Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » Illinois Network for Pretrial Justice responds to Sheriff Dart
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      About     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact Rich Miller
CapitolFax.com
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
Illinois Network for Pretrial Justice responds to Sheriff Dart

Thursday, Feb 8, 2024 - Posted by Isabel Miller

* WGN on a recent suburban “shoot-out” which injured four people

One of the two men now charged in a shoot-out in the south suburbs was free on electronic monitoring while awaiting trial for murder, WGN Investigates has learned. […]

[Torrey Lewis] was arrested in 2018 and charged in the murder of a paralyzed man in a wheelchair outside a Country Club Hills movie theater the previous year. He was locked-up until Cook County Judge Carl Boyd lowered his bond in 2020 allowing Lewis to be released on electronic monitoring after posting $30,000 bond. Cook County sheriff’s deputies clamped an ankle monitor on Lewis and he left the jail.

“Home monitoring was meant for people with less serious offenses, certainly not attempt murder or murder charges… and I was ignored on that,” Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart told WGN Investigates. Dart said his calls to clamp down on the use of electronic monitoring in violent cases have gone unheard by lawmakers.

Lewis was also able to take advantage of a little-known provision of the SAFE-T Act that went into effect in 2022 that gives people on electronic monitoring more freedom. It’s meant to allow them to take care of basic necessities without being tracked in real-time.

Defendants are still required to wear their ankle bracelets on their two days of free movement; but law enforcement isn’t alerted if they stray from home, work or other pre-approved destinations. […]

“If this person was on home monitoring, being monitored the way we used to monitor people, the second he left his house we would have been alerted and started looking for him,” Dart said. “Say he had ability to go to work that day, the second he wasn’t there, we would’ve been alerted and we would’ve gone after him.”

* Illinois Network for Pretrial Justice…

We are incredibly disappointed to see Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart once again exploiting community safety concerns to spread misinformation about the electronic monitoring provisions of the Pretrial Fairness Act. The Illinois Network for Pretrial Justice wants to reduce gun violence and create safe communities for everyone, and the Sheriff’s desperate search for and elevation of outlier cases does not help us reach that goal. Instead, stories of isolated incidents are designed to change the law governing tens of thousands of people’s rights while awaiting trial — all while avoiding engagement with data that shows the vast majority of people on electronic monitoring return to court and are not rearrested while awaiting trial. These cynical attempts to blame pretrial reforms are only a distraction from evidence-based efforts to reduce gun violence.

The Pretrial Fairness Act requires that people subject to house arrest under electronic monitoring be given permission to leave their homes to take care of basic needs such as buying food and doing laundry. Each electronic monitoring program in the state can choose how to implement that requirement. The Cook County Sheriff’s Office chose to implement this law by allowing each person two, eight-hour periods of time per week to take care of their essential needs. Other programs allow people on EM to simply contact their supervising officer and request permission for individual trips to the grocery store or laundromat.

There is nothing in Illinois law requiring the Sheriff to stop tracking individuals during this time, a fallacy that Sheriff Dart has repeated at a county budget address and during a radio interview. We documented his long history of spreading misinformation in our recent report, Obscuring the Truth: How Misinformation is Skewing the Conversation about Pretrial Justice.

For years, the Cook County Sheriff’s Office denied people on electronic monitoring the ability to contribute to their households, perform life-affirming tasks, and even access healthcare. The electronic monitoring reforms in the Pretrial Fairness Act are intentionally designed to correct that history. Even under the new law, current Sheriff’s Office policy prevents people in apartment buildings from doing laundry or checking their mail in common areas of the building without the kind of movement permission the Sheriff is now attacking.

Since taking effect in 2022, the electronic monitoring provisions of the Pretrial Fairness Act have been incredibly successful. Ensuring people on electronic monitoring are able to go grocery shopping, attend doctor’s appointments, and apply for jobs increases community safety. Removing these provisions would violate basic human rights principles by returning to a system that locked people in their homes with no way to access food or other necessities.

Mr. Lewis’ Case

    ● Mr. Lewis was originally incarcerated in Cook County Jail on a no-bond order. He was only given a $300,000 D-bond in May 2020, during the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. During this time period, stakeholders were working together to dramatically reduce the number of people in Cook County Jail to prevent the loss of life and stop the community spread of COVID. Mr. Lewis was considered vulnerable for complications from COVID-19 due to his asthma and psoriasis, a condition impacting the immune system.

    ● According to public court documents filed by his attorney, Mr. Lewis is being charged with murder because he was allegedly in a car with other people who are accused of shooting someone. There is no evidence that he participated in the shooting in his underlying case, and no identification of him by any witness.

Facts on Pretrial Fairness Provisions

    ● Nothing in the Pretrial Fairness Act or any other law requires the Cook County Sheriff’s Office not to track people during the time they are on essential movement. Every person on Sheriff’s EM is on a GPS ankle monitor, and those GPS monitors continue to record people’s exact location the entire time they are outside of their home. You can read the provision of the Pretrial Fairness Act that authorizes essential movement at 730 ILCS 5/5-8A-4(A-1).

