ILCS » Chapter 725 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

725 ILCS 5/108-8 (2026)

Use of force in execution of search warrant

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(725 ILCS 5/108-8) (from Ch. 38, par. 108-8)
    Sec. 108-8. Use of force in execution of search warrant.
    (a) All necessary and reasonable force may be used to effect an entry into any building or property or part thereof to execute a search warrant.
    (b) The court issuing a warrant may authorize the officer executing the warrant to make entry without first knocking and announcing his or her office if it finds, based upon a showing of specific facts, the existence of the following exigent circumstances:
        (1) That the officer reasonably believes that if
    
notice were given a weapon would be used:
            (i) against the officer executing the search
        
warrant; or
            (ii) against another person.
        (2) That if notice were given there is an imminent
    
"danger" that evidence will be destroyed.
    (c) Prior to the issuing of a warrant under subsection (b), the officer must attest that:
        (1) prior to entering the location described in the
    
search warrant, a supervising officer will ensure that each participating member is assigned a body worn camera and is following policies and procedures in accordance with Section 10-20 of the Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act; provided that the law enforcement agency has implemented body worn camera in accordance with Section 10-15 of the Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act. If a law enforcement agency or each participating member of a multi-jurisdictional team has not implemented a body camera in accordance with Section 10-15 of the Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act, the officer must attest that the interaction authorized by the warrant is otherwise recorded;
        (2) The supervising officer verified the subject
    
address listed on the warrant for accuracy and planned for children or other vulnerable people on-site; and
        (3) if an officer becomes aware the search warrant
    
