Case: 1:11-cv-01722 Document
#:
58 Filed:
06/20/12
Page 2 of 3 PagelD #:201
• Attorney General Madigan lacks the authority
to
initiate aprosecution under the Act.
The IllinoisAttorneyGeneral"cannotdirect
the prosecution activities
of
the 102 States' Attorneys," and"lacksthepower
to
take exclusive charge
of
the prosecution
of
those cases overwhich the State's Attorney shares authority."
520
S.
Mich. Ave. Assoc.,Ltd.
v.
Devine,
433 F.3d 961, 964
(7
th
Cir. 2006);
People
v.
BuffaloConfectionary Co.,
401 N.E.2d 546, 549 (Ill. 1980). Because the Act doesnot give enforcement authority
to
the Attorney General, at most she can"assist" the States' Attorneys in prosecutions under the Act.
Id.
at 549;
see also
15
ILCS 205/4. Here, the Lake County State's Attorney hasrepresented that he will not prosecute plaintiff under the Act.
• Attorney General Madigan represents that she
will
not prosecuteplaintiff under the Act.
Attorney General Madigan will not prosecuteplaintiff under the Act; nor will she assist in any prosecution
of
plaintiffunder the Act. Attorney General Madigan made this representation at theDecember 19, 2011 oral argument, and repeats it here.Thisposition hasbeen reinforced by the Seventh Circuit's recent decision in
ACLU
v.
Alvarez.
Like plaintiff here, the ACLU has challenged the Act insofar
as
it applies
to
recording police officers performing their official duties inpublic. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the ACLU has a "stronglikelihood
of
success on the merits" and instructed the district court
to
entera preliminary injunction preventing the State's Attorneyfromapplying the Act against the ACLU.
ACLU
v.Alvarez,
679F.3d583, 608
(7
th
Cir.2012).
• Attorney General Madigan withdrew her appeal
in
People
v.
Allison.
The Circuit Courts for Crawford County andCookCounty, Illinois haveheld that the Act
is
unconstitutional
as
applied
to
the recording
of
policeofficers.The Attorney General intervened in the Crawford County case,
People
v.
Allison,
but has withdrawn her appeal.
3.
Accordingly, this Court should grant Attorney General Madigan's motion
to
dismiss on Eleventh Amendment grounds because there
is
no credible threat that shewill enforce the Act against plainti
ff.
Attorney General Madigan reserves the right to fileaseparatemotion to dismiss based on the mootness doctrine.
1
I
See. e.g.,Poe
v.
Ullman,
367 U.S.
497,507
-
08
(1961);
Wisc.
Righllo
Life, Inc.
v.
Schober, 366
F.3d 485, 490-92
(7ili
Cir. 2004);
Ragsdale
v.
Turnock,
841
F.2d 1358, 1365-66
(7ili
Cir. 1988);
see also
ACLU
v.
Alvarez,
679 F.3d
at
593; 520
S.
Mich.
Ave.,
433 F.3d
at
963-64.