* Following a CBS 2 report that basically just took everything Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart told them as gospel (it’s really quite something, so click here), I reached out to the Illinois Network for Pretrial Justice for a response…
Sheriff Dart Lies Again About Pretrial Fairness Act Electronic Monitoring Provisions
We are incredibly disappointed and angry 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 continues to keep Bethany Magee and her family in our hearts as she works to recover and heal. But we cannot remain silent as the Sheriff continues to weaponize the harm Bethany and her family experienced to achieve his policy goals of incarcerating people who are presumed innocent while they await trial.
It is incredibly irresponsible and self-serving to utilize isolated incidents to change the law governing tens of thousands of people’s rights while awaiting trial—all while ignoring 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 effective evidence-based efforts to reduce 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 creating a default schedule that allows each person two, eight-hour periods of time per week to take care of their essential needs. Judges must order that movement and can choose to order different and shorter or longer periods of movement for essential activities.
There is nothing in Illinois law requiring the Sheriff to stop tracking individuals during this time, a fallacy that Sheriff Dart has repeated for years, most recently in a CBS Chicago interview. In the past, he has told this lie 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 created a human rights crisis by denying 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 now, 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 once again 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, pick their children up from school, 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—and made them less likely to succeed.
Facts on Pretrial Fairness Act’s Electronic Monitoring 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.) The trauma that young people suffered while on Sheriff’s Dart’s EM program was unnecessarily cruel and ineffective, and had real life effects such as the ones described here.
• 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).
Again, click here to see Sheriff Dart’s comments.
Thoughts?
- Incandenza - Thursday, Dec 11, 25 @ 11:49 am:
The amount of flat-out lies from people in office seems to be increasing, or at least it’s not challenged as directly and immediately by the 4th estate as it used to be. I don’t know what the solution is, but it’s corrosive to the republic.
- R.F. - Thursday, Dec 11, 25 @ 11:53 am:
Yeah, EM participants are still being monitored via GPS while they move around outside their homes. And that will be helpful in putting together a criminal case after-the-fact if they commit a new crime while they’re out and about.
I think the bigger question is whether or not that amount of free movement (which is required by the SAFE-T Act) is appropriate for someone charged with a violent crime. For most of its history, only defendants charged with nonviolent crimes were eligible for EM. That is no longer the case. Individuals charged with violent crimes are now routinely assigned to the program by judges.
The SAFE-T Act loosened EM restrictions at the same time it was transitioning into a program for much higher risk offenders. That’s a problem, as the Lawrence Reed case illustrates.
- TimO - Thursday, Dec 11, 25 @ 12:04 pm:
Dart put his finger in the air and decided which way the wind is blowing. Sad the Cook Democratic party fought so hard and used the safe-t act to keep him from having a race. Blame them if all this is true.
- Iron Duke - Thursday, Dec 11, 25 @ 12:09 pm:
You could always leave your home under electronic monitoring during approved hours to “do laundry and access health care” but the Sheriff was allowed to track you.
Now they have two days a week with no monitoring and that is compromising public safety.
When someone does violate electronic monitoring, they aren’t picked up, it just goes on their record for their next court appearance.
Such dishonest misdirection that is corrosive to public safety
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Dec 11, 25 @ 12:11 pm:
===as the Lawrence Reed case illustrates===
It illustrates what can happen after a second judge intervenes and loosens the requirement.
- Big Dipper - Thursday, Dec 11, 25 @ 12:23 pm:
Mendoza and Vallas lie about the SAFE-T Act too. They are pandering to Fox News viewers.
- DuPage Saint - Thursday, Dec 11, 25 @ 12:24 pm:
E M should be used for first or second time offenders. It should not be allowed if you had EM before and violated terms. It should definitely not be allowed for repeat offenders. Anyone convicted of 4 or 5 offenses in Cook county probably had many more arrests than 4 or 5
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Dec 11, 25 @ 12:55 pm:
===You could always leave your home under electronic monitoring during approved hours to “do laundry and access health care” but the Sheriff was allowed to track you.===
Nope.
The statement said the amendment specifies that electronic monitoring participants “are not permitted to be in common areas of multi-unit buildings, including but not limited to vestibules, laundry facilities, mailrooms or other units unless authorized.”
https://www.wbez.org/criminal-justice/2023/05/19/cook-county-electronic-monitoring-rules-in-apartments
- low level - Thursday, Dec 11, 25 @ 2:25 pm:
Dart loves the sound of his own voice…
- Amalia - Thursday, Dec 11, 25 @ 2:38 pm:
the Illinois Network should tell us if they think that the act, which changed that some crimes were not eligible for pre trial detention, should be amended to give judicial discretion for more cases. in the face of horrible incidents, stats about how many crimes do or do not occur are no help to the victims of those who should be in pre trial detention. The act needs changes. participate in making things safer, for everyone.
- Big Dipper - Thursday, Dec 11, 25 @ 5:21 pm:
Short declarative sentences help.
- Walker - Thursday, Dec 11, 25 @ 7:51 pm:
Why do so many Sherriffs talk like they don’t actually know what’s in the Act?
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Dec 11, 25 @ 9:25 pm:
Walker, c’mon. You know the answer to your question. lol
- DeeForThree - Friday, Dec 12, 25 @ 9:59 am:
Amalia point that the Network should tell us what crimes
The reality is:
The vast majority of accused offenses are eligible for detention. Basically anything including any allegation of any physical contact, domestic violence of any kind, illegal gun use or possession, etc. There’s even a catch all after the list. And if a person violates, there are options for a creative prosecutor to detain no matter what you are orignially charged with.
Creating a policy that basically revokes people persumption of innocence based soely on their background without any hearing is a dizzing combination of bad policy (imagine what this would do to wrongful conviction rates) and being flat out unconstitutional (although the Constitution may not exist anymore)
When there is some tragedy, we’ve been indoctrinated to think: oh this must be because the SAFE-T barred the person from being detainined.
That’s not what happened in the Reed case.
The reality is that
People are innocent until proven gulity. If a person is still out after 70 arrests; maybe we should be wondering about what he was arrested for and how is he out after the state had 70 opporunites to keep him him instead of blaming some policy that had nothing to do with it.
The SAFE-T Act didn’t create crystal balls for judges and the policy in Cook to basically ask for detention for everything basically makes it impossible for judges to discern when the state actually thinks the person should be detained or when the state is just covering their butts.
Prayers to the family.