was executed at an address, unit, or apartment different from the location listed on the search warrant, that member will immediately notify a supervisor who will ensure an internal investigation or formal inquiry ensues.
(Source: P.A. 101-652, eff. 7-1-21; 102-28, eff. 6-25-21.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1994–2016 · leading case: People v. Krueger, 675 N.E.2d 604 (Ill. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Krueger, 675 N.E.2d 604 (Ill. 1996). · cites it 6× “The judge found that an unannounced entry was permitted under the no-knock statute (725 ILCS 5/108-8(b) (West 1994)) because the defendant was known to keep a firearm there.”
State v. Attaway, 870 P.2d 103 (N.M. 1994). · cites it 2× “Code § 62-1A-5 (1992); Wyo.Stat. § 7-7-104 (1987); see also Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure § SS 220.”
United States v. Geary S. Stowe, 100 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 1996). · cites it 5× “Having concluded that there was no violation of Stowe's Fourth Amendment rights in this case, I consider the majority's decision to embark upon a discussion of the constitutionality of the Illinois "no-knock" statute, 725 ILCS 5/108-8, to be particularly ill-advised.”
People v. Wright, 697 N.E.2d 693 (Ill. 1998). · cites it 3× “Justice NICKELS delivered the opinion of the court: We here again address the constitutionality of a section of the "no-knock" statute (725 ILCS 5/108-8(b) (West 1994)). In People v.”
People v. LeFlore, 2015 IL 116799 (Ill. 2015). · cites it 2× “¶ 89 In Krueger, police officers executed a search warrant issued pursuant to a “no-knock” statute (725 ILCS 5/108-8(b) (West 1994)), which this court held was unconstitutional under both the fourth amendment and article I, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970.”
People v. Sypien, 763 N.E.2d 264 (Ill. 2001). “725 ILCS 5/108-8(b) (West 1998). In the trial court, defendant maintained that Public Act 90-456 violated the single subject rule because the amendment to the Juvenile Court Act in section 10 of Public Act 90-456, unlike the other three amendments, does not relate to criminal…”
People v. Carlson, 708 N.E.2d 372 (Ill. 1999). “After declaring unconstitutional section 108-8(b)(2) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/108-8(b)(2) (West 1994) (allowing police to make "no-knock" entries under certain circumstances when executing a search warrant)), we held that evidence seized by virtue of an unconstitutional statute…”
People v. Holmes, 2015 IL App (1st) 141256 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “at 64 (quoting 725 ILCS 5/108-8(b)(2) (West 1994)). After concluding the statute violated the defendant’s constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the Krueger court turned to the State’s argument that the good-faith exception recognized in Krull…”
People v. Glorioso, 924 N.E.2d 1153 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 3× “The court initially rejected defendant's contention that the police *1155 executed the search unreasonably or "outrageously" by shooting and fatally wounding Palka's dog.”
United States v. James E. Gambrell, 178 F.3d 927 (7th Cir. 1999). “” 725 ILCS 5/108-8(b)(l). Eckerty and company battered down the apartment’s door without first announcing their presence (which is the very thing a no-knock warrant allowed them to do), found drugs, drug paraphernalia, and guns as the informant told them they would, and arrested…”
People v. LeFlore, 2015 IL 116799 (Ill. 2015). “¶ 89 In Krueger, police officers executed a search warrant issued pursuant to a “no-knock” statute (725 ILCS 5/108-8(b) (West 1994)), which this court held was unconstitutional under both the fourth amendment and article I, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970.”
People v. Carter, 2016 IL App (3d) 140958 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “3d 991, 993 (1978); see also 725 ILCS 5/108-8(a) (West 2014). ¶ 26 In this case, testimony shows that at the time Murray shared the information about the gun to Slavish, all of the police had exited the house and the execution of the search warrant had 8 been completed.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— 725 ILCS 5/108-8(a) — 3 cases
People v. Glorioso, 924 N.E.2d 1153 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “The court initially rejected defendant's contention that the police *1155 executed the search unreasonably or "outrageously" by shooting and fatally wounding Palka's dog.”
People v. Carter, 2016 IL App (3d) 140958 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “3d 991, 993 (1978); see also 725 ILCS 5/108-8(a) (West 2014). ¶ 26 In this case, testimony shows that at the time Murray shared the information about the gun to Slavish, all of the police had exited the house and the execution of the search warrant had 8 been completed.”
People v. Carter, 2016 IL App (3d) 140958 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016).
— 725 ILCS 5/108-8(b) — 6 cases
People v. Krueger, 675 N.E.2d 604 (Ill. 1996). “The judge found that an unannounced entry was permitted under the no-knock statute (725 ILCS 5/108-8(b) (West 1994)) because the defendant was known to keep a firearm there.”
United States v. Geary S. Stowe, 100 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 1996). “Having concluded that there was no violation of Stowe's Fourth Amendment rights in this case, I consider the majority's decision to embark upon a discussion of the constitutionality of the Illinois "no-knock" statute, 725 ILCS 5/108-8, to be particularly ill-advised.”
People v. Sypien, 763 N.E.2d 264 (Ill. 2001). “725 ILCS 5/108-8(b) (West 1998). In the trial court, defendant maintained that Public Act 90-456 violated the single subject rule because the amendment to the Juvenile Court Act in section 10 of Public Act 90-456, unlike the other three amendments, does not relate to criminal…”
People v. LeFlore, 2015 IL 116799 (Ill. 2015). “¶ 89 In Krueger, police officers executed a search warrant issued pursuant to a “no-knock” statute (725 ILCS 5/108-8(b) (West 1994)), which this court held was unconstitutional under both the fourth amendment and article I, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970.”
People v. Wright, 697 N.E.2d 693 (Ill. 1998). “Justice NICKELS delivered the opinion of the court: We here again address the constitutionality of a section of the "no-knock" statute (725 ILCS 5/108-8(b) (West 1994)). In People v.”
— 725 ILCS 5/108-8(b)(1) — 1 case
People v. Wright, 697 N.E.2d 693 (Ill. 1998). “Justice NICKELS delivered the opinion of the court: We here again address the constitutionality of a section of the "no-knock" statute (725 ILCS 5/108-8(b) (West 1994)). In People v.”
— 725 ILCS 5/108-8(b)(2) — 6 cases
People v. Krueger, 675 N.E.2d 604 (Ill. 1996). “The judge found that an unannounced entry was permitted under the no-knock statute (725 ILCS 5/108-8(b) (West 1994)) because the defendant was known to keep a firearm there.”
People v. Carlson, 708 N.E.2d 372 (Ill. 1999). “After declaring unconstitutional section 108-8(b)(2) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/108-8(b)(2) (West 1994) (allowing police to make "no-knock" entries under certain circumstances when executing a search warrant)), we held that evidence seized by virtue of an unconstitutional statute…”
People v. Holmes, 2015 IL App (1st) 141256 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “at 64 (quoting 725 ILCS 5/108-8(b)(2) (West 1994)). After concluding the statute violated the defendant’s constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the Krueger court turned to the State’s argument that the good-faith exception recognized in Krull…”
People v. LeFlore, 2015 IL 116799 (Ill. 2015). “¶ 89 In Krueger, police officers executed a search warrant issued pursuant to a “no-knock” statute (725 ILCS 5/108-8(b) (West 1994)), which this court held was unconstitutional under both the fourth amendment and article I, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970.”
People v. Glorioso, 924 N.E.2d 1153 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “The court initially rejected defendant's contention that the police *1155 executed the search unreasonably or "outrageously" by shooting and fatally wounding Palka's dog.”
— 725 ILCS 5/108-8(b)(l) — 1 case
United States v. James E. Gambrell, 178 F.3d 927 (7th Cir. 1999). “” 725 ILCS 5/108-8(b)(l). Eckerty and company battered down the apartment’s door without first announcing their presence (which is the very thing a no-knock warrant allowed them to do), found drugs, drug paraphernalia, and guns as the informant told them they would, and arrested…”
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.