Court Opinion

ID: 9531164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:08:14.213975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:21.552649
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WARD, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur insofar as the majority has reversed the appellate court, but I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s view that the removal of the speaking element from the mouthpiece of an extension telephone converted the telephone into an eavesdropping device. The majority’s reasoning is plausible only at a quick reading. On consideration, the analysis, I believe, is overly simple; the question involved is more subtle than the majority perceives. Our eavesdropping statute defines an eavesdropping device as “any device capable of being used to hear or record oral conversation whether such conversation is conducted in person, by telephone, or by any other means.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 38, par. 14—1(a).) The majority correctly recognizes that an extension telephone is not of itself an eavesdropping device. The eavesdropping statute is directed at devices “capable of being used to hear or record oral conversation,” including conversations conducted by telephone. A telephone is obviously capable of being used to hear and is not of itself a device at which the eavesdropping statute is directed. The statute is directed at devices other than telephones themselves. It would, however, reach devices that might be attached or added to telephone instruments or equipment or wires, which are capable of being “used to hear or record” conversations. (Curiously and, to me, unconvincingly, the majority holds that the removal of apart of the extension phone transformed it into an eavesdropping device. That is, changed it into a “device capable of being used to hear ***.” Of course, it, as a phone, was already capable of being used to hear. Too, until now the common perception has always been that eavesdropping involves the attachment of a device to a telephone or to its equipment or wires — not the removal of a part of the phone.) The majority says that the telephones here were eavesdropping devices because this court in People v. Gaines (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 343, 363, observed that the eavesdropping statute is directed against the use of devices other than the telephone itself when the telephone “has not been functionally altered.” The majority then goes on to hold that a telephone without a speaking element is no longer a telephone but has become an eavesdropping device. That would mean that it now has become “capable of being used to hear or record oral conversation.” But it was, however, as stated, capable of being used to hear in its prior state or condition simply as a telephone. We used the language quoted from Gaines in reaffirming this court’s holding in People v. Dixon (1961), 22 Ill. 2d 513, that an extension telephone was not an eavesdropping device. The extension phones involved in Dixon and in Gaines were purely extension phone instruments; they were not altered in any way. The reference in Gaines to phones that had not been functionally altered was obviously nondecisional language. The language was not necessary to determine the question whether there had been eavesdropping, as the extension telephone had not been altered. It did not set out the holding in the case. And certainly Gaines did not undertake to define what was meant by a functional alteration. Furthermore, the majority over-simply concludes that a “functionally altered” phone is an eavesdropping device. It says that because the speaking element was removed from the phone it was functionally altered and therefore became an eavesdropping device. This is erroneous. Obviously a phone that is “functionally altered” to create a conversation piece by replacing the speaking element with an alarm-clock unit or a tiny musical tape player does not become an eavesdropping device. Every alteration is not to be equated with a conversion into an eavesdropping device. If, however, in a police interrogation room a recording device were inserted in what seemed to be an innocent telephone, the phone would be truly functionally altered. The dummy phone would be a device capable of recording. It would have been changed to an eavesdropping device. The extension phone here was not altered in the sense that it became an eavesdropping device. Considering the language and purpose of the eavesdropping act one can say that an eavesdropping device is one that permits one to hear a conversation or record it by means of a device other than simply a telephone. If the person who is monitoring simply listens on an extension telephone that was altered but only in such a way that the monitor’s ability to hear the conversation on the principal telephone was not enhanced or affected in any way, there is no ground for saying that the extension telephone was converted into an eavesdropping device. The monitoring person’s testimony should be admitted and any transcript of the defendant’s statements should also be admitted, as it was not made by use of an eavesdropping device attached to the extension phone or to the equipment. The result or effect of the extension telephone’s use here was the same so far as the listeners were concerned as if the extension had not been altered. There was no other person permitted to hear the conversation who would npt have been able to have heard it were the telephone unaltered. The legislative intendment of the eavesdropping statute was to prevent