Capitol - Your Illinois News Radar » SAFE-T Act amendment pops
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      Mobile Version     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
SAFE-T Act amendment pops

Wednesday, Nov 30, 2022 - Posted by Rich Miller

* HB1095, Senate Amendment 1.

…Adding… The new trespassing language

Law enforcement shall issue a citation in lieu of custodial arrest, upon proper identification, for those accused of any offense that is not a felony or Class A misdemeanor unless (i) a law enforcement officer reasonably believes the accused poses a threat to the community or any person, (ii) a custodial arrest is necessary because the criminal activity persists after the issuance of a citation traffic and Class B and C criminal misdemeanor offenses, or of petty and business offenses, who pose no obvious threat to the community or any person, or (iii) the accused has an who have no obvious medical or mental health issue issues that poses pose a risk to the accused’s their own safety. Nothing in this Section requires arrest in the case of Class A misdemeanor and felony offenses, or otherwise limits existing law enforcement discretion to decline to effect a custodial arrest Those released on citation shall be scheduled into court within 21 days.

Seems reasonable.

…Adding… New language on what happens to people in jail on January 1. The so-called “Purge Law”

On or after January 1, 2023, any person, not subject to subsection (b), who remains in pretrial detention and is eligible for detention under Section 110-6.1 shall be entitled to a hearing according to the following schedule:

(1) For persons charged with offenses under paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (a) of Section 110-6.1, the hearing shall be held within 90 days of the person’s motion for reconsideration of pretrial release conditions.

(2) For persons charged with offenses under paragraph(8) of subsection (a) of Section 110-6.1, the hearing shall be held within 60 days of the person’s motion for econsideration of pretrial release conditions.

(3) For persons charged with all other offenses not listed in subsection (a) of Section 110-6.1, the hearing shall be held within 7 days of the person’s motion for reconsideration of pretrial release conditions.

That gives the state’s attorneys time to prepare. Section 110-6.1 is here.

…Adding… Cleanup of the constitutional requirement for bail

Pretrial release. “Pretrial release” has the meaning ascribed to bail in Section 9 of Article I of the Illinois Constitution where the sureties provided are nonmonetary in nature that is non-monetary.

* More

(b) At all pretrial hearings, the prosecution shall have the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that any condition of release is necessary. Additional conditions of release, including those highlighted above, shall be set only when it is determined that they are necessary to assure the defendant’s appearance in court, assure the defendant does not commit any criminal offense, and complies with all conditions of pretrial release.

(c) When it is alleged that pretrial release should be denied to a person upon the grounds that the person presents a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community, based on the specific articulable facts of the case, the burden of proof of such allegations shall be upon the State Detention only shall be imposed when it is determined that the defendant poses a specific, real and present threat to a person, or has a high likelihood of willful flight. If the court deems that the defendant is to be released on personal recognizance, the court may require that a written admonishment be signed by the defendant requiring that he or she must comply with the provisions of Section 110-12 of this Code regarding any change in his or her address. The defendant may be released on his or her own recognizance upon signature.The defendant’s address shall at all times remain a matter of public record with the clerk of the court. A failure to appear as required by such recognizance shall constitute an offense subject to the penalty provided in Section 32-10 of the Criminal Code of 2012 for violation of the conditions of pretrial release.


  1. - BCOSEC - Wednesday, Nov 30, 22 @ 7:53 am:

    Read through this fast, major amendment, with many, many things to unpack.

  2. - Google Is Your Friend - Wednesday, Nov 30, 22 @ 8:13 am:

    ==That gives the state’s attorneys time to prepare==

    Some (me) would say they’ve had almost two years to prepare.

  3. - Chicagonk - Wednesday, Nov 30, 22 @ 8:40 am:

    They were right when they said it would be a tweak. We will see which side is right in six months when the effects of the law start to become apparent.

  4. - Bobby G - Wednesday, Nov 30, 22 @ 8:51 am:

    In the “purge law” section I don’t see a paragraph 8. Also, looks like it’s “persons” who can seek reconsideration of bond and not the State. So if people are currently on cash bail on deniable offenses, the State does not seem to be given the right to ask for denial of bail.

  5. - Bobby G - Wednesday, Nov 30, 22 @ 9:04 am:

    Also, the legislature’s attempt to modify by statute the Illinois constitution without a constitutional amendment remains legally dubious.

  6. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 30, 22 @ 9:08 am:

    ===modify by statute the Illinois constitution===

    Cash is not explicitly mentioned with bail in the IL constitution. And by definition, bail does not necessarily require cash

  7. - Payback - Wednesday, Nov 30, 22 @ 9:53 am:

    Re. trespassing charges, does anyone know who provided or promoted the language in Peters’ original bill to downgrade the charge to a citation from an arrest?

