ILCS » Chapter 735 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

735 ILCS 5/10-131 (2026)

Custody not to be changed

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(735 ILCS 5/10-131) (from Ch. 110, par. 10-131)
    Sec. 10-131. Custody not to be changed. Any person being committed to any prison, or in the custody of any sheriff or other officer or person for any criminal or supposed criminal matter, shall not be removed therefrom into any other prison or custody, unless it is done by habeas corpus order or some other legal process or when it is expressly allowed by law. If any person removes, or causes to be removed any prisoner so committed, except as above provided, he or she shall forfeit to the party affected a sum not exceeding $300.
(Source: P.A. 83-707.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1998–2016 · leading case: People v. Harris, 695 N.E.2d 447 (Ill. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Harris, 695 N.E.2d 447 (Ill. 1998). · cites it 2× “" 735 ILCS 5/10-131 (West 1994). The defendant, in his reply brief, also cites section 4 of the County Jail Act, which requires the warden of a county jail to "confine in such jail, until discharged by due course of law, all persons committed to such jail by any competent…”
People v. Carrera, 783 N.E.2d 15 (Ill. 2002). “2d 447 (1998), the defendant claimed that he was transferred from the Cook County jail to the custody of the Chicago police department in violation of the Illinois Habeas Corpus Act (735 ILCS 5/10-131 (West 1994)) and the County Jail Act (730 ILCS 125/4 (West 1994)).”
United States Ex Rel. Harris v. McCann, 558 F. Supp. 2d 826 (N.D. Ill. 2008). “See 735 ILCS 5/10-131; 730 ILCS 125/4. In addressing this argument, the Supreme Court of Illinois reasoned: The defendant next argues that the trial judge erred in denying a motion he made to suppress his inculpatory statements.”
People v. Harris, 2013 IL App (1st) 120498 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “In his direct appeal to our supreme court, defense counsel argued that defendant’s statements should have been suppressed because defendant was removed from Cook County jail and taken to Area 2 to be interviewed, arguing that this violated the Illinois Habeas Corpus Act (735…”
People v. Vanderark, 2015 IL App (2d) 130790 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “735 ILCS 5/10-131 (West 2012). The Act does not specifically confer any rights upon the inmate.”
People v. VanderArk, 2015 IL App (2d) 130790 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “735 ILCS 5/10-131 (West 2012). The Act does not specifically confer any rights upon the inmate.”
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.