. See People v. Harr is , 1 23 I ll. 2d 1 13, 128 (1 988 ). We t ur n t o t he meri ts of the defe ndan t’s appeal . Because there are n o disputed f

acts, our reviewproceed s de novo

. People v. Pitman , 211 Ill . 2d 502, 512 (2004 ). In 1968, Congress enac

ted Ti tle III of the Om ni bu s Cri me C ontr ol and Sa fe Street s Act of 1968 (see 18 U.S.C. §2510 et seq. ( 20 00 ) ) in response to Berger v. New York , 388 U.S. 41, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1040, 87 S. Ct . 1873 (1967), and Katz v. United States , 389 U .S. 347, 1 9 L

. Ed. 2d 5 76, 88 S . C t . 5 07 ( 196 7) , w her e t he Supreme Court articulated ce r t ain fo ur t h a men dme nt pr o ble ms inhe r en t in wiretappi ng. 1 Tit le I II pr o t ec t s t he p riva cy o f o r al and wi re co mmunicatio ns an

d pr ovi de s u ni f orm con di ti ons f or th e i nte rce ption of suc h co mmunica t io ns. Se e S en at e R ep o r t o n t he Omn ibu s C r ime Con trol an d S af e S tre ets Act of 1968 (Judici ary C omm ittee), S. Rep. No. 90–10 97 (1 968), reprinted i n 1968 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2112, 2153. T his st at ut e pr ohibit s re co rd ing co nv ersa ti on s w h en n ei th er pa rty consents, bu t it pr o vid es : “ I t sha ll no t be un law ful u nd er t his chapter f or a p ers on a

cti ng un der col or of l aw to i nte rce pt a wi re, or al , o r ele ct r o nic comm

unication, where s

uch per so n is a pa rt y to t he
com m un i ca ti on or one of the pa rti esto the

com m un i ca ti on hasgiv en pri orconsent to such i

nterception.” 18 U.S .C. §25 11(2)(c ) (2000 ). T it le III, t hus, does not require f ederal ag en t s t o o bt ain a court o rder b ef orewi ri n g a con f i den ti al i n f orm an t. Congress in

tended to preempt thi s area, but specifi cally permi tt ed
co ncur re nt state regulation. See18 U.S.C. §2516(2) (2000) . That is, states ma y a dopt standards m

ore stri nge nt tha n those i n Ti tle III. See Commonw

ealth v. Vitello , 367 Mass. 224, 246, 327 N.E.2d 819, 832- 3 3 (1975). The Ill

in ois Gen eral A ssem bl y h as enac ted a rigorous
eavesd ro pping stat ute, which prohibi ts reco rding conversations unl ess all the par ties cons ent or o ne party c onsents an d prior j udic ia

l-7- au thor iza ti on i s obtai ne d. Section

14–2( a ) of

th e Cri m i na l Code of 1961 pro vides:

“A person comm

its eav esdroppin g when he: (1) K n owi n gl y an d i n ten ti o nally uses an e aves dr op ping devi ce f or th e p urp ose

of he ari ng or re cor di ng all or any part o f any con ve rs ati on or i nte rce pts , re tai ns , or transcrib es el ectronic co mm unication unless

he does so (A) wi th t he consent of al

l of the parties to such
con ve rs ati on or e l ec tr o nic co mmun ica t io n o r( B) in accordance with A

rticle 108A or Articl

e 108B of t he

‘ Code of Cri

mi nal Procedure o f 1963’ ***.” 720 I LC S 5/14– 2 (West 200 4). Ar t icle 108A concerns the j udic ia l s upervi si on of

the us e of
eave sdr op ping device s, a nd ar t icle 108 B co ncer ns el ectronic cri mi nal survei ll ance. Secti on 108A–9(a)(1) an d s ecti on 10 8B –1 2( c) (1 ) b oth provide t ha t an ag gr iev ed pe r so n ma y f i l e a m ot ion t o s upp re ss any c onv ers ati on tha t wa s rec orde d or i

nte rce pte d i n v i ol ati on of th e eave sdr op ping statut e. See 725 ILCS 5/108A–9(a)(1), 108 B–12 (c )(1) (West 2000) ; see al so 720 I LCS 5/14–5 (West 2000). Here, t he r e is
no que st ion t hat t he r ec o r din gs vio lat e t ha t st at ut e: t he de fen da nt did not co nsent , a nd t he r eco rd ing was no t au th orized by

