Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
General Court of Claims
Download PDF

Davip Lawrence v. State of Illinois

32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 736 Illinois Court of Claims Filed January 10, 1979 No. 77-CC-2108
Disposition: (No. 77-CC-2108-Claimant awarded $35.00.) Award: $35.00
Cite as: Davip Lawrence v. State of Illinois, 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 736 (1979)
General Court of Claims 32 awarded 1970s Davip Lawrence v. State of Illinois 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 736 January 10, 1979 (No. 77-CC-2108-Claimant awarded $35.00.) /opinions/v32-p0843-1/

Davip LAWRENCE, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Headnotes

  1. PRISONERS AND INMATES-Bailment. State has a duty to exercise reasonable care to safeguard and return an inmate’s property when it takes actual physical possession of such property during the course of the transfer of an inmate between penal institutions.
  2. SAME-Contraband.

Claimant, an inmate of an Illinois State Penitentiary at Pontiac, Illinois, has brought this action to recover the value of certain items of his personal property which he alleges were legally confiscated during a shakedown on April 27, 1977. Claimant alleges that authorities at the Pontiac Correctional Center illegally confiscated two stereo speakers and a pair of tennis shoes. Claimant values the speakers at $60.00, and the tennis shoes at $35.00. Claimant also seeks $95.00 in damages for replacement of a damaged phonograph.

The Court has carefully considered the transcript of evidence taken before a Commissioner of this Court. The evidence establishes that the speakers in question were taken from a fellow resident, and not from Claimant himself. It was a prison rule that personal items may not be loaned to fellow prisoners, or they become subject to confiscation as contraband. The prisoner to whom Claimant loaned the speakers had no permit for them, and they were properly confiscated.

The tennis shoes taken from Claimant’s cell were not contraband, and should have been returned to him after the shakedown.

The phonograph in question is in the possession of the Claimant, but he seeks damages for its repair. The record is unclear as to who damaged the phonograph, but it does appear that it was not damaged by Claimant, and that the damage occurred during the shakedown.

In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that Claimant is entitled to reimbursement for his loss of his tennis shoes. The Court finds he is not entitled to reimbursement for damage to his phonograph, or for confiscation of his speakers.

It is therefore [*738] It is therefore ordered that Claimant be, and hereby is, awarded the sum of $35.00.

Official volume 32 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion for: Fiscal Year 1978 – July 1, 1977–June 30, 1978; Fiscal Year 1979 – July 1, 1978 – June 30, 1979)  ·  All opinions in this volume  ·  Also on CourtListener

This text is OCR/derived from the official volume and may contain errors. The PDF is authoritative. Boundary pages shared with the adjacent opinion are reproduced whole, so the page image may show a neighbor's opening or closing lines; the transcript text itself is opinion-scoped. See About & sources.