PEORIA — No charges will be filed against the people who created a fake Twitter account that cast Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis in a negative light, the county’s top prosecutor said Wednesday.



A review of state law indicates the account holders of now-shuttered Twitter account @peoriamayor didn’t break the law because the actual crime alleged, “false personation of a public official,” has to be done in person, not over the Internet or other electronic media, said State’s Attorney Jerry Brady.



“At this time, no, because subsection (b) doesn’t include the use of electronic media,” he said.



Essentially, Brady said it was clear the account impersonated Ardis, but the fact that the it was done over the Web meant there wasn’t a crime committed, according to state statute.



His thoughts came a day after about a dozen people filled City Hall at the council meeting Tuesday night and blasted Ardis and the police for what was seen as a violation of the account holders’ civil rights. Ardis has maintained he had a right to complain about the Twitter account.



When reached Wednesday night, Ardis declined to comment on Brady not prosecuting the holder of the Twitter account, saying he hadn’t taken the time to review Brady’s decision. But he did clarify statements that he and others made at Tuesday’s council meeting.



He said he didn’t intend to imply that Brady was involved in drafting the search warrant. Rather, he said, he merely sought advice from the city’s legal staff about the legality of the fake account.



“I asked them if it was illegal for a person to take my identity and if it was, I wanted to pursue the matter because I wanted (the Twitter account author) to realize that it was illegal do that,” the mayor said.



Brady noted the section of the Illinois Compiled Statutes that handles such crimes. Chapter 5, section 17, subsection 2(b)(2) states: “A person commits a false personation if he or she knowingly and falsely represents himself or herself to be ... a public officer or a public employee or an official or employee of the federal government.”



The same section in subsection 2(g), however, provides that only violations of “subsection (a)(1) through (a)(7) or subsection (e) ... may be accomplished in person or by any



means of communication, including but not limited to the use of an Internet website or any form of electronic communication.”



Subsections (a) and (e) both refer or false solicitation or impersonating a veteran. Since subsection (b) wasn’t specifically referenced, Brady thinks that was done for a reason.



“They (the Legislature) wanted to place greater emphasis on false solicitation and cast a broader net of conduct, because you want to preclude people from falsely soliciting funds,” he said.



He wouldn’t comment on whether felony marijuana possession charges would remain in place against Jacob Elliott, 36, 1220 N. University St., after police found the drug inside the house last week. A search warrant had been issued for the crime of false personation and given that the Brady believes that section of state law didn’t apply, it could mean any evidence found at the home could be suppressed as there was no legal basis for the warrant.



At issue is whether the drugs still can be used against Elliott if the warrant that allowed officers inside the house wasn’t firmly legally grounded. A quick read of the warrant gives no underlying evidence for the seizure of drugs, other than the mention of a tweet regarding a crack pipe.



Brady said he has not yet received all the reports from the April 15 raid, but noted that’s not uncommon. Often, he said, police reports and affidavits for search warrants arrive days or even weeks later.



But the facts alleged in the affidavits for the warrant matter when it comes to charging a crime, Brady said.



“It depends upon what information and what facts are in the search warrant. Those allegations can include one or more crimes,” he said. “But if you don’t include those facts, then you are risking the legality of the discovery of drugs if you do discover drugs. Why would you not include if you had that information that drugs were going to be present.”



The prosecutor also said nothing about the warrant, in how it was obtained or executed, was done any differently than any other search warrant with respect to his office’s involvement. At the council meeting, it was implied that Brady’s office had an active role in the crafting and the execution of the warrant.



On Wednesday, he said that wasn’t the case. His office wasn’t asked to give a legal opinion on whether a crime had been committed nor did they “sign off” on the warrant before officers went to the house on April 15.



“We were given notice that there was a Twitter account that was casting the mayor in violation of a statute. We were also advised that they would do a search warrant for the Twitter account,” he said. “We were told they would do it by the officer and then the search warrant proceeded.



“Our office is not normally asked to interpret whether or not is a crime. This was not done differently than any other investigation in a criminal matter.”



Eric Ellis, the Peoria police union president, defended the actions of rank-and-file members of the department when it came to the investigation into who authored the parody account, saying officers are required to follow what appear to be lawful orders from their superiors.



“I would like to stress that police officers follow orders, and from time to time, while these orders may exist within a gray area, they are still to be considered as lawful orders,” Ellis said. “We do not know where this controversy will go, but one of our main concerns is to ensure that the officers involved in this matter will be as vigilantly defended by those that gave these orders with the same fervor expressed in the seeking out of the identity of the fake Twitter account holder.”







Andy Kravetz can be reached at 686-3283 or akravetz@pjstar.com. Follow him on Twitter @andykravetz. Matt Buedel contributed to this story.





CORRECTION: The original version of this story indicated the wrong address for Jacob Elliott. The correct address is 1220 N. University St.