ILCS » Chapter 705 · Act 405
Illinois Compiled Statutes

705 ILCS 405/5-401.5 (2026)

When statements by minor may be used

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(705 ILCS 405/5-401.5)
    Sec. 5-401.5. When statements by minor may be used.
    (a) In this Section, "custodial interrogation" means any interrogation (i) during which a reasonable person in the subject's position would consider the subject to be in custody and (ii) during which a question is asked that is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.
    In this Section, "electronic recording" includes motion picture, audiotape, videotape, or digital recording.
    In this Section, "place of detention" means a building or a police station that is a place of operation for a municipal police department or county sheriff department or other law enforcement agency at which persons are or may be held in detention in connection with criminal charges against those persons or allegations that those persons are delinquent minors.
    (a-5) An oral, written, or sign language statement of a minor, who at the time of the commission of the offense was under 18 years of age, is presumed to be inadmissible when the statement is obtained from the minor while the minor is subject to custodial interrogation by a law enforcement officer, State's Attorney, juvenile officer, or other public official or employee prior to the officer, State's Attorney, public official, or employee:
        (1) continuously reads to the minor, in its entirety
    
and without stopping for purposes of a response from the minor or verifying comprehension, the following statement: "You have the right to remain silent. That means you do not have to say anything. Anything you do say can be used against you in court. You have the right to get help from a lawyer. If you cannot pay for a lawyer, the court will get you one for free. You can ask for a lawyer at any time. You have the right to stop this interview at any time."; and
        (2) after reading the statement required by paragraph
    
(1) of this subsection (a-5), the public official or employee shall ask the minor the following questions and wait for the minor's response to each question:
            (A) "Do you want to have a lawyer?"
            (B) "Do you want to talk to me?"
    (b) An oral, written, or sign language statement of a minor who, at the time of the commission of the offense was under the age of 18 years, made as a result of a custodial interrogation conducted at a police station or other place of detention on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 99th General Assembly shall be presumed to be inadmissible as evidence against the minor in any criminal proceeding or juvenile court proceeding, for an act that if committed by an adult would be a misdemeanor offense under Article 11 of the Criminal Code of 2012 or any felony offense unless:
        (1) an electronic recording is made of the custodial
    
