Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: It’s just a bill
Next Post: Lunchtime roundup
Posted in:
* Senate Democrats’ backgrounder…
Pretrial Fairness Act – 5 key points
Transition to new system
Q: What happens to those currently detained on Jan. 1?
A: Those currently detained can request to have the new system applied to their situation. To make this manageable for courts, there will be a tiered system for granting hearings on these requests. These hearings are to determine whether they should be released.
• Lowest level offenses (example: petty shoplifting) hearings must be within 7 days of request.
• Those detained but considered flight risks would get hearings within 60 days.
• Those considered to be potential threats to safety get hearings within 90 days.This system is designed to give the court extended time to examine requests involving more serious cases.
Trespassing
Q: Can police detain or arrest someone from trespassing?A: Yes. The Pretrial Fairness Act always allowed this. This amendment clarifies that a police officer can arrest someone for trespassing if …
• The person poses a threat to the community or any person;
• *Arrest is necessary because criminal activity persists after issuance of the citation; or
• The accused has an obvious medical or mental health issue that poses a risk to their safety.If the above conditions are not present, a citation would be issued.
*Note: This provision was added to clarify the intent of the initial Pretrial Fairness Act.Dangerousness standard
Makes consistent throughout the entire act what a prosecutor must show to detain an individual on grounds the individual is a threat. This “dangerousness standard” is: the person poses a real and present threat to any person or persons or the community, based on the specific, explainable facts of the case.
Detention net
Adds non-probationable felonies, forcible felonies, hate crimes, attempts of crimes that are otherwise detainable, and others to the list of crimes that qualify someone for detention. The underlying goal for all of this is that dangerous people should be detained while those who merely lack resources and do not pose a threat should not.
Judicial arrest warrants
Clarifies that judges can issue arrest warrants or summons when someone misses their court date. They currently lack this flexibility.
A summons is an official notice to appear in court.
An arrest warrant tells police to arrest and detain.
Also clarifies what constitutes “willful flight” to stress that the intent is to detain those who are actively evading prosecution, not someone who failed to appear in court because, for example, they missed their bus.
Discuss.
*** UPDATE 1 *** List of groups registered as neutral on the bill…
FOP and the ACLU. Not bad.
No groups have registered in opposition as of this writing. The Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation has registered as a proponent.
…Adding… Good point…
Illinois Senate Republicans raise objections to the revised SAFE-T Act leaving non-violent burglary out of the list of detainable offenses. The bill allows judges to detain suspects accused of home burglary or "burglary where there is use of force against another person." pic.twitter.com/86dM7lmQbH
— Mark Maxwell (@MarkMaxwellTV) December 1, 2022
*** UPDATE 2 *** Senate President Harmon just said there was a “technology issue” that kept members from voting. Could be a redo…
*** UPDATE 3 *** Harmon moved to reconsider the vote. Motion passed. They’re checking the equipment now.
*** UPDATE 4 *** New roll call…
*** UPDATE 5 *** Press release…
Senate President Don Harmon (D-Oak Park) issued the following statement today after the Senate passed legislation clarifying certain portions of the Pretrial Fairness Act:
“Our goal when we passed the Pretrial Fairness Act nearly two years ago was to overhaul a broken criminal justice system, one in which dangerous people could buy their way out of jail while people accused of non-violent crimes remain detained as they await their day in court simply because they lack resources.
“The measure we passed today preserves that goal while providing clarifications to eliminate any misunderstandings and ensure the implementation of this groundbreaking reform is smooth.”
*HB1095 is now pending before the Illinois House.
*** UPDATE 6 *** Since this topic was repeatedly mentioned during the debate…
Re-upping this because of another press conference: The Pretrial Fairness Act makes it *harder* for defense attorneys to call victims to the witness stand in detention hearings. #twill https://t.co/cYxf1Fc51r
— Madeleine Behr (@madeleinebehr) April 6, 2022
…Adding… Very close…
Dem Reps. Fred Crespo+Jawaharial (Omar) Williams were the two last-minute aye votes that pushed the bill to the 71-vote threshold required for an immediate effective date. Was a long open roll call (not the longest I’ve ever seen). Dem Reps. Curtis Tarver+Sam Yingling didn’t vote https://t.co/Zq2SEEcZjC
— Hannah Meisel (@hannahmeisel) December 1, 2022
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 10:31 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: It’s just a bill
Next Post: Lunchtime roundup
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Having just re-read the bill at Rich’s recommendation. I can attest to those changes as accurate. smile.