a j udge. But there is also no q ues t ion t hat t he recordings do not vi olate fede ral l aw. In People v. Fidler, 72 Il l . Ap p. 3d 92 4 (197 9), f

ederal ag en ts recorded co nve r sa t io ns b et we en a c o nfid en t ia l info rmant and t he d ef en da n t. Arm ed wi th these convers ations, the agen ts obtained a
war ra nt to sear ch t he defen dant’s h ome f or sto le n postal m

oney ord ers, but fou nd dr ugs inste ad. The age nt s ga ve t he dr ugs t o t he Stat e, whi

ch prosecuted the def

enda nt fo r u nlaw ful p o ss es sio n o f a contro ll ed su bst anc e a nd u nlaw ful p o ss es sio n o f c annabi s. The trial
cour t suppr essed the drugs. The app ellate co ur t re ver sed , ho lding t hat t he pu rp os e o f the
ex cl usi onary ru le– “t o de t er law enfo rc ement officer s fro m violat ing t he consti tutiona l righ ts of ci tizens by rem ovi ng the i nc en ti ve f or disre gar ding such ri

ghts”–would n

ot be serv

ed by bar ring t his evi dence. Fidler , 72 I ll. App. 3d a t 926 . T he co ur t st at ed, “the
eave sdr op ping wa s c o nd uc t ed en t ir ely b y F ede ra l officers who compl ie d with the a ppli cabl e Federal statut e, an

d acte d pur suan

t to an-8- i nv es ti ga ti on of a vi olation of Federal l aw.” Fidler , 72 Ill . App. 3d at 92 6. T he fed er al a ge nt s’ ac t io ns w er e e nt ire ly lawful, a nd t he record contain ed n o ev i den ce th at th e f ederal an d s tate ag en ts c oll uded to
av o id the re qui rem en ts of th e Il lino i s ea ve sdropp i ng s tatute. Fidler , 72 Ill . App. 3d at 92 6. Ac co r din gly, co nc lud ed t he co ur t , “[ t ] he o nly
r es ult of the entry

of the suppr ess i on ord er in t his c as e is t ha t it pr event s highly pro bat iveevidenc e fro m being available t o t he fi nder of f act in a crim in al trial .” Fidler , 72 Ill . App. 3d at 926. People v. Manna , 96 Ill . App. 3d 506 (1981 ), ex t en de d t he rule in Fidler

. In Manna , fed er al age nt s re co rd ed c onve rsa t ions be t wee n a confi dentia l informant and the defe

ndan t, whil e state agents prot ected t he m. The co ur t held t hat , in t he abs ence of “a c ollusive at tem pt to evade the Ill in ois eav esdroppin g statut e,” the d e f

en da n t’s m oti on to suppress the recordings

was properly

deni ed. Manna , 96 Ill . App. 3d at 516 . Finally, in Peo

ple v

. Winche ll , 140 Ill . App. 3d 244, 246-47 (1986 ), t he ap pe llat e c o ur t he ld in a joint feder al/st at e invest igat ion, wher e state a ge nts

ha ve an ac ti ve role, a udi o rec ordi ng s a re n ot ina dmis sible wh ere there is f edera lauth ori zation f

or t he use of

an eavesdroppi

ng dev ic e. The court not ed: “The eave sdr op ping in t he inst ant cas e wa s ca rr ied o ut by b oth St at e and Federal

agents, who compl

ie d with F ederal

la w butigno re d I lli

nois d irect ives. T his fact ar gua bly sets apa rt t he pr ese nt circu msta nces fro m tho se in [ M ann a and Fidler]. Howev er , b ec au se

th e rec ord

i s dev oi d of an y col l us i on to
av o id t he I llino is requirem

ents, and n

one has been suggested,
we be lieve t ha t t he an alys is of t he co ur t in Manna and Fidler requires us t o c onc lude t hat t he t ape re co rd ingof defendant’s
con ve rs ati on wit h t he un de r co ve rag en t s w as pr o pe r ly adm itted in to evi dence.” Winchell , 140 Ill . App. 3d at 246-47. Su bseq uent Ill

in ois cas es are al

l i n accord. See People v. Burnom , 338 I ll. App. 3d 4 95, 509 (20 03) ; People v. Laliber

