Cook County Chief Judge Tim Evans said Tuesday he had asked the court’s executive committee to review the actions of a judge who barred a law clerk from entering the courthouse for nine months because of a cell phone.

The committee will investigate whether Judge Peggy Chiampas violated judicial ethics, Evans said in a rare interview. The committee could refer the case to the state’s Office of Judicial Investigation, take disciplinary action itself or decide to take no action.

The public is prohibited from bringing electronic devices into the courthouse at the corner of 26th Street and California Avenue, although there are broad exceptions for police officers, court employees, jurors, private attorneys and others.

Evans said Chiampas has been summoned to appear before the committee on Friday and can present arguments to the panel in support of her actions. Committee meetings are not open to the public, but Evans promised to report back on the panel’s decision.

The incident occurred on October 4, when an officer in Chiampas’ courtroom asked Robert Almodovar if he had a cell phone and he answered “yes.”

Almodovar, who worked as a law clerk for civil rights attorney Jennifer Bonjean, said he assumed he would be allowed to keep it but offered to store it in the public lockers.

But before he could do so, Chiampas called him into her courtroom and demanded that he give her his phone, according to an official transcript of the trial.

Chiampas then repeatedly threatened Almodovar with six months in prison if he did not allow a deputy to search his phone – an experience that Almodovar described as particularly traumatic given his past.

Almodovar spent 23 years in prison for a double murder conviction linked to a corrupt police officer. In 2018, he was granted a certificate of innocence in the case and said he became a law clerk to help others like him.

In an interview with the Sun-Times last week, he said he was terrified: “I didn’t want to be locked up again.”

According to the transcript, Chiampas appeared to be aware of his past and stated that she believed she had previously recused herself in a “post-conviction case” in which he was involved.

At one point, Chiampas warned him: “I will, at my discretion, lock you up for six months, without giving a day for every day,” she said, referring to a common method people use to reduce their prison time. “I can take you into custody immediately.”

Almodovar allowed his phone to be searched. When officers found nothing incriminating, Chiampas said she barred him from entering the courthouse unless he was charged in a criminal case, was summoned or received permission from the court.

Chiampas lifted that order last week in a brief hearing without explanation. Sources said a lawyer had repeatedly asked her to hear a motion to lift the ban on the grounds that it was illegal.

Evans said he could not comment directly on Chiampa’s case because the matter is pending before the Executive Committee.

If the case is referred to the Judicial Investigation Panel, it will decide whether to forward it to the Judicial Commission for possible sanctions.

The committee could also decide whether to impose its own disciplinary measures, including transfer or suspension of the accused.

In recent cases, judges have been transferred after being summoned by the Executive Committee, including over allegations of racist or sexist comments. Earlier this summer, the committee recommended that allegations against Judge Kathy Flanagan be referred from the Legal Division to the Investigative Committee after she ordered the detention of a lawyer who was handcuffed after arguing with her during a hearing.

The presiding judge said the Chiampas incident only came to his attention recently when Criminal Division Chief Judge Erica Reddick told him of confusion over an aspect of the court’s cellphone ban.

A list of people allowed to have a cell phone in the courthouse includes, among others, “authorized attorney staff,” but no information about what form a person is authorized to take or who approves them.

Evans said he took steps in June to change the policy so that attorney staff could be authorized by himself, by Reddick or by the judge hearing the case a lawyer is working on.

“In the future, if a (judge) decides to prohibit someone from entering the courtroom, he will have to explain on what basis he is relying and why he has the right to do so,” he said, speaking generally about whether judges have the authority to prohibit someone from entering the courtroom by decree.

Evans also said he plans to further amend the court’s electronics ban to clarify that media representatives should be allowed to use electronic devices in courtrooms to take notes and communicate with their media “as long as they do not cause disruption.”

Media representatives are usually allowed to bring electronic devices and have long used them in courtrooms. That was the case until last year, when a television news reporter was observed taking a photo with a cellphone in a courtroom.

In amending the order, the court stated that it was up to each judge whether to allow reporters to use electronic devices in his or her courtroom.

But since then, a growing number of judges have told reporters that they are prohibited from using laptops or cell phones to take notes. One judge recently banned reporters from using those devices after she was critical of coverage of her decision to keep the case files under seal in a high-profile murder case.

In 2022, the Illinois Supreme Court recognized that electronic devices are “essential to society” and called for fewer restrictions on bringing these devices into buildings.

The Leighton courthouse is unique in Cook County with its strict ban on cell phones – and Evans said, “Unfortunately, I think it will have to stay that way.”

Evans pointed to incidents where people allegedly tried to photograph witnesses, jurors and judges in order to intimidate them, and said a blanket ban was still necessary.

“It’s an inconvenience to the public, I realize that, but safety and security are very important to the integrity of our court system,” Evans said. “But I hope the day will come when it will no longer be necessary.”