{
  "id": 5275656,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VINCENT HODGE, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Hodge",
  "decision_date": "1991-10-11",
  "docket_number": "No. 1\u201490\u20143163",
  "first_page": "886",
  "last_page": "889",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "220 Ill. App. 3d 886"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "551 N.E.2d 1349",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 Ill. App. 3d 180",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2494541
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/195/0180-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "421 N.E.2d 542",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 Ill. App. 3d 506",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        12135817
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "516"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/96/0506-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "391 N.E.2d 210",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 Ill. App. 3d 924",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5583776
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/72/0924-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "488 N.E.2d 620",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 Ill. App. 3d 244",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3530918
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "246"
        },
        {
          "page": "246-47"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/140/0244-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 469,
    "char_count": 7909,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.808,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.26575675564721e-08,
      "percentile": 0.43297196091355133
    },
    "sha256": "58b9ec2be79b3a7a6765099e35989d4cce0873e54fd0c058aeca1ef4426efc77",
    "simhash": "1:a2b978fe7ecafd31",
    "word_count": 1243
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:04:36.621238+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VINCENT HODGE, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE MURRAY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Vincent Hodge, was charged by indictment with two counts of unlawful use of a firearm by a felon. He filed a motion to suppress certain tape-recorded conversations for the failure of a Federal agent to comply with Illinois eavesdropping laws. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, pars. 14\u20141 et seq., 108A\u20141.) The trial court granted defendant\u2019s motion, and the State now appeals.\nAt the suppression hearing, Mitchell Wido, a special agent with the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), testified that in December 1988 he began an investigation of defendant, a convicted felon, regarding his suspected sale of firearms. Defendant had provided a confidential informant with his pager number and requested that the informant call him back \u201cwhen he had money.\u201d After learning of this conversation, Wido applied to ATF for electronic surveillance material consisting of a telephone induction coil, a transmitter and a tape recorder. ATF approved Wido\u2019s request on December 5,1988.\nAccording to a report prepared by Wido, the confidential informant purchased an Iver-Johnson .38 caliber revolver from the defendant on December 7, 1988. Wido conducted a tape-recorded \u201coverhear\u201d of that purchase. Wido testified that he made no attempt prior to the overhear to comply with the Illinois eavesdropping statutes.\nOn December 8, Wido contacted ATF Firearms Technology Branch Officer Cohen, who informed Wido that the manufacturing date of the Iver-Johnson revolver could not be determined. Thus, the weapon could not qualify as a \u201cfirearm\u201d under the Federal firearms statute and could not be used as the basis for Federal jurisdiction over the offense.\nWido testified that on December 9 and December 10, 1988, he made two more recordings of conversations between defendant and the confidential informant, again without first complying with the directives of the Illinois eavesdropping law. He testified that he believed, despite his discussion with Officer Cohen, that there were still Federal grounds on which to prosecute defendant, under laws governing dealing in firearms while engaged in a business.\nIn March 1989 Wido submitted a report of his investigation to the United States Attorney\u2019s office, which subsequently declined Federal prosecution of defendant\u2019s case. That office also instructed Wido to contact the State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s office and to turn his reports over to an assistant State\u2019s Attorney for prosecution.\nWido then swore out a warrant for defendant\u2019s arrest in the circuit court, and on August 2, 1989, defendant was arrested by Cicero police. The parties stipulated that the assistant State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s file reflected that Wido\u2019s first communication with the State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s office occurred August 29, 1989. Wido denied making any State or local police agency aware of the specifics of his investigation in the beginning stages. However, he stated that he may have contacted such agencies to request defendant\u2019s photograph or \u201crap sheet.