interrogation; and
        (2) the recording is substantially accurate and not
    
intentionally altered.
    (b-5) (Blank).
    (b-10) If, during the course of an electronically recorded custodial interrogation conducted under this Section of a minor who, at the time of the commission of the offense was under the age of 18 years, the minor makes a statement that creates a reasonable suspicion to believe the minor has committed an act that if committed by an adult would be an offense other than an offense required to be recorded under subsection (b), the interrogators may, without the minor's consent, continue to record the interrogation as it relates to the other offense notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary. Any oral, written, or sign language statement of a minor made as a result of an interrogation under this subsection shall be presumed to be inadmissible as evidence against the minor in any criminal proceeding or juvenile court proceeding, unless the recording is substantially accurate and not intentionally altered.
    (c) Every electronic recording made under this Section must be preserved until such time as the minor's adjudication for any offense relating to the statement is final and all direct and habeas corpus appeals are exhausted, or the prosecution of such offenses is barred by law.
    (d) If the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the minor was subjected to a custodial interrogation in violation of this Section, then any statements made by the minor during or following that non-recorded custodial interrogation, even if otherwise in compliance with this Section, are presumed to be inadmissible in any criminal proceeding or juvenile court proceeding against the minor except for the purposes of impeachment.
    (e) Nothing in this Section precludes the admission (i) of a statement made by the minor in open court in any criminal proceeding or juvenile court proceeding, before a grand jury, or at a preliminary hearing, (ii) of a statement made during a custodial interrogation that was not recorded as required by this Section because electronic recording was not feasible, (iii) of a voluntary statement, whether or not the result of a custodial interrogation, that has a bearing on the credibility of the accused as a witness, (iv) of a spontaneous statement that is not made in response to a question, (v) of a statement made after questioning that is routinely asked during the processing of the arrest of the suspect, (vi) of a statement made during a custodial interrogation by a suspect who requests, prior to making the statement, to respond to the interrogator's questions only if an electronic recording is not made of the statement, provided that an electronic recording is made of the statement of agreeing to respond to the interrogator's question, only if a recording is not made of the statement, (vii) of a statement made during a custodial interrogation that is conducted out-of-state, (viii) of a statement given in violation of subsection (b) at a time when the interrogators are unaware that a death has in fact occurred, (ix) (blank), or (x) of any other statement that may be admissible under law. The State shall bear the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that one of the exceptions described in this subsection (e) is applicable. Nothing in this Section precludes the admission of a statement, otherwise inadmissible under this Section, that is used only for impeachment and not as substantive evidence.
    (f) The presumption of inadmissibility of a statement made by a suspect at a custodial interrogation at a police station or other place of detention may be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence that the statement was voluntarily given and is reliable, based on the totality of the circumstances.
    (g) Any electronic recording of any statement made by a minor during a custodial interrogation that is compiled by any law enforcement agency as required by this Section for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of this Section shall be confidential and exempt from public inspection and copying, as provided under Section 7 of the Freedom of Information Act, and the information shall not be transmitted to anyone except as needed to comply with this Section.
    (h) A statement, admission, confession, or incriminating information made by or obtained from a minor related to the instant offense, as part of any behavioral health screening, assessment, evaluation, or treatment, whether or not court-ordered, shall not be admissible as evidence against the minor on the issue of guilt only in the instant juvenile court proceeding. The provisions of this subsection (h) are in addition to and do not override any existing statutory and constitutional prohibition on the admission into evidence in delinquency proceedings of information obtained during screening, assessment, or treatment.
    (i) The changes made to this Section by Public Act 98-61 apply to statements of a minor made on or after January 1, 2014 (the effective date of Public Act 98-61).
(Source: P.A. 103-22, eff. 8-8-23.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2013–2025 · leading case: In re Jose A., 2018 IL App (2d) 180170 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Jose A., 2018 IL App (2d) 180170 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 12× “5 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/5-401.5 (West 2016)). After a hearing, the circuit court of Lake County agreed with respondent and granted his motion to suppress statements.”
In re Jose A., 2018 IL App (2d) 180170 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 14× “5 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/5-401.5 (West 2016)). After a hearing, the circuit court of Lake County agreed with respondent and granted his motion to suppress statements.”
People v. Wilson, 2020 IL App (1st) 162430 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “1, 2017) (adding 705 ILCS 405/5-401.5(a-5)): “(a-5) An oral, written, or sign language statement of a minor, who at the time of the commission of the offense was under 18 years of age, is presumed to be inadmissible when the statement is obtained from the minor while the minor…”
In re D.L.H., 2015 IL 117341 (Ill. 2015). · cites it 3× “See 705 ILCS 405/5-401.5(a) (West 2012); In re Randall M.”
People v. Chavez, 2025 IL App (1st) 221601 (Ill. App. Ct. 2025). · cites it 6× “1-22-1601 ¶ 47 These provisions contain warnings that mirror Miranda but in more accessible language (e.”
In re D.L.H., 2015 IL 117341 (Ill. 2015). · cites it 2× “See 705 ILCS 405/5-401.5(a) (West 2012); In re Randall M.”
People v. Travis, 2013 IL App (3d) 110170 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “” 705 ILCS 405/5-401.5(a) (West 2006). Factors relevant to the -10- inquiry into whether an individual was in custody include: “(1) the location, time, length, mood, and mode of the questioning; (2) the number of police officers present during the interrogation; (3) the presence…”
People v. Miller, 2020 IL App (5th) 170404-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “5 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/5-401.5 (West 2016)), as he was only 17 years old at the time of the interrogation and did not have experience with law enforcement.”
In re D.B., 2022 IL App (3d) 210405-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 2× “5 of the Act (705 ILCS 405/5-401.5 (West 2018)), which provides for when statements of a minor may be used.”
In re D.L.H., 2015 IL 117341 (Ill. 2015). · cites it 3× “See 705 ILCS 405/5-401.5(a) (West 2012); In re Randall M.”
People v. Savino, 2022 IL App (2d) 210561-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “See 705 ILCS 405/5-401.5(a-5) (West 2018) (requiring certain warnings and setting forth a presumption of inadmissibility for the statement of a minor, “who at the time of the commission of the offense was under 18 years of age” in the absence of compliance with the juvenile…”
People v. Miller, 2024 IL App (5th) 230609-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). “See 705 ILCS 405/5-401.5(a- 5) (West 2018). Counsel also moved to quash defendant’s arrest on the basis that the police did not tell him the reason for his arrest in violation of section 103-1(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/103-1(b) (West 2018)).”
— 705 ILCS 405/5-401.5(a) — 6 cases
In re Jose A., 2018 IL App (2d) 180170 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). “5 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/5-401.5 (West 2016)). After a hearing, the circuit court of Lake County agreed with respondent and granted his motion to suppress statements.”
In re Jose A., 2018 IL App (2d) 180170 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “5 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/5-401.5 (West 2016)). After a hearing, the circuit court of Lake County agreed with respondent and granted his motion to suppress statements.”
In re D.L.H., 2015 IL 117341 (Ill. 2015). “See 705 ILCS 405/5-401.5(a) (West 2012); In re Randall M.”
In re D.L.H., 2015 IL 117341 (Ill. 2015). “See 705 ILCS 405/5-401.5(a) (West 2012); In re Randall M.”
People v. Travis, 2013 IL App (3d) 110170 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “” 705 ILCS 405/5-401.5(a) (West 2006). Factors relevant to the -10- inquiry into whether an individual was in custody include: “(1) the location, time, length, mood, and mode of the questioning; (2) the number of police officers present during the interrogation; (3) the presence…”
— 705 ILCS 405/5-401.5(b) — 2 cases
In re Jose A., 2018 IL App (2d) 180170 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). “5 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/5-401.5 (West 2016)). After a hearing, the circuit court of Lake County agreed with respondent and granted his motion to suppress statements.”
In re Jose A., 2018 IL App (2d) 180170 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “5 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/5-401.5 (West 2016)). After a hearing, the circuit court of Lake County agreed with respondent and granted his motion to suppress statements.”
— 705 ILCS 405/5-401.5(f) — 2 cases
In re Jose A., 2018 IL App (2d) 180170 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). “5 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/5-401.5 (West 2016)). After a hearing, the circuit court of Lake County agreed with respondent and granted his motion to suppress statements.”
In re Jose A., 2018 IL App (2d) 180170 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “5 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705 ILCS 405/5-401.5 (West 2016)). After a hearing, the circuit court of Lake County agreed with respondent and granted his motion to suppress statements.”
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.