te , 246 Ill . App. 3d 159, 175 (19 93) ; People v. Barnes , 230 Ill . App. 3d 272, 274-75 (1992 ); People v. Hodge , 220 Ill . App. 3d 886, 889 (19 91) ; People v. Mays , 188 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 97 4, 979- 80 (19 89). The de f en da n t ar gu es th at t he se I llino is c as es we r e w r o ng ly decided. According to t he defen dant, because th e f

ederal sta tute did not explicitly pr eempt t he ea vesd ro pping statut e, the audio recordin gs here are i nadm i ssi bl e i n state courtun

l es s th ey com por t wi th sta te la w.-9- And state law, asserts the def endan t, is clear: the eaves dr op ping stat ut e’s plai

n language in

dicates t ha t un le ss there i s prior j udic ia l approval, al

l pa rties m ust agree to have thei

r conversation recorded. See 720 ILCS 5/14–2 (a) (West 200 0); se e al so People v. Bockman , 328 Ill . Ap

p. 3d 38 4, 388 ( 2002)(“B eca use Ill i noi s ci tiz en s are entitled to be saf egua rded from un

necess ary govern

me ntal s urvei ll ance and other un

reas onab l e i

ntrus i ons i

nto thei r pri vacy, the statutory
re strai n ts on eavesdroppi

ng m ust be st r ic tly const rue d”) ; People v. Nunez , 325 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 35 , 45 (20 01). The defend ant asserts that num erous cases, both fede

ral an d state, have h el d th at w h en ev er a state ch oos es to en act a wi re tap pi n g s tatu te t hat is mor e r est rict ive tha n t he fede ra l wiret app ing st at ut e, t he sta

te and its l aw enf orcemen t o ff ic ers m ust adhere t o t he m

in im um proceduralrequirem

ents of b ot h statutes. The defen dant chi efl y rel ie s upon People v. Jones , 30 Cal. A pp. 3d 852, 106 Cal. Rptr. 749 (1973 ), and State v. Williams , 94 Wash . 2 d 531, 61 7 P.2d 1012 (1980 ). In Jones , t he Ca lifo rnia appe l l ate court he ld t ha t T it le I I I did not pre em pt s tatel eg i sl

ati on on el ec troni c evi

denc e: “ Th e p urp ose

of t he fed er al la w is t wo fo ld : t o pro tect t he pri vacy of wi re and oral
commun ications; and to establish un if orm standards f

or judici al
au thor iza ti on of an inva sio n o f t ha t pr iva cy [ cit at io n]

. T he Ca lifo rnia la wrequirin

g exclusi on of eviden

ce does not confl

ict with these pr ovisio ns of

the fede ral l aw.” Jones , 30 Cal. A

pp. 3d at 855, 10 6 C al. Rptr. at 751. In Williams , t he Wash in gto n Suprem

e Court agreed t hat t he f ederal wi re tapsta tute di d n ot preem pt t he m ore r i gorous

sta te pri vacy act. Williams , 94 Wash . 2d at 539, 617 P .2d at 1017. Contra ry to th e def en da n t’s argu men t, ne i ther Jonesnor Williams creates a b ro ad rule that a joint federal/state inv estigation must
co mply wi th b oth f

edera l and state l

aw on wi retaps . Instead, Jones and Williamsstan

d f or the un rem arkabl e proposi

tion that Ti t l e III does not pree

m pt state l egi slati on on e av esd

roppi ng. Th o ugh t he recordings

here vi ola

te the e av esd

roppi ng s tatute, th ey

are not ina dmis sible pursuant to case law i nterpreting that statut e. As t he S tate correct ly notes, when a court in terpret s a statute an d th e l egi slaturedo es no t ame n d i t to supersede that judi

ci al gloss, we p r es ume that t he l

egi slature has acquiesced i n the co urt’ s unde rst anding of legi sl ative in tent. See People

v. Hairston , 46 Ill . 2d 348, 353 (1970). Here, t he Ge ner al Assembly has re mained silent-10- follow inga lin e of

ca se s s pa nn i ng ne arl y 30 y ea rs . Itsi na cti on in dic ates that these appe l l ate cou rt c as es are n ot co n tra ry to i ts i n ten t. Furth er, Jonesand Williams , unlike Fidler and it s prog en

