ILCS » Chapter 765 · Act 1030
Illinois Compiled Statutes

765 ILCS 1030/2 (2026)

(a) Such property believed to be abandoned, lost or stolen or otherwise illegally possessed shall be retained in custody by the sheriff, chief of police or other principal official of the law enforcement agency, which shall make reasonable inquiry and efforts to identify and notify the owner or other person entitled to possession thereof, and shall return the property after such person provides reasonable and satisfactory proof of his ownership or right to possession and reimburses the agency for all reasonable expenses of such custody

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(765 ILCS 1030/2) (from Ch. 141, par. 142)
    Sec. 2. (a) Such property believed to be abandoned, lost or stolen or otherwise illegally possessed shall be retained in custody by the sheriff, chief of police or other principal official of the law enforcement agency, which shall make reasonable inquiry and efforts to identify and notify the owner or other person entitled to possession thereof, and shall return the property after such person provides reasonable and satisfactory proof of his ownership or right to possession and reimburses the agency for all reasonable expenses of such custody.
    (b) Weapons that have been confiscated as a result of having been abandoned or illegally possessed may be transferred to the Illinois State Police for use by the crime laboratory system, for training purposes, or for any other application as deemed appropriate by the Department, if no legitimate claim is made for the confiscated weapon within 6 months of the date of confiscation, or within 6 months of final court disposition if such confiscated weapon was used for evidentiary purposes.
(Source: P.A. 102-538, eff. 8-20-21.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2021 · leading case: People v. Patterson, 721 N.E.2d 797 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Patterson, 721 N.E.2d 797 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “” 765 ILCS 1030/2(a) (West 1998). Here, the plain meaning of the statute indicates that property illegally possessed may be retained by the police department, and the property will be returned to an individual who reasonably and satisfactorily establishes ownership of or the…”
People v. Hinojosa, 2021 IL App (1st) 200043-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “The motion was brought pursuant to sections 5/108 and 5/114-12 of the Criminal Code (725 ILCS 5/108; 5/114-12 (West 2016)) and section 2(b) of the Law Enforcement Disposition of Property Act (765 ILCS 1030/2(b) (West 2016)). In his motion, the defendant initially asserted that…”
People v. Patterson (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “]" 765 ILCS 1030/2(a) (West 1998). Here, the plain meaning of the statute indicates that property illegally possessed may be retained by the police department, and the property will be returned to an individual who reasonably and satisfactorily establishes ownership of or the…”
— 765 ILCS 1030/2(a) — 2 cases
People v. Patterson, 721 N.E.2d 797 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “” 765 ILCS 1030/2(a) (West 1998). Here, the plain meaning of the statute indicates that property illegally possessed may be retained by the police department, and the property will be returned to an individual who reasonably and satisfactorily establishes ownership of or the…”
People v. Patterson (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “]" 765 ILCS 1030/2(a) (West 1998). Here, the plain meaning of the statute indicates that property illegally possessed may be retained by the police department, and the property will be returned to an individual who reasonably and satisfactorily establishes ownership of or the…”
— 765 ILCS 1030/2(b) — 1 case
People v. Hinojosa, 2021 IL App (1st) 200043-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “The motion was brought pursuant to sections 5/108 and 5/114-12 of the Criminal Code (725 ILCS 5/108; 5/114-12 (West 2016)) and section 2(b) of the Law Enforcement Disposition of Property Act (765 ILCS 1030/2(b) (West 2016)). In his motion, the defendant initially asserted that…”
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.