persons from hearing a conversation who, unaided by an eavesdropping device, would not have been able to have listened to the conversation. The purpose of removing the mouthpiece here was, of course, to prevent the defendant from hearing any background sounds through the extension which might have led him to suspect that his statements were being monitored or that they were being taken down, in which case the defendant, of course, would have ended the conversation. In Gaines, we made reference to this court’s holding in People v. Kurth (1966), 34 Ill. 2d 387. There the State’s witness had had installed on his telephone an electronic device which was used to monitor a conversation between Smith and the defendant (see 34 Ill. 2d 387, 392). A recording of that conversation was also made, and the question was whether the recording was admissible. There was no listening in on an extension telephone. This court treated the device as an eavesdropping device. Adams v. State (1981), 289 Md. 221, 424 A.2d 344, involved a factual situation resembling the one here. There a rape victim made a tentative photographic identification of the defendant and the police decided to conduct a voice identification through use of the telephone. The victim listened in on the extension phone within the station while a policewoman made calls to the defendant. The mouthpiece of the victim’s phone was removed so that the receiving party would not be aware of the presence of the victim. The victim identified the defendant’s voice as that of her attacker. The defendant contended that the voice identification involved an unauthorized interception in violation of the State’s wiretap laws. Maryland’s statute differs from ours, and what the court said concerning the interception question is not relevant here. But the observation of the court that the use of the telephone instrument did not convert it into something other than a telephone is pertinent. The court said: “The appellant places some significance on the fact that the mouthpiece of the extension phone was removed. This did not substantially alter the instrument so that it became something other than a telephone. The police could have achieved the same result by having the victim hold her hand over the mouthpiece.” Adams v. State (1981), 289 Md. 221, 229, 424 A.2d 344, 348. I submit that the removal of the mouthpiece here was not, given the language of our eavesdropping statute, an event or act of legal significance. The effect or result so far as the monitoring stenographer was concerned was just the same as it would have been had the mouthpiece not been removed. In either event, she would have heard the statements of the defendant and would have been enabled to take them down. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgments of the appellate and circuit courts. JUSTICE SIMON, also concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree with the majority that an eavesdropping device was employed, and that the appellate court properly affirmed the suppression of the testimony of the court reporters and their transcripts concerning the monitored telephone conversations. I dissent, however, insofar as the majority has reversed the appellate court, because I regard the majority’s conclusion that the testimony of the officers regarding the telephone conversations should not have been suppressed as premature. So is the majority’s conclusion that the in-person conversations and transcripts of them should not have been suppressed. I believe additional evidence is required before any court can properly determine whether these conversations or some of them should be suppressed. It is possible and likely, as the defendants argue, that the transcripts suppressed by the court in this case were used by the police or officials of the State’s Attorney’s office to coach Officer Furay, Sergeant Barnes and Assistant State’s Attorney Burnham regarding the direction in which they should lead their future conversations with defendants Gervasi and Ettinger. Even if the defendants have the burden to show that the illegal transcripts were used for this purpose, in view of the procedure followed in the circuit court, where the defendants prevailed, they do not appear to have had the opportunity to show whether the tainted transcripts were referred to in arranging the later telephone and in-person conversations. If transcripts of the illegally recorded conversations were referred to by any of the government agents involved to prepare for future conversations with the defendants, I believe that these conversations were also tainted and should be suppressed. Implicit in People v. Wilson (1975), 60 Ill. 2d 235, 238, upon which the majority’s conclusion on this point turns, is the requirement that the defendants be given a chance to develop this type of evidence before the question of suppression is finally determined. If the defendants are successful in doing this, it would then be the State’s burden to rebut by clear and convincing evidence what the defendants had established. The State would have to prove either that the transcripts were never referred to or that Officer Furay was an independent source of what was said in later conversations. The answers to these questions are by no means as clear cut as the majority appears to believe. If the evidence shows that Officer Furay or his collaborators referred to the tainted transcripts to refresh their recollection or to obtain advice to prepare for later conversations, I do not see how he can still be labeled an independent source for the purpose of subsequent conversations.