y , do n ot discuss the purpo se o f the exclus ionar y rule. We have held t hat t he
eave sdr op ping statut e will excl ude evi dence o nly if it wa s g at he r ed in
a crim in al ma nne r. See People v. Barrow, 133 Ill . 2d 226, 257 (1989 ); People v. Gaines , 88 Ill . 2d342 , 3 64 ( 198 1) . H er e, t he au thor iza ti on to wire Sand er s wa s o bt ained p ur sua nt t o fe der al law by an ATF age nt based on San der’ s consen

t. Unde r the s uprem acy claus e (U.S. C onst.,
ar t. IV , c l. 2) , t he ea vesd ro pping st at ut e co uld no t ou t law t he activ ities of the f

ederal agents. See Unit

ed S tates v

. Hall , 543 F.2d 1229, 1232 (9t h Ci

r. 197 6). I f the prim

ary purpose of the ex

cl usi onary rule is to deter future poli ce m

is conduct (see P eop le v. Wright , 183 I ll. 2d 16 , 25 ( 19 98 ) ) , t he n it does not serve the in terests o f j ustice

to suppress el ectronic survei ll ance ev i den ce ga th ered pu rsua n t to federal la w durin g a j oint i nve stigati on. See Fidler , 72 Ill . App. 3d at 926 ; Basham v. Commonw

ealth , 675 S. W.2 d 37 6, 379 (Ky. 1 984 ) ( “if the federal wiretap con

f orm ed to th e req ui re men ts of the Federal

Wi retap Stat ute, t he evidenc e wa s no t obt ained illegally and t he ‘ex cl usi onary rule’ f or suppress i on of

evi den ce i l l egal l y obtai ne d by pol i ce of f i cers orpr o se cu t o r s by me an s c o nst it ut i ona l l y i m perm i ss i bl e i s n ot i nv olv ed”); Commonw

ealth v. Benn ett , 245 Pa. Super. 457, 462, 369 A.2d 4 9 3, 495 (1 976 ) ( “No use ful pur po se w hat so ever wo uld be
serv ed b y den y i ng th e Com monwe al th the use of th i s i nf orma tion ”). We r ea ffirm t he rule fr o m o ur ap pe llat e c o ur t t ha t ele ct r o nic survei ll ance evidenc e ga t her ed p ur sua nt to federal la w, buti n v i ol ati on of th e e aves drop

pi ng sta tute, i s n ot i na dm i ss i bl e a bs en t ev i denc e of col l us i on b etw een f ederal an d s tate age nt s t o a void t he re qui re men ts of st at e law. Co llusion has been d efined as a “ ‘ “s ecret ag re em en t;
s ecret cooperat ion f

or a fraudul ent or deceitful purpose.” ’ ” Se e Burnom , 338 Ill . App. 3d at 509, quo ting Hodge , 220 Ill . App. 3d at 889, quoti

ng W eb ster’ s T hi

rd New International

Dic tionary 446 (1986 ); se e al so Basham , 675 S.W.2d at 381-82 ( st at ing t hat t he cl oud of c oll

usi on woul d arise i f there were no federal

i nv es ti ga ti on or no f eder al offense in pro gre ss); State v. Minter , 116 N.J. 269, 28 4 , 561 A.2d 570, 578 (19 89)(l i sti ng que sti ons prob ati ve of coll usi on). Here, at t he heari

ng on the defendant’s m

ot ion to dismi

ss, defense counsel co nced ed t hat he co uld no t pr ese nt any evidenc e o f co llusion.-11- Indeed, we fi

nd no such

evi dence i n the record. As Ra

ys by expl ai ned, t he i nv es ti ga ti on wasi

nte nd ed to res ult in a feder al pr os ecu t ion. Federal age nt s and s tate agents were wor kin g to gether to target deal erswho wo uld ho pefu lly t hen t ur n on their s

uppli ers. Such coop era ti on doe s n ot co n sti tute co llusion ( Barnes , 230 Ill . App. 3d at 276), and i

t should b e encouraged, “n ot deterred undert he g uis e o f a conspi racy or plot t o evade the State crim in al code” ( Hodge , 220 I ll. Ap p. 3d a t 889).

CONCLUSION For the reasons that we hav

e di scussed, weaf

f i rm the j udg men t of th e a pp el l ate cou rt.
Aff irmed.