ILCS » Chapter 720 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

720 ILCS 5/7-5.5 (2026)

Prohibited use of force by a peace officer

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(720 ILCS 5/7-5.5)
    Sec. 7-5.5. Prohibited use of force by a peace officer.
    (a) A peace officer, or any other person acting under the color of law, shall not use a chokehold or restraint above the shoulders with risk of asphyxiation in the performance of his or her duties, unless deadly force is justified under this Article.
    (b) A peace officer, or any other person acting under the color of law, shall not use a chokehold or restraint above the shoulders with risk of asphyxiation, or any lesser contact with the throat or neck area of another, in order to prevent the destruction of evidence by ingestion.
    (c) As used in this Section, "chokehold" means applying any direct pressure to the throat, windpipe, or airway of another. "Chokehold" does not include any holding involving contact with the neck that is not intended to reduce the intake of air such as a headlock where the only pressure applied is to the head.
    (d) As used in this Section, "restraint above the shoulders with risk of positional asphyxiation" means a use of a technique used to restrain a person above the shoulders, including the neck or head, in a position which interferes with the person's ability to breathe after the person no longer poses a threat to the officer or any other person.
    (e) A peace officer, or any other person acting under the color of law, shall not:
        (i) use force as punishment or retaliation;
        (ii) discharge kinetic impact projectiles and all
    
other non-lethal or less-lethal projectiles in a manner that targets the head, neck, groin, anterior pelvis, or back;
        (iii) discharge conducted electrical weapons in a
    
manner that targets the head, chest, neck, groin, or anterior pelvis;
        (iv) discharge firearms or kinetic impact
    
projectiles indiscriminately into a crowd;
        (v) use chemical agents or irritants for crowd
    
control, including pepper spray and tear gas, prior to issuing an order to disperse in a sufficient manner to allow for the order to be heard and repeated if necessary, followed by sufficient time and space to allow compliance with the order unless providing such time and space would unduly place an officer or another person at risk of death or great bodily harm; or
        (vi) use chemical agents or irritants, including
    
pepper spray and tear gas, prior to issuing an order in a sufficient manner to ensure the order is heard, and repeated if necessary, to allow compliance with the order unless providing such time and space would unduly place an officer or another person at risk of death or great bodily harm.
(Source: P.A. 101-652, eff. 7-1-21; 102-28, eff. 6-25-21; 102-687, eff. 12-17-21.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2020–2023 · leading case: People v. Augusta, 2019 IL App (3d) 170309 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Augusta, 2019 IL App (3d) 170309 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). · cites it 3× “1 720 ILCS 5/7-5.5 (West 2016). In contrast to this broad prohibition, section 7-5.”
Chalmers v. The City of Chicago (N.D. Ill. 2023). “”); 720 ILCS 5/7-5.5(a), (c) (“A peace officer … shall not use a chokehold … unless deadly force is justified under this Article … chokehold means applying direct pressure to the throat, windpipe, or airway of another.”
— 720 ILCS 5/7-5.5(a) — 1 case
Chalmers v. The City of Chicago (N.D. Ill. 2023). “”); 720 ILCS 5/7-5.5(a), (c) (“A peace officer … shall not use a chokehold … unless deadly force is justified under this Article … chokehold means applying direct pressure to the throat, windpipe, or airway of another.”
— 720 ILCS 5/7-5.5(b) — 1 case
People v. Augusta, 2019 IL App (3d) 170309 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “1 720 ILCS 5/7-5.5 (West 2016). In contrast to this broad prohibition, section 7-5.”
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.