People v. Klick, Nos. 48332

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtTHOMAS J. MORAN
Parties, 5 Ill.Dec. 858, 95 A.L.R.3d 406 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Rita KLICK et al., Appellees.
Docket Number48333,Nos. 48332
Decision Date05 April 1977

Page 329

362 N.E.2d 329
66 Ill.2d 269, 5 Ill.Dec. 858, 95
A.L.R.3d 406
The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant,
v.
Rita KLICK et al., Appellees.
Nos. 48332, 48333.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
April 5, 1977.

[66 Ill.2d 271]

Page 330

[5 Ill.Dec. 859] William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Bernard Carey, State's Atty., Chicago (James B. Zagel and Jayne A. Carr, Asst. Attys. Gen., and Laurence J. Bolon, David A. Novoselsky, and Mary Ellen Dienes, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for the People.

George Patrick Lynch and Robert P. Sheridan, Chicago (Michael J. Berkos, Chicago, of counsel), for appellees.

THOMAS J. MORAN, Justice:

Defendants, Rita Klick and Stanley Rudzinski, were charged in separate complaints with disorderly conduct in that they knowingly made a telephone call or calls with the intent to annoy another in violation of section 26--1(a)(2) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 38, par. 26--1(a)(2)). The circuit court of Cook County granted defendants' motions to dismiss on the grounds that section 26--1(a)(2) is unconstitutional. The [66 Ill.2d 272] State has appealed pursuant to Rule 302(a)(1) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 110A, par. 302(a)(1)), and the cases have been consolidated for the purpose of disposition.

Section 26--1(a)(2) provides:

'(a) A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:

(2) With intent to annoy another, makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation thereby ensues; * * *.'

Defendant Klick initially moved to dismiss the complaint, and later amended the motion to challenge the section's constitutionality arguing that it was impermissibly vague and overly broad, depriving her of due process and infringing on conduct protected by the first amendment to the United States Constitution. Following submission of defendant's written memorandum and presentation of oral argument, the trial court found section 26--1(a)(2) to be overly broad and, therefore, violative of the first the fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. The court thereafter dismissed the complaint against Klick and the later complaint brought against Rudzinski.

The State contends that section 26--1(a)(2) is neither impermissibly vague nor overly broad. Because of our finding, only the latter assertion will be discussed.

The State argues that section 26--1(a)(2) is not overly broad in that it merely regulates

Page 331

[5 Ill.Dec. 860] conduct and does not deprive citizens of their first amendment freedoms, such as freedom of speech. It asserts that, to the extent this section does infringe upon first amendment freedoms, the infringement is justified, for the legislature has a legitimate interest in protecting an individual's privacy at home from unwanted telephonic intrusions.

In claiming the section to be overly broad, defendants argue that it deprives them of first amendment freedoms and makes criminal otherwise protected conduct. We agree.

[66 Ill.2d 273] A statute is overly broad if it may reasonably be interpreted to prohibit conduct which is constitutionally protected. (Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972), 408 U.S. 104, 114--15, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222, 231; People v. Schwartz (1976), 64 Ill.2d 275, 282, 356 N.E.2d 8.) In attempting to control or prevent activities which are subject to State regulation, the legislature must not use means which sweep too broadly and thereby penetrate the area of protected freedoms. (Zwickler v. Koota (1967), 389 U.S. 241, 250, 88 S.Ct. 391, 19 L.Ed.2d 444,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 practice notes
  • People v. Allen, No. 99977.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • June 2, 2006
    ...is not met, it amounts to a denial of due process of law'" no matter "`how strong the evidence against an accused may be.'" Boose, 66 Ill.2d at 269, 5 Ill.Dec. 832, 362 N.E.2d 303, quoting People v. Finn, 17 Ill.2d 614, 617, 162 N.E.2d 354 Two months later, in Staley, this court reaffirmed ......
  • State v. Kipf, No. 88-974
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • January 19, 1990
    ...privacy rights of its citizens and thus could regulate speech content. The Illinois experience is most instructive. In People v. Klick, 66 Ill.2d 269, 5 Ill.Dec. 858, 362 N.E.2d 329 (1977), upon which Kipf places major reliance, the court declared overbroad a disorderly conduct statute proh......
  • State v. Thorne, No. 16465
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • August 7, 1985
    ...of the statute. See Bolles v. People, 189 Colo. 394, 398-99, 541 P.2d 80, 83 (1975) ("annoy or alarm" overbroad); People v. Klick, 66 Ill.2d 269, 275, 5 Ill.Dec. 858, 860-61, 362 N.E.2d 329, 331-32 (1977) ("intent to annoy" overbroad); City of Everett v. Moore, 37 Wash.App. 862, 683 P.2d 61......
  • State v. Finch, No. 62938-2
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • May 6, 1999
    ...was placed in leg irons throughout the trial evidence of guilt was overwhelming and thus reversal was not warranted); but see Boose, 66 Ill.2d at 269, 5 Ill.Dec. 832, 362 N.E.2d 303 (Supreme Court of Illinois reversed the defendant's conviction, on a guilty plea of murder, where he was erro......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
45 cases
  • People v. Allen, No. 99977.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • June 2, 2006
    ...is not met, it amounts to a denial of due process of law'" no matter "`how strong the evidence against an accused may be.'" Boose, 66 Ill.2d at 269, 5 Ill.Dec. 832, 362 N.E.2d 303, quoting People v. Finn, 17 Ill.2d 614, 617, 162 N.E.2d 354 Two months later, in Staley, this court reaffirmed ......
  • State v. Kipf, No. 88-974
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • January 19, 1990
    ...privacy rights of its citizens and thus could regulate speech content. The Illinois experience is most instructive. In People v. Klick, 66 Ill.2d 269, 5 Ill.Dec. 858, 362 N.E.2d 329 (1977), upon which Kipf places major reliance, the court declared overbroad a disorderly conduct statute proh......
  • State v. Thorne, No. 16465
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • August 7, 1985
    ...of the statute. See Bolles v. People, 189 Colo. 394, 398-99, 541 P.2d 80, 83 (1975) ("annoy or alarm" overbroad); People v. Klick, 66 Ill.2d 269, 275, 5 Ill.Dec. 858, 860-61, 362 N.E.2d 329, 331-32 (1977) ("intent to annoy" overbroad); City of Everett v. Moore, 37 Wash.App. 862, 683 P.2d 61......
  • State v. Finch, No. 62938-2
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • May 6, 1999
    ...was placed in leg irons throughout the trial evidence of guilt was overwhelming and thus reversal was not warranted); but see Boose, 66 Ill.2d at 269, 5 Ill.Dec. 832, 362 N.E.2d 303 (Supreme Court of Illinois reversed the defendant's conviction, on a guilty plea of murder, where he was erro......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT