Narducci v. Village of Bellwood
444 F.Supp.2d 924
In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Case Number 01 C 1425
Before Senior District Judge Shadur
Decided on August 11, 2006

Relevancy of the Case: Reasonability in the context of taping telephone lines of an incorporated village’s finance department

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520
• Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights, 42 U.S.C. § 198

Relevant Facts of the Case

• In 1990, Bellwood, an incorporated village, began operating a 911 emergency phone system. The Bellwood Emergency Telephone System Board (BETSB) was responsible for its operations. This system’s phone calls were recorded, and the recording equipment was kept in the Police Department.
• In 1994, the Finance Department employees began to be threatened by irate customers. The village’s Comptroller suggested that they record calls on the department’s lines. Subsequently, he received the necessary authorisation from the Village Board.
• Afterwards, the Village Board coordinated with BETSB to record calls by attaching a 911 recorder.
• In 1998, the plaintiff assumed the role of the village’s Comptroller. He worked as an independent contractor for about 3 days a week. He used the Finance Department phone lines to make Bellwood-related calls, including calls conducting confidential business with other villages.
• He first became aware of the recording mechanism in February 2000. He notified the State’s Attorney and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He also wrote a memo to two Board members, directing them to stop the recording.

Prominent Argument by the Counsels

• The Police Chief’s counsel submitted that he is not liable since he was not involved in taping the finance department telephone lines. He further underlined that his client had no role in the initial decision to tape or implement that decision. Further, he has qualified immunity from the plaintiff’s Section 1983 and Section 2511 claims. The counsel contended that liability under Section 2511 depends on the defendant’s intentional interception.
• While arguing on the issue of municipal liability, the plaintiff’s counsel demonstrated that phone taping was Bellwood’s express policy. The Mayor and Board expressly authorised the taping of the finance department’s phone calls.

Opinion of the Bench

• The Police Chief has admitted that it came to his knowledge even before he took office. However, even after assuming the office, he did not take any action to stop the taping. Moreover, he did not even bother confirming if it was happening.
• The defendants have shown legitimate justifications behind taping the finance department lines. However, they fail to demonstrate that their actions were reasonable and not overly intrusive. Hence, the defendants cannot claim the defence of qualified immunity.
• Based on the available evidence, it is clear that the Police Chief had the power to stop it, but he failed to do so. This fulfils the intention requirement for Section 2511(1)(a).

Final Decision

• The court denied the defendants’ Rule 56 motion except for the plaintiff’s state law claims and Title III claims after he became aware of the taping.
• The court directed the parts for a status hearing on August 22, 2006.