See Hardin v. Sangamon Cty., 71 Ill. App. 103, 114 (3d Dist. 1897) ("The law does not recognize any estate or interest of the sheriff, possessory or other, in the court house or jail."); Wade v. Pike Cty., 104 Ill. App. 2d 426, 429 (4th Dist. 1969) ("Custody and care' is not the same as providing 'proper rooms and offices'. 'Custody and care' gives to the Sheriff only the right to possess the court house in a custodial capacity.

In Moy, the court held that because there is no employment relationship between the sheriff and the county since the sheriff is an elected official, the county could not be held vicariously liable for the custodial duties of the sheriff even though the county owns the property upon which the sheriff performs his custodial duties. See Moy, 244 Ill. App.3d at 1038-39 (sheriff is independent official and as there is no agency relationship between county and sheriff, county could not be held liable for custodial incident at county jail); accord Biggerstaff v. Moran, 284 Ill. App.3d 196, 199 (1996) (county "has no authority to control the sheriff's office");Wade v. County of Pike, 104 Ill. App.2d 426, 429 (1969) ("custody and care" given to sheriff under section 3-6017 gives him custodial capacity, not the county). Plaintiff relies heavily on County of DeKalb v. Smith, 213 Ill. App.3d 775 (1991), for the proposition that because defendant is not required under statute to provide a parking garage for those using the courthouse and jail, the garage cannot be considered a necessary adjunct to the courthouse and jail and, thus, the Sheriff's custodial duties cannot extend to the garage.

In such litigation it was determined that the county board controlled the assignment of office space in the court house. ( Wade v. County of Pike, 104 Ill. App.2d 426, 244 N.E.2d 209.) In the action for declaratory judgment the then State's Attorney disqualified himself because of conflict of interest and the county board retained private counsel.