  8. - Three Dimensional Checkers - Wednesday, Nov 30, 22 @ 10:02 am:

    The last provision seems more pro-defendant thatn before. It takes the decision of whether to detainee an arrestee out of judges hands and places the burden on the State. Why did Judge Evans make this dangerousness algorithm if it was just going to be the State’s burden to prove an arrestee is a danger to the community?

  9. - H-W - Wednesday, Nov 30, 22 @ 10:15 am:

    Consistent with Google Is Your Friend:

    I would suggest there has been nothing in the past year, nor any barrier in the coming month, that would have prevented State’s Attorneys from having been working on this all along.

    Knowing the change was coming, the legal system could have already been working on this, except for the fact that many politicized this to the point that they made themselves believe the law would be scrapped.

    Silly politicians, believing their own spin.

    The problem before us is primarily one of failure to plan, and obstruction. It is much less a matter of clarification.

  10. - Grandpaw - Wednesday, Nov 30, 22 @ 10:25 am:

    Maybe I’m using the wrong words in my searches, but I’m just wondering what happens to people with active cases that did post bail. Do they go to their courthouses and request it back? That would require a LOT of cash on hand, I would think.

  11. - JoanP - Wednesday, Nov 30, 22 @ 10:28 am:

    = It takes the decision of whether to detainee an arrestee out of judges hands and places the burden on the State. =

    No, it doesn’t. The decision remains in the judges’ hands. (Heck, if it were in the prosecutors’ hands, everybody would be detained.) But the burden of proof is on the State. In other words, they must provide the court with sufficient evidence to warrant detention.

    And why shouldn’t the burden be on the State? They have the burden of proof at trial. They’re the ones trying to lock someone up. They’re the ones claiming the person should be detained.

  12. - Guzzlepot - Wednesday, Nov 30, 22 @ 10:43 am:


    Nobody knows what is going to happen to the people who posted cash bond and are currently out on bond. I think each county and courtroom is going to handle it differently until we get guidance from he legislature or the Illinois Supreme Court.

  13. - Three Dimensional Checkers - Wednesday, Nov 30, 22 @ 10:57 am:

    ===The decision remains in the judges’ hands.===

    Not in the same way. Before, the judges could look at their own evidence and this dangerousness algorithm they developed to decide whether to detain an arrestee. As I said, what is the use of this algorithm now assuming this passes? In what other cases does a judge create evidence to assist the State in meeting the State’s evidentiary burden?

    What I suspect is that the judges do not want responsibility for arrestees that go on to commit crimes after they are released. If this passes, the next time some arrestee murders or shoots someone after an arrest, the judges could say “not my fault. The state never met its burden to detainee the arrestee. Go blame the State for these crimes.”

  14. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 30, 22 @ 11:10 am:


    Thank you.

  15. - JoanP - Wednesday, Nov 30, 22 @ 12:03 pm:

    = the judges could look at their own evidence and this dangerousness algorithm they developed to decide whether to detain an arrestee. =

    Judges do not have “their own evidence”. They have the evidence presented to them by the parties.

  16. - H-W - Wednesday, Nov 30, 22 @ 12:07 pm:

    In the not too distant past, law was premised on the rule of parsimony.

    Today it seems, everyone wants to come up with a thousand reasons why we should not adopt the most straightforward interpretation of laws - interpretations that make sense.

    What will happen to those who are currently released on bond or currently bailed out of jail?

    The rule of parsimony would suggest these people will be allowed to petition to have their money returned, or their surety bonds vacated.

    What will happen in the future regarding deciding whether or not a person should be detained prior to trial? The prosecuting (State’s) attorney and the defendants attorney and the judge will meet within 72 hours to make a preliminary decision whether or not their is enough evidence to require the person to be held in custody, just as in the past.

    Creating a lot of contingencies in order to create confusion only serves to debase the rule of law, and the rule of parsimony.

    I am sure the courts will be fine, and fewer people will be detained going forward, with and without these “clarifications” that are only necessary because we have politicized the legal system (unnecessarily in this case).

  17. - Three Dimensional Checkers - Wednesday, Nov 30, 22 @ 12:44 pm:

    ===Judges do not have “their own evidence”. They have the evidence presented to them by the parties.===

    What is this then?

TrackBack URI

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.

* Today's number: 19
* Afternoon roundup
* AG Raoul files SAFE-T Act appeal with Illinois Supreme Court
* How domestic violence is often a precursor to other violent crimes
* Bears unveil subsidy bill
* DeVore loses bizarro election case in Normal
* Not too hard to predict how this judge is gonna rule
* Pritzker leans into College Board fight with DeSantis: "Black history is American History"
* *** UPDATED x1 *** Pritzker endorses candidates in nearly two dozen Chicago aldermanic races
* Isabel’s morning roundup
* Open thread
* Live coverage
* Yesterday's stories

Visit our advertisers...







Main Menu
Pundit rankings
Subscriber Content
Blagojevich Trial
Updated Posts

January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005


RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0

Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller