ILCS » Chapter 725 · Act 150
Illinois Compiled Statutes

725 ILCS 150/3.5 (2026)

Preliminary review

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(725 ILCS 150/3.5)
    Sec. 3.5. Preliminary review.
    (a) Within 14 days of the seizure, the State shall seek a preliminary determination from the circuit court as to whether there is probable cause that the property may be subject to forfeiture.
    (b) The rules of evidence shall not apply to any proceeding conducted under this Section.
    (c) The court may conduct the review under subsection (a) of this Section simultaneously with a proceeding under Section 109-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 for a related criminal offense if a prosecution is commenced by information or complaint.
    (d) The court may accept a finding of probable cause at a preliminary hearing following the filing of an information or complaint charging a related criminal offense or following the return of indictment by a grand jury charging the related offense as sufficient evidence of probable cause as required under subsection (a) of this Section.
    (e) Upon making a finding of probable cause as required under this Section, the circuit court shall order the property subject to the provisions of the applicable forfeiture Act held until the conclusion of any forfeiture proceeding.
    For seizures of conveyances, within 28 days after a finding of probable cause under subsection (a) of this Section, the registered owner or other claimant may file a motion in writing supported by sworn affidavits claiming that denial of the use of the conveyance during the pendency of the forfeiture proceedings creates a substantial hardship and alleges facts showing that the hardship was not due to his or her culpable negligence. The court shall consider the following factors in determining whether a substantial hardship has been proven:
        (1) the nature of the claimed hardship;
        (2) the availability of public transportation or
    
other available means of transportation; and
        (3) any available alternatives to alleviate the
    
hardship other than the return of the seized conveyance.
    If the court determines that a substantial hardship has been proven, the court shall then balance the nature of the hardship against the State's interest in safeguarding the conveyance. If the court determines that the hardship outweighs the State's interest in safeguarding the conveyance, the court may temporarily release the conveyance to the registered owner or the registered owner's authorized designee, or both, until the conclusion of the forfeiture proceedings or for such shorter period as ordered by the court provided that the person to whom the conveyance is released provides proof of insurance and a valid driver's license and all State and local registrations for operation of the conveyance are current. The court shall place conditions on the conveyance limiting its use to the stated hardship and providing transportation for employment, religious purposes, medical needs, child care, and obtaining food, and restricting the conveyance's use to only those individuals authorized to use the conveyance by the registered owner. The use of the vehicle shall be further restricted to exclude all recreational and entertainment purposes. The court may order any additional restrictions it deems reasonable and just on its own motion or on motion of the People. The court shall revoke the order releasing the conveyance and order that the conveyance be reseized by law enforcement if the conditions of release are violated or if the conveyance is used in the commission of any offense identified in subsection (a) of Section 6-205 of the Illinois Vehicle Code.
    If the court orders the release of the conveyance during the pendency of the forfeiture proceedings, the court may order the registered owner or his or her authorized designee to post a cash security with the clerk of the court as ordered by the court. If cash security is ordered, the court shall consider the following factors in determining the amount of the cash security:
        (A) the full market value of the conveyance;
        (B) the nature of the hardship;
        (C) the extent and length of the usage of the
    
conveyance;
        (D) the ability of the owner or designee to pay; and
        (E) other conditions as the court deems necessary to
    
safeguard the conveyance.
    If the conveyance is released, the court shall order that the registered owner or his or her designee safeguard the conveyance, not remove the conveyance from the jurisdiction, not conceal, destroy, or otherwise dispose of the conveyance, not encumber the conveyance, and not diminish the value of the conveyance in any way. The court shall also make a determination of the full market value of the conveyance prior to it being released based on a source or sources defined in 50 Ill. Adm. Code 919.80(c)(2)(A) or 919.80(c)(2)(B).
     If the conveyance subject to forfeiture is released under this Section and is subsequently forfeited, the person to whom the conveyance was released shall return the conveyance to the law enforcement agency that seized the conveyance within 7 days from the date of the declaration of forfeiture or order of forfeiture. If the conveyance is not returned within 7 days, the cash security shall be forfeited in the same manner as the conveyance subject to forfeiture. If the cash security was less than the full market value, a judgment shall be entered against the parties to whom the conveyance was released and the registered owner, jointly and severally, for the difference between the full market value and the amount of the cash security. If the conveyance is returned in a condition other than the condition in which it was released, the cash security shall be returned to the surety who posted the security minus the amount of the diminished value, and that amount shall be forfeited in the same manner as the conveyance subject to forfeiture. Additionally, the court may enter an order allowing any law enforcement agency in the State of Illinois to seize the conveyance wherever it may be found in the State to satisfy the judgment if the cash security was less than the full market value of the conveyance.
(Source: P.A. 100-512, eff. 7-1-18; 100-699, eff. 8-3-18.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2014–2025 · leading case: People v. One Black 2016 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited, 2025 IL App (2d) 240314 (Ill. App. Ct. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. One Black 2016 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited, 2025 IL App (2d) 240314 (Ill. App. Ct. 2025). · cites it 4× “” 725 ILCS 150/3.5 (West 2020). It provides that, “[w]ithin 14 days of the seizure, the State shall seek a preliminary determination from the circuit court as to whether there is probable cause that the property may be subject to forfeiture.”
People v. Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($16,500) United States Currency, 2014 IL App (5th) 130075 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 3× “-2- ¶4 On April 19, 2012, the State filed a request for preliminary review to determine probable cause that the property may be subject to forfeiture pursuant to the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (720 ILCS 570/505 (West 2012)) and the Forfeiture Act (725 ILCS 150/3.5 (West…”
People v. Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($16,500) United States Currency, 2014 IL App (5th) 130075 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 2× “" 725 ILCS 150/3.5(a) (West 2012). "Upon making a finding of probable cause ***, the circuit court shall order the property subject to the provisions of the applicable forfeiture Act held until the conclusion of any forfeiture proceeding.”
People v. 2004 Mercury Mountaineer, 2019 IL App (3d) 180084 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 3× “5 of the Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act (Forfeiture Act) (725 ILCS 150/3.5 (West 2016)), asking the trial court to find that there was probable cause that the two vehicles may be subject to forfeiture.”
People v. $3,230.00 United States Currency, 2021 IL App (3d) 200434-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). · cites it 3× “5 of the Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act (Forfeiture Act) (725 ILCS 150/3.5 (West 2020)). ¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 On August 18, 2020, the State filed a petition for a preliminary determination hearing pursuant to section 3.”
People v. Taylor, 2021 IL App (4th) 190735-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). · cites it 2× “See 725 ILCS 150/3.5(a) (West 2014) (providing that, within 14 days after seizure of the property, the State “shall seek a preliminary determination from the circuit court as to whether there is probable cause that the property may be subject to forfeiture”).”
People v. $1,850.00 United States Currency, 2021 IL App (3d) 190679-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “” 725 ILCS 150/3.5(a) (West 2018). “To satisfy the probable cause standard under the Forfeiture Act, the State must allege and prove facts that show reasonable grounds to believe that a nexus exists between the property and illegal drug activity, which may be supported by less…”
People v. $13,740 in United States Currency, 2022 IL App (2d) 200573-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “As such, Rouleau argues that the hearing was not commenced within 14 days from the date of the instant seizure, as mandated by 725 ILCS 150/3.5(a) (West 2018). Instead, Rouleau points out that he had been retained “on a contingent basis” by Iberg, and “they were not given a…”
People v. $5786 United States Currency, 2024 IL App (2d) 230107-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). “” 725 ILCS 150/3.5(e) (West 2018); People ex rel.”
People v. Gleghorn, 2020 IL App (5th) 170233-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “725 ILCS 150/3.5 (West 2012). The question before the court regarding the State was merely whether probable cause existed that the property may be subject to forfeiture.”
People v. Residence at 1303 Roncevalles Avenue, 2025 IL App (4th) 250139-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2025). “See 725 ILCS 150/3.5 (West 2024) (providing for preliminary review within 14 days of seizure).”
— 725 ILCS 150/3.5(a) — 8 cases
People v. One Black 2016 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited, 2025 IL App (2d) 240314 (Ill. App. Ct. 2025). “” 725 ILCS 150/3.5 (West 2020). It provides that, “[w]ithin 14 days of the seizure, the State shall seek a preliminary determination from the circuit court as to whether there is probable cause that the property may be subject to forfeiture.”
People v. Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($16,500) United States Currency, 2014 IL App (5th) 130075 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “-2- ¶4 On April 19, 2012, the State filed a request for preliminary review to determine probable cause that the property may be subject to forfeiture pursuant to the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (720 ILCS 570/505 (West 2012)) and the Forfeiture Act (725 ILCS 150/3.5 (West…”
People v. Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($16,500) United States Currency, 2014 IL App (5th) 130075 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “" 725 ILCS 150/3.5(a) (West 2012). "Upon making a finding of probable cause ***, the circuit court shall order the property subject to the provisions of the applicable forfeiture Act held until the conclusion of any forfeiture proceeding.”
People v. 2004 Mercury Mountaineer, 2019 IL App (3d) 180084 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). “5 of the Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act (Forfeiture Act) (725 ILCS 150/3.5 (West 2016)), asking the trial court to find that there was probable cause that the two vehicles may be subject to forfeiture.”
People v. Taylor, 2021 IL App (4th) 190735-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “See 725 ILCS 150/3.5(a) (West 2014) (providing that, within 14 days after seizure of the property, the State “shall seek a preliminary determination from the circuit court as to whether there is probable cause that the property may be subject to forfeiture”).”
— 725 ILCS 150/3.5(e) — 6 cases
People v. One Black 2016 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited, 2025 IL App (2d) 240314 (Ill. App. Ct. 2025). “” 725 ILCS 150/3.5 (West 2020). It provides that, “[w]ithin 14 days of the seizure, the State shall seek a preliminary determination from the circuit court as to whether there is probable cause that the property may be subject to forfeiture.”
People v. Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($16,500) United States Currency, 2014 IL App (5th) 130075 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “-2- ¶4 On April 19, 2012, the State filed a request for preliminary review to determine probable cause that the property may be subject to forfeiture pursuant to the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (720 ILCS 570/505 (West 2012)) and the Forfeiture Act (725 ILCS 150/3.5 (West…”
People v. Sixteen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($16,500) United States Currency, 2014 IL App (5th) 130075 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “" 725 ILCS 150/3.5(a) (West 2012). "Upon making a finding of probable cause ***, the circuit court shall order the property subject to the provisions of the applicable forfeiture Act held until the conclusion of any forfeiture proceeding.”
People v. 2004 Mercury Mountaineer, 2019 IL App (3d) 180084 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). “5 of the Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act (Forfeiture Act) (725 ILCS 150/3.5 (West 2016)), asking the trial court to find that there was probable cause that the two vehicles may be subject to forfeiture.”
People v. $5786 United States Currency, 2024 IL App (2d) 230107-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). “” 725 ILCS 150/3.5(e) (West 2018); People ex rel.”
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.