\u201d\nOn August 20, 1990, defendant moved to suppress the contents of his recorded conversations on the ground that they were the product of collusion between Wido and State authorities to evade compliance with State eavesdropping laws. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, par. 108A\u20149(a).) The trial court granted his motion, and the State now appeals.\nThe Illinois eavesdropping statute prohibits the use of an eavesdropping device to record all or part of any conversation unless all parties to the conversation consent or one party consents and prior judicial authorization is obtained in accordance with statutory requirements. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, pars. 14\u20142, 108A\u20141; People v. Winchell (1986), 140 Ill. App. 3d 244, 246, 488 N.E.2d 620.) In the instant case, there is no dispute that defendant\u2019s conversations of December 7, 9 and 10 were recorded without his consent and without judicial approval. Nevertheless, the State contends that the conversations were improperly suppressed in this case under the authority of People v. Winchell and the cases cited therein.\nIn Winchell, the trial court permitted the State to introduce videotaped evidence procured jointly by State and Federal agents. The appellate court held that the evidence was properly admitted because the agents had complied with Federal law and the record was devoid of any evidence of collusion to avoid Illinois statutory requirements. (Winchell, 140 Ill. App. 3d at 246-47.) In People v. Fidler (1979), 72 Ill. App. 3d 924, 391 N.E.2d 210, cited to in Winchell, the court reversed the trial court\u2019s suppression order, finding that the eavesdropping had been conducted in accordance with Federal directives, that the actions of the Federal officers were lawfully pursued in the course of a wholly Federal investigation, and that no evidence of collusion existed. In People v. Manna (1981), 96 Ill. App. 3d 506, 516, 421 N.E.2d 542, also cited in Winchell, the court held that evidence gathered jointly by Federal and State authorities, although not in compliance with the Illinois eavesdropping statute, was admissible in absence of evidence of collusion. See also People v. Accardo (1990), 195 Ill. App. 3d 180, 551 N.E.2d 1349 (compliance with a foreign State\u2019s requirements sufficient, absent evidence of collusion to circumvent Illinois eavesdropping requirements).\nThe State maintains that in this case, as in the cases cited above, the recordings of defendant were admissible because they were made pursuant to a Federal investigation and because there was no hint of collusion in the record. We agree.\nThere is no written order in the record reflecting an express finding by the trial court that Federal and State agents colluded to avoid Illinois statutory requirements. Rather, the record shows that the trial court heard evidence on the motion to suppress on August 20, 1990, and reserved judgment until October 9, 1990, at which time it delivered an oral decision. Orally, the court granted defendant\u2019s motion to suppress, stating:\n\u201cAll though [sic] eaves dropping [sic] proceedings conducted by the Federal agents may be admitted in state and criminal proceedings without adhering to the state\u2019s statutory requirements, said proceedings must be free of any and all collusion by federal and state agents if the statutory requirements are to be satisfied. That was not the case in this incident.\nThe Federal and the State did elude [sic] to avoid the Hlinois requirements.\u201d\nAccording to Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary 446 (1986), the word \u201ccollude\u201d means \u201cto connive with one another; conspire; plot\u201d and the word \u201ccollusion\u201d means \u201csecret agreement; secret cooperation for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose.\u201d Despite the trial court\u2019s ruling, we can find no evidence in this case that the State and Federal agents connived with one another, plotted or conspired to evade the Illinois law on eavesdropping. There is merely evidence that the two agencies cooperated with each other toward the end of determining whether Hodge violated State or Federal gun laws. Such cooperation should be encouraged by the court, not deterred under the guise of a conspiracy or plot to evade the State criminal code.\nWe conclude that the cited cases require a reversal of the trial court\u2019s granting of defendant\u2019s motion to suppress and a remandment of the case for further proceedings.\nReversed and remanded.\nLORENZ, P.J., and McNULTY, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE MURRAY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jack O\u2019Malley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Renee Goldfarb, Carol L. Gaines, and Carmen K. Aguilar, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.",
      "Robert A. Novelle and Philip M. Angelini, both of Serpico, Novelle & Navigato, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VINCENT HODGE, Defendant-Appellee.\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 1\u201490\u20143163\nOpinion filed October 11, 1991.\nJack O\u2019Malley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Renee Goldfarb, Carol L. Gaines, and Carmen K. Aguilar, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.\nRobert A. Novelle and Philip M. Angelini, both of Serpico, Novelle & Navigato, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0886-01",
  "first_page_order": 908,
  "last_page_order": 911
}