    ● Before these reforms were implemented, the lack of movement caused immense harm to people on Cook County Sheriff’s electronic monitoring, as detailed in a report submitted to the Cook County board by CGL Industries and Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts. (See page 47 here for discussion of harms of lack of movement.)

General Information on Pretrial Release

    ● Between January 2016 and June 2020, 91% of people on electronic monitoring in Chicago were not re-arrested for any crime. Only 1.75% of people were re-arrested for a serious felony (Class 2 or higher). People with the charges highlighted in the story are arrested at an even lower rate: Between September 2017 and September 2018, of the 2,811 people were released (EM or not) with these charges, only 1% — 29 people — were rearrested for a violent felony.

    ● The WGN story drew attention to the fact that 708 people on Sheriff’s electronic monitoring are currently accused of attempted murder, murder, armed habitual criminal, possession of a weapon by a felon, or unlawful use of a weapon (“UUW”). By conflating simple gun possession charges with murder, the Sheriff’s Office is artificially inflating these numbers. Most cases of “armed habitual criminal” are accusations that someone possessed — but did not use — a gun without a license and with certain past convictions.

      ○ In addition, the most common UUW charge is a class 4 felony. Far from being “a serious gun charge,” unlicensed possession of a gun is the least serious class of felony in Illinois law.

    ● People on electronic monitoring are not disproportionately connected to incidents of gun violence. The University of Chicago Crime Lab found that in 2021, there were just three arrests of individuals on electronic monitoring for allegedly committing a homicide or shootings—out of almost 4,500 homicides and shootings that year.

Have at it.

       

16 Comments
  1. - Norseman - Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 12:06 pm:

    Dart’s a politician doing what politician’s do - inaccurately spinning a story for his career. Principles by many politicians (especially MAGA GOP ones) take a back seat on a very long bus to self-interest.


  2. - TheInvisibleMan - Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 12:20 pm:

    –the second he wasn’t there, we would’ve been alerted and we would’ve gone after him.–

    You absolutely would not have gone after him. Otherwise your policies would have been monitoring him in real-time.

    We are at the point where sheriffs and certain SAs are knowingly sabotaging the system in order to make a point. It’s clear as day, and at some point it’s going to be a dereliction of office. Especially when at least one of them will be dumb enough to also put this purposeful strategy in an email somewhere.

    Can a Sheriffs office be determined by a court to be a ‘public nuisance’ under the state specific nuisance laws? Seems strange, but an interesting thought experiment. Maybe it would only lead to a writ of mandamus at best, but it’s better than nothing.


  3. - JS Mill - Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 12:25 pm:

    With respect to all- Dart isn’t entirely wrong here and he is right in the simple fact that this guy should never have been out on electronic monitoring. That does not seem to be an issue with the SAFE T act and actually is probably an argument in support. The court and SA’s office messed this one up. But the guy should never have been released.

    I don’t know that this is the hill the Illinois Network folks want to choose for their battle.


  4. - H-W - Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 12:36 pm:

    === There is nothing in Illinois law requiring the Sheriff to stop tracking individuals during this time, a fallacy that Sheriff Dart has repeated===

    === Nothing in the Pretrial Fairness Act or any other law requires the Cook County Sheriff’s Office not to track people during the time they are on essential movement ===

    Normally, I would suggest that this seems a case of Sheriff Dart attempting to cover his mistake. However, in this case, it seems more appropriate to assert that Sheriff Dart through his policy of not tracking people who are a danger and a threat, may well be culpable for creating the circumstances in which people were killed, through Sheriff Dart’s own negligence of the circumstances and the provisions of the law that empowered him to protect the public.

    If Sheriff Dart wants to be a law-maker, he should run for that office. But if Sheriff Dart wants to be a law enforcer, he should enforce the laws as written. In this case it appears he did not do so, which lead to the murder of citizens.

    Am I reading this wrong? I understand “qualified immunity” and am not going there intentionally. I am move concerned with his failure to enforce the law as written, his decision not to track, etc.


  5. - H-W - Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 12:37 pm:

    PS - I just caught myself. Not murder, but shooting and injuring is the issue. Sorry about that.


  6. - Spinning - Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 12:41 pm:

    Wow talk about politicalspinning. They start off minimizing the crime with an asthma and psoriasis defense. Are you kidding me? And only 29 people re arrested? 29 victims whose lives are changed forever. Why not look out for them?


  7. - DuPage Saint - Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 12:54 pm:

    His crime seems appalling and the general facts seem like he should not be release but he could have been held under new law and was not perhaps because he is charged under felony murder
    I would be more interested to hear from Dart how many people are missing from his electronic monitoring program and why has costs not gone down in his department finally I would like to know how many shirt tail relatives of tv anchors and reporters does he have on staff and how come Roe Cohn has not stopped carjacking


  8. - History lesson - Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 1:12 pm:

    Cook County’s electronic monitoring was created in the late 80’s, when the jail was under a federal court order to reduce its chronic overcrowding problem. Back then, the sheriff picked which inmates would be released on EM and he typically chose drug offenders and others charged with nonviolent crimes. If someone released on EM committed a new crime, the sheriff “wore the jacket.” He was roundly blamed in the media because he was the one who chose to release the inmate on house arrest and his risk assessment failed when that individual committed a new crime.

