Illinois Compiled Statutes
725 ILCS 150/5 (2026)
Notice to State's Attorney
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(725 ILCS 150/5)
(from Ch. 56 1/2, par. 1675)
Sec. 5. Notice to State's Attorney. The law enforcement agency
seizing property for forfeiture under the Illinois Controlled
Substances Act, the Cannabis Control Act, or the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act, or the Illinois Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act shall, as soon as practicable but not later than 28 days after the seizure, notify the State's Attorney for the county in
which an act or omission giving rise to the seizure occurred or in which
the property was seized of the seizure of the property and the facts and
circumstances giving rise to the seizure and shall provide the State's
Attorney with the inventory of the property and its estimated value. Said notice shall be by the delivery of Form 4-64.
(Source: P.A. 102-499, eff. 1-1-22.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2021 · leading case: People v. Four Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars, 2011 IL App (4th) 100528 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011).
People v. Four Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars, 2011 IL App (4th) 100528 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “Woodland filed a motion to dismiss the forfeiture action because the State had exceeded the cumulative 97-day deadline in sections 5 and 6(A) of the Act (725 ILCS 150/5, 6(A) (West 2006)). The trial court granted his motion, and the State appeals.”
People v. $1,124,905 U.S. Currency, 685 N.E.2d 1370 (Ill. 1997). “Pursuant to the Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act (725 ILCS 150/5 (West 1994)), the police notified the State's Attorney for McLean County of the seizure of the property.”
People v. One Thousand Two Hundred Forty Dollars ($1,240), 396 Ill. App. 3d 665 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “In his motion, Deviner argued the in rem proceeding against him was untimely pursuant to sections 5 and 6(A) (725 ILCS 150/5, 6(A) (West 2006)). In response, the State filed a motion to dismiss asserting Deviner’s claim was “insufficient as a matter of law” because it failed to…”
People v. One Thousand Two Hundred Forty Dollars ($1,240) United States Currency (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “In his motion, Deviner argued the in rem proceeding against him was untimely pursuant to sections 5 and 6(A) (725 ILCS 150/5, 6(A) (West 2006)). In response, the State filed a motion to dismiss asserting Deviner's claim was "insufficient as a matter of law" because it failed to…”
People v. ($1,240) Us Currency, 918 N.E.2d 1072 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “In his motion, Deviner argued the in rem proceeding against him was untimely pursuant to sections 5 and 6(A) (725 ILCS 150/5, 6(A) (West 2006)). In response, the State filed a motion to dismiss asserting Deviner's claim was "insufficient as a matter of law" because it failed to…”
People v. Taylor, 2021 IL App (4th) 190735-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “Four Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars, 2011 IL App (4th) 100528, ¶ 35 (holding that “the cumulative 97-day deadline in sections 5 and 6(A) of the [Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure] Act [(725 ILCS 150/5, 6(A) (West 2006))] is a mandatory procedure, the disregard of which…”
People v. $1,124,905 (Ill. 1997). “Pursuant to the Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act (725 ILCS 150/5 (West 1994)), the police notified the State's Attorney for McLean County of the seizure of the property.”
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.
|