I also like the current language that even when Class A Misdemeanors are charged, for which pre-trail release may be denied, the language is very clear that in these cases also, the prosecution must demonstrate that the accused represents an clear and actual threat if released.
Class A misdemeanors are for me, a hit or miss. For example, it appears possession of more than 30 grams of weed counts as a potential class A misdemeanor (unless that has changed). In addition, it is conceivable that LEO could simply find a Class A misdemeanor charge that fits in some cases.
But the provision that a real and present treat must be proven to exist seems a justifiable compromise in such cases (Class A misdemeanor offenses).
Thanks again Rich, for reminding me to do my homework first.
Comment by H-W Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 10:43 am
So after all of our handwringing over the past few years the judges will now have more unreviewable discretion to detain defendants for more offenses than they could before this all started? The activists got a bunch of meaningless goobledegook language to take credit for, and… as usual… the brunt of everything falls on the guys with their names “under the v”. Sounds about right to me. Par for the course. Carry on.
Comment by Huh? Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 11:04 am
So what exactly are some House Ds…apparently… objecting to? that it is clear that judges have discretion when facts are presented? this piece is great for the clarity that should have existed for a while now. the changes too.
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 11:10 am
@Huh?
If you read the amended version being considered, specifically Sec. 110-6.1 (starting on p. 219), you will see that the offenses for which pre-trial detainment may be required are pretty much serious offenses. And in that section, it is also being amended to require that the prosecutor provide clear evidence that the person is a threat if released.
https://ilga.gov/legislation/102/HB/10200HB1095sam001.htm
While I had similar concerns, I am satisfied with the new language. I do not think it will lead to more discretion, but in fact less as originally intended.
Comment by H-W Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 11:32 am
The other option is to raise taxes to build more jails.
Comment by Jerry Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 12:38 pm
The “trespassing” kerfluffle reminded me of …
https://capitolfax.com/2018/05/10/probable-cause-on-a-leash/
Comment by Anyone Remember Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 12:47 pm
I hoped eliminating Qualified Immunity would have resurfaced by now
Comment by Kayak Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 12:48 pm
The whole thing sounds reasonable. The crux of the issue, though, is deciding who exactly is considered a dangerous person under the Act? How specifically can it be determined? The standard given is very general and could lead to either over permissiveness or over strictness, depending on the leanings of the judge. Also lots of room for time consuming appeals.
Comment by Captain Obvious Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 12:52 pm
@Kayak
Let’s talk again in the spring. If ever there was a time to do that, it would be then.
Comment by DuPage Dad Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 1:29 pm
@captain obvious isn’t a “dangerous person” determined by prior convictions?
Comment by Mznmzm Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 2:18 pm
I was hoping DeWitte stayed at NV.
Comment by Proud Sucker Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 2:19 pm
The opposition whining was almost too much to listen to during floor debate. Bills get improved with subsequent bills. That’s how it should be.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 2:20 pm
=== I hoped eliminating Qualified Immunity would have resurfaced by now ===
If you truly want to get law enforcement on board with the proposed revisions, that is not the way to do it.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 2:40 pm
I wish the doppelganger at 11:04 would get a different handle. I’ve had this handle since the blago days.
I know I didn’t make that comment, I was on a work conference call at that time.
Comment by Huh? Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 3:31 pm
Did Hastings recuse himself from voting? /s
Comment by Vote Quimby Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 4:11 pm
Its been a while since I watched the House. McCombie had her facts wrong, Mazzochi was her usual toned down self (ahem) and Durkin lost his cool and was disrespectful, cutting off the sponsor several times. No wonder you people are a super duper minority. Yikes.
Comment by low level Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 6:21 pm