20 ILCS 2630/5
Arrest reports
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(20 ILCS 2630/5)
(from Ch. 38, par. 206-5)
Sec. 5. Arrest reports. All policing bodies of this State shall furnish to the Illinois State Police,
daily, in the form and detail the Illinois State Police requires, fingerprints,
descriptions, and ethnic and racial background data as provided in Section 4.5 of this Act of all persons who are arrested on charges of violating any penal
statute of this State for offenses that are classified as felonies and Class
A or B misdemeanors and of all minors of the age of 10 and over who have been
arrested for an offense which would be a felony if committed by an adult, and
may forward such fingerprints and descriptions for minors arrested for Class A
or B misdemeanors. Moving or nonmoving traffic violations under the Illinois
Vehicle Code shall not be reported except for violations of Chapter 4, Section
11-204.1, or Section 11-501 of that Code. In addition, conservation offenses,
as defined in the Supreme Court Rule 501(c), that are classified as Class B
misdemeanors shall not be reported. Those law enforcement records maintained by the Illinois State Police for minors arrested for an offense prior to their 17th birthday, or minors arrested for a non-felony offense, if committed by an adult, prior to their 18th birthday, shall not be forwarded to the Federal Bureau of Investigation unless those records relate to an arrest in which a minor was charged as an adult under any of the transfer provisions of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987.
(Source: P.A. 102-538, eff. 8-20-21.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: People v. Howard
People v. Howard (2009)
“Petitioners, Stanley Howard and Dana Holland, each received a gubernatorial pardon which specifically authorized expungement pursuant to section 5 of the *726 Criminal Identification Act (Act) (20 ILCS 2630/5 (West 2004)).”
People v. Howard (2007)
“Rather, after having read section 2630/5 of the Criminal Identification Act (Act) (20 ILCS 2630/5 (West 2004)) and examining the language and legislative debates of subsection (c) in particular, it is my view, in simple contradiction to that of the majority, that some discretion…”
People v. Holland (2007)
“Petitioner explains that subsection (a) restricts eligibility to request expungement of a conviction to persons that have not previously been convicted of any criminal offense after an acquittal or dismissal of charges. 20 ILCS 2630/5(a) (West 2004).”
People v. Thon (2001)
“As for the remaining arrests, the State Police concluded that it was prohibited from expunging its records pursuant to section 5 of the Criminal Identification Act (Act) (20 ILCS 2630/5 (West 1998)). On December 21, 1999, petitioner’s attorney contacted the State Police…”
People v. Carroccia (2004)
“Defendant petitioned *574 under section 5(a) of the Criminal Identification Act (Act) (20 ILCS 2630/5(a) (West 2002)) to expunge the records of his arrest.”
People v. Satterwhite (2001)
“” 20 ILCS 2630/5 (West 1998). In our view, this does not require a petitioner to demonstrate good cause.”
Toia v. People (2002)
“2d 645 (1998) (finding a substantially similar provision in the Criminal Identification Act (20 ILCS 2630/5 (West 1994)) to be discretionary).”
People v. Wells (1998)
“20 ILCS 2630/5 (West 1994). The State objected to the petition.”
Chesler v. People (1999)
“” 20 ILCS 2630/5(a) (West 1996). Petitioner contends that the “good cause shown” element requires only that a petitioner meet the statutory criteria for expungement.”
People v. Harrison (2007)
“20 ILCS 2630/5(a) (West 1994). The trial court in Wells found that expungement need not be ordered in every case where a person had been acquitted or released because the conviction had been set aside.”
People v. Dixon (1999)
“Laws at 3789-92) (amending 20 ILCS 2630/5 (West 1994))). While the remaining sections of the Public Act 89-689 do not amend criminal codes, they nevertheless relate to either the creation or enforcement of criminal laws.”
Wakefield v. The Department of State Police (2013)
“The State Police asserted that the circuit court’s order was void because the court lacked authority under the Criminal Identification Act (20 ILCS 2630/5 (West 2006)) to order that Wakefield’s domestic battery conviction be expunged.”
— 20 ILCS 2630/5(a) — 21 cases
People v. Carroccia (2004)
“Defendant petitioned *574 under section 5(a) of the Criminal Identification Act (Act) (20 ILCS 2630/5(a) (West 2002)) to expunge the records of his arrest.”