    Because the jail’s population is less than half of what it used to be, the federal consent decree giving the sheriff authority to release inmates on EM expired (this actually happed a couple years before the SAFE-T Act passed) so the sheriff no longer picks EM participants — the judges do, and they often assign defendants who have been charged with violent crimes. However, the sheriff still administers the program. So when a participant commits a new crime while free on EM, the media still look to the sheriff to assign blame. The media almost never mention the judge who assigned the suspect to EM, let alone chase the judge down to ask questions about why their risk assessment failed. This ticks off the sheriff. So when an “investigative reporter” from one of Chicago’s television news shops does an expose on crimes committed by EM participants, as they invariably do a few times a year, and stick a microphone in the sheriff’s face, he is quick to ensure he’s not the only one wearing the jacket by shifting blame elsewhere. Every Cook County sheriff from now on will do the same thing.


  9. - Norseman - Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 1:16 pm:

    Wise counsel by JSMill. If Dart’s focus was solely on the monitoring issue, he needs to be careful about how he discusses it. Especially to journalists who like to play on the agenda of the Safe-T Act being dangerous to the public.


  10. - Chicagonk - Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 1:17 pm:

    Nothing Dart said is untrue. Also why is the Illinois Network for Pretrial Justice saying there is no evidence tying Torrey Lewis in the 2020 case? If that were the case, he wouldn’t have been charged.


  11. - Nope. - Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 1:47 pm:

    == The University of Chicago Crime Lab found that in 2021, there were just three arrests of individuals on electronic monitoring for allegedly committing a homicide or shootings—out of almost 4,500 homicides and shootings that year.==

    Hmmm… I think the folks over at CWB blog would disagree with that there “fact.” Three arrests?
    https://cwbchicago.com/2024/01/chicago-attempted-murder-charge-on-probation-and-bail.html


  12. - Stephanie Kollmann - Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 2:13 pm:

    Two things I find interesting:

    1. Readers can click the link provided by Rich and the INPJ to see what the man’s attorney and to say about the evidence regarding the man’s alleged involvement in a murder as well as the extenuating circumstances

    2. WBEZ just ran a story about how Sheriff Dart’s budget did not shrink proportionate with the jail population, and here he is once again arguing that thousands* more people should be in jail

    * He never says “thousands” but that would be the end result of adopting the policies he has advocated for.


  13. - Here - Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 2:49 pm:

    Only in a 80 percent Democrat city would comments like these be coming forward on the blog. Of course Sheriff Dart’s a public safety official handcuffed by electronic monitoring process handed down to him. Of course he’s frustrated when his warnings go unheeded.


  14. - H-W - Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 3:29 pm:

    It is quite likely I read too much into this story, and reached a biased conclusion above. If the Sheriff has no say over when monitoring will be turned off or not monitored, then I was wrong to suggest he is responsible for not monitoring the accused when the crimes occurred. And in any case, I apologize for suggesting culpability. That was just mean-spirited on my part. Sorry Sheriff.

    That said, I do stand by my assertion that if the Sheriff wants to interpret the laws of the State or make laws, he should run for that office or serve in a different capacity within the judiciary. Those charged with enforcing laws are independent from those who write and interpret laws for a reason - public safety and due process.


  15. - Read into the data - Friday, Feb 9, 24 @ 7:19 am:

    I’m no fan of EM - when you think about it doesn’t really serve a purpose, making life difficult for those predisposed to not reoffend, and making reoffending easy for those that would.

    At the same time - this use of rearrest data as somehow proof that people on EM aren’t committing crimes is incredibly misleading. Look at the low underlying arrest rate. They could be missing many cases. There’s no way to know.


  16. - Rich Miller - Friday, Feb 9, 24 @ 11:05 am:

    ===They could be missing many cases===

    If the police cannot solve a case in which the perpetrator was wearing a geo-tracking device, then I don’t know what to tell you.


Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.


* Reader comments closed for the holidays
* And the winners are…
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Update to previous editions
* Isabel’s afternoon roundup
* Report: Far-right Illinois billionaires may have skirted immigration rules
* Question of the day: Golden Horseshoe Awards (Updated)
* Energy Storage Brings Cheaper Electricity, Greater Reliability
* Open thread
* Isabel’s morning briefing
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
* Live coverage
* Selected press releases (Live updates)
* Yesterday's stories

Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...

...............

...............

...............

...............

...............

...............

...............


Loading


Main Menu
Home
Illinois
YouTube
Pundit rankings
Obama
Subscriber Content
Durbin
Burris
Blagojevich Trial
Advertising
Updated Posts
Polls

Archives
December 2024
November 2024
October 2024
September 2024
August 2024
July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
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

Syndication

RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0




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