Illinois Compiled Statutes
50 ILCS 706/10-1 (2026)
Short title
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(50 ILCS 706/10-1)
Sec. 10-1. Short title. This Article may be cited as the Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act. References in this Article to "this Act" mean this Article.
(Source: P.A. 102-558, eff. 8-20-21.) Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2020–2023 · leading case: People v. Collins, 2020 IL App (1st) 181746 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020).
People v. Collins, 2020 IL App (1st) 181746 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “1-18-1746 Worn Body Camera Act (Act) (50 ILCS 706/10-1 et seq. (West 2016)). The Act provides that “recordings may be used as evidence in any administrative, judicial, legislative, or disciplinary proceeding.”
People v. Collins, 2020 IL App (1st) 181746 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “In their initial briefs, neither party discussed the applicability of the Law Enforcement Officer Body-Worn Camera Act (Act) (50 ILCS 706/10-1 et seq. (West 2016)), but we hypothesized about its scope in our original opinion.”
People v. Coleman, 2021 IL App (1st) 192056-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “1-19-2056 ¶ 16 Defendant then filed a motion to bar police testimony based on a violation of the Law Enforcement-Worn Body Camera Act (Act) (50 ILCS 706/10-1 et seq. (West 2018)). 3 Specifically, defendant alleged that he made an inculpatory statement during an interrogation…”
People v. De La Rosa, 2023 IL App (1st) 210994-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). “She further argues that the Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act (Act) (50 ILCS 706/10-1 et seq. (West 2018)) does not override the rules of evidence governing hearsay.”
Beyer v. Vill. of Niles (N.D. Ill. 2022). “50 ILCS 706/10-1 et seq. Plaintiff voiced his concerns on March 31, 2021, to officers Tigera and Romano, as well as Skeffington-Voss, who worked in Human Resources.”
People v. Dunn, 2023 IL App (1st) 220675-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). “In his supplemental motion, defendant reiterated the argument made in his original posttrial motion and also argued that the police officers in the case violated the Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act (50 ILCS 706/10-1 et seq. (West 2020)). Defendant argued that…”
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.
|