People v. Holland (2007)
“Petitioner explains that subsection (a) restricts eligibility to request expungement of a conviction to persons that have not previously been convicted of any criminal offense after an acquittal or dismissal of charges. 20 ILCS 2630/5(a) (West 2004).”
People v. Howard (2009)
“Petitioners, Stanley Howard and Dana Holland, each received a gubernatorial pardon which specifically authorized expungement pursuant to section 5 of the *726 Criminal Identification Act (Act) (20 ILCS 2630/5 (West 2004)).”
People v. Howard (2007)
“Rather, after having read section 2630/5 of the Criminal Identification Act (Act) (20 ILCS 2630/5 (West 2004)) and examining the language and legislative debates of subsection (c) in particular, it is my view, in simple contradiction to that of the majority, that some discretion…”
People v. Wells (1998)
“20 ILCS 2630/5 (West 1994). The State objected to the petition.”
— 20 ILCS 2630/5(b) — 3 cases
People v. Howard (2009)
“Petitioners, Stanley Howard and Dana Holland, each received a gubernatorial pardon which specifically authorized expungement pursuant to section 5 of the *726 Criminal Identification Act (Act) (20 ILCS 2630/5 (West 2004)).”
People v. Holland (2007)
“Petitioner explains that subsection (a) restricts eligibility to request expungement of a conviction to persons that have not previously been convicted of any criminal offense after an acquittal or dismissal of charges. 20 ILCS 2630/5(a) (West 2004).”
People v. Holland (2007)
— 20 ILCS 2630/5(c) — 9 cases
People v. Howard (2009)
“Petitioners, Stanley Howard and Dana Holland, each received a gubernatorial pardon which specifically authorized expungement pursuant to section 5 of the *726 Criminal Identification Act (Act) (20 ILCS 2630/5 (West 2004)).”
People v. Howard (2007)
“Rather, after having read section 2630/5 of the Criminal Identification Act (Act) (20 ILCS 2630/5 (West 2004)) and examining the language and legislative debates of subsection (c) in particular, it is my view, in simple contradiction to that of the majority, that some discretion…”
People v. Thon (2001)
“As for the remaining arrests, the State Police concluded that it was prohibited from expunging its records pursuant to section 5 of the Criminal Identification Act (Act) (20 ILCS 2630/5 (West 1998)). On December 21, 1999, petitioner’s attorney contacted the State Police…”
People v. Holland (2007)
“Petitioner explains that subsection (a) restricts eligibility to request expungement of a conviction to persons that have not previously been convicted of any criminal offense after an acquittal or dismissal of charges. 20 ILCS 2630/5(a) (West 2004).”
Bowens v. Quinn (2009)
— 20 ILCS 2630/5(d) — 9 cases
People v. Howard (2009)
“Petitioners, Stanley Howard and Dana Holland, each received a gubernatorial pardon which specifically authorized expungement pursuant to section 5 of the *726 Criminal Identification Act (Act) (20 ILCS 2630/5 (West 2004)).”
People v. Holland (2007)
“Petitioner explains that subsection (a) restricts eligibility to request expungement of a conviction to persons that have not previously been convicted of any criminal offense after an acquittal or dismissal of charges. 20 ILCS 2630/5(a) (West 2004).”
People v. Howard (2007)
“Rather, after having read section 2630/5 of the Criminal Identification Act (Act) (20 ILCS 2630/5 (West 2004)) and examining the language and legislative debates of subsection (c) in particular, it is my view, in simple contradiction to that of the majority, that some discretion…”
Chesler v. People (1999)
“” 20 ILCS 2630/5(a) (West 1996). Petitioner contends that the “good cause shown” element requires only that a petitioner meet the statutory criteria for expungement.”
People v. Satterwhite (2001)
“” 20 ILCS 2630/5 (West 1998). In our view, this does not require a petitioner to demonstrate good cause.”
— 20 ILCS 2630/5(f) — 2 cases
People v. Thon (2001)
“As for the remaining arrests, the State Police concluded that it was prohibited from expunging its records pursuant to section 5 of the Criminal Identification Act (Act) (20 ILCS 2630/5 (West 1998)). On December 21, 1999, petitioner’s attorney contacted the State Police…”
People v. Thon (2001)
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.
|