* From an Illinois House Republican press release earlier this week…

According to the Chicago Police Department, Alphanso Talley has now been charged in the heinous murder of a Chicago police officer and the attempted murder of another officer, along with a long list of additional felony charges.

At the time of this horrific attack, Talley was wanted on three warrants, was on parole in two separate cases, and had a lengthy criminal history dating back to 2017.

Yet earlier this year, Governor JB Pritzker and Speaker Chris Welch praised the SAFE-T Act as sound and effective policy. Now Illinois families are left asking how a repeat violent offender with this record was free to take a police officer’s life and leave another in critical condition.

I asked the HGOP which provision of the SAFE-T Act did he use to get out of jail.

* The Illinois House Republican response is italicized, and a rebuttal from the Illinois Network for Pretrial Justice is in bold…

HGOP: The SAFE-T Act begins with the presumption that a person will be released

INPJ: This was true before the law took effect. It’s in the Illinois Constitution and case law. “As our constitution expressly protects the right of a defendant to bail unless certain circumstances exist, the prosecution must have the burden of showing sufficient evidence that a defendant should be denied that constitutional right.” People v. Purcell (201 Ill. 2d 542, 550)

Put simply, the Illinois Supreme Court has said there is a presumption of release in the Illinois constitution, which is why it struck down a previous statute shifting the burden to the accused.

HGOP: A petition for detention requires showing the defendant committed the offense and the dangerousness standard must be proven by clear and convincing evidence

• Clear and convincing evidence is one of the highest legal burdens
• This is a new requirement implemented by the SAFE-T Act.

INPJ: There are three burdens of proof. “Clear and convincing” is the middle. This was the standard under the old system. See (c)(2) on page 2 of the attached document with the old statute. “The facts relied upon by the court to support a finding that the defendant poses a real and present threat to the physical safety of any person or persons shall be supported by clear and convincing evidence presented by the State.”

HGOP: While EM is not newly implemented in the SAFE-T Act, it is listed in the SAFE-T Act as a condition of pre-trial release if no less restrictive condition of release or combination of less restrictive condition of release would reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant for later hearings or protect an identifiable person or persons from imminent threat of serious physical harm

INPJ: The SAFE-T Act does not require judges to release anyone on electronic monitoring.

Long before the SAFE-T Act, electronic monitoring has been available as an alternative form of incarceration for defendants who judges believe can safely return to the community while awaiting trial with supervision. Electronic monitoring has been found to replicate many of the harms of pretrial jailing in a brick and mortar jail including the loss of employment, housing and community connections. The parameters of electronic monitoring are so serious that even prior to the SAFE-T Act, the legislature permitted the courts to give credit for time in custody for people subjected to electronic monitoring.

HGOP: Even if an offense is eligible for detention, the presumption of release and burden of proof in the hearing work in the defendant’s favor to tip the scales toward release with limited or no conditions. Arguably, based on Talley’s extensive criminal history – releasing him on pretrial release does nothing to protect the community.

INPJ: Again, the presumption of release is in the Illinois Constitution and was well established prior to the passage of the Pretrial Fairness Act.

The reality is that this is one case and one decision, which reporters have already revealed to be based on a variety of unique factors specific to this individual case. The attempts to make this one decision and case representative of the entire law is simply dishonest.

Cook County judges are not struggling to detain people they believe to be a danger to others.

• The number of people incarcerated in Cook County Jail has increased by nearly 500 people since the Pretrial Fairness Act went into effect.
• In the spring of 2025, the Illinois Network for Pretrial Justice organized community members to observe more than 400 detention hearings in Cook County. Of the 30.5% of the people with low risk assessment scores that signal a judge should release the person with limited conditions, 80.4% of these people were either jailed or placed on electronic monitoring.
• All of this has occurred even while the city of Chicago has seen a dramatic decrease in robberies, shootings, and murders and numbers are similarly low across the state.
o According to police data East Saint Louis experienced a significant decline in homicides over recent years. In 2019, the city recorded 36 murders. By 2025, that number dropped to 15 – the fewest homicides in 45 years. Nonfatal shootings likewise precipitously declined, from 127 in 2020 to 50 in 2025.
o In 2025, Peoria experienced a 61% decrease in homicides.
o In Elgin, crime decreased by 8% and a 63% decrease in gunfire incidents.