A question nobody appears to be asking
Friday, May 15, 2026 - Posted by Rich Miller
* ABC7…
A new report from the Chief Judge of Cook County says 8% of people on electronic monitoring are currently AWOL.
The admission is part of an effort to promote a new level of transparency about the program in the aftermath of several violent incidents involving people who were on electronic monitoring.
The report says there are 3,048 people on the program, meaning that 244 people with pending criminal cases, most likely felony charges, are not complying with the rules.
According to the report, there are 246 “AWOL Individuals with Active Warrants.” More from the report…
Non-compliance violations in the EM program fall into two primary categories. The most common is device-related: individuals whose monitoring equipment has low battery alarms. The second involves individuals who leave or arrive late to their approved location.
In all major violation scenarios, the following process applies:
• The assigned Adult Probation staff is notified and reviews circumstances to determine if the alert reflects a major violation, a device or emergency issue
• If valid, a major violation report is filed and submitted to court no later than the following business day for judicial review
• A judge determines next steps: continuance, additional conditions or issuance of a warrant
• Where a warrant is issued, the warrant is entered into the law enforcement LEADS system and the Cook County Sheriff’s Office is notified
• Law enforcement is responsible for the execution of the warrant and return of the defendant to custody until the case is brought back to court
* HGOP response…
House Minority Leader Tony McCombie issued the following statement in response to the Chief Judge of Cook County reporting that 8% (1 of 12) of people on electronic monitoring are currently AWOL:
“Electronic monitoring should not be a free pass for criminals. Improving public safety should start with revoking pre-trial release. Individuals charged with heinous crimes, especially attempted murder, sexual assault, and aggravated battery must be held accountable and victims must be prioritized and protected. As lawmakers, it is our responsibility to fix what’s broken.”
McCombie filed legislation last month, House Bill 5757, which proposes a mandatory revocation of pre-trial release if offenders commit a new felony while out on electronic monitoring.
One of the problems I have with this statement is “if offenders commit a new felony.” People are still supposed to be presumed innocent in this country - until the US Supreme Court decides to overturn another mountain of stare decisis.
* I do think this sort of thing should be looked at by the legislature because the locals don’t seem to be doing a very good job. In the meantime, nobody appears to be even wondering aloud why the sheriff and local police departments haven’t rounded these folks up. That needs to be addressed ASAP.
- TNR - Friday, May 15, 26 @ 12:56 pm:
== there are 246 “AWOL Individuals with Active Warrants.” ==
That’s just the number who’ve fled prosecution while on electronic monitoring. It’s the tip of the iceberg. There are thousands (and maybe tens of thousands) of additional active warrants for defendants who failed to show up for court dates while on non-EM pretrial release. Police and sheriffs agencies usually prioritize the defendants facing the most serious charges because the total number of warrants is gigantic.
And before the usual chorus kicks in, it should be noted that this is a problem that long pre-dates the SAFE-T Act.
- Google is Your Friend - Friday, May 15, 26 @ 1:08 pm:
Interesting how the report shows that after Charles Beach became chief judge, the AWOL rate has gone from 1% to 8%, and then tries to blame it on an expanded definition of AWOL. A desperate and rather pathetic attempt at contextualizing supposed failures that he now owns as chief judge.
- Iron Duke - Friday, May 15, 26 @ 1:11 pm:
Why haven’t the sheriffs local police found that needle in a haystack?
Clearly at least 8% of the offenders on electronic monitoring are not suited to the program and should immediately be incarcerated.
If there are no consequences to bad behavior it will no doubt get worse.
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 15, 26 @ 1:12 pm:
===AWOL rate has gone from 1% to 8%, and then tries to blame it on an expanded definition of AWOL===
Your comment is spectacularly incorrect. It went from 4 to 8, not 1 to 8.
It also ignores this valid explanation: The comparison of AWOL percentages across the three time points in the table above requires important context. Prior to Jan. 28, 2026, an absence of fewer than 48 hours did not constitute a major violation and was not captured in AWOL reporting. Judicial review of violations also occurred only on weekdays, meaning weekend violations were subject to delayed action. The updated protocols lowered the violation threshold to three or more hours and extended judicial review to weekends for the first time.
- Me - Friday, May 15, 26 @ 1:15 pm:
At the risk of getting trampled (virtually) by an angry (virtual) mob with (virtual) torches and (virtual) pitchforks. I will ask a question.
On a systemwide scale, setting aside the isolated horror stories, does it make any sense to focus our limited resources on tracking down needles in haystacks who have been largely staying out of trouble and avoiding contact with law enforcement (as evidenced by the fact that they have not gotten picked up on their active warrants)?
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 15, 26 @ 1:19 pm:
=== needles in haystacks===
C’mon. The cops have their addresses. It’s not like all of these people are on the lam.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, May 15, 26 @ 1:20 pm:
I will add to the list of questions, Rich:
Since we were able to find $1 million in the Sheriff’s budget for AI, can we also find money to rotate the batteries on these electronic monitoring devices regularly, instead of waiting for them to die?
This was part of the issue with the recent shooting and why they could not locate the guy.
- Think Again - Friday, May 15, 26 @ 1:24 pm:
= nobody appears to be even wondering aloud why the sheriff and local police departments haven’t rounded these folks up=
I have two friends who are retired Cook County probation officers - once the EM monitoring device is offline, many of these folks move about and avoid their listed home address - it becomes a costly and time-consuming endeavor chasing these folks.
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 15, 26 @ 1:27 pm:
===it becomes a costly and time-consuming endeavor===
Meh. Even if that’s true, with everybody up in arms about EM for years, you’d think they’d focus more on that instead of spending big bucks on a helicopter handing out expressway tickets.
- Me Again - Friday, May 15, 26 @ 1:36 pm:
== The cops have their addresses ==
This made me laugh so hard that I almost had coffee spill out of my nose. Since we also have their phone numbers, maybe we can just call and ask them nicely to surrender at their nearest police station.
== It’s not like all of these people are on the lam ==
Well yes, that is exactly what it’s like. I think maybe you aren’t super acquainted with the transient lifestyle of our criminal milieu.
- Leslie K - Friday, May 15, 26 @ 1:38 pm:
@Google @1:08pm–I guess we should admire your consistency of not letting facts get in the way of your statements.
@Me @ 1:15pm–You seem to ask a key question regarding deployment of resources.
Should law enforcement conduct sweeps to find the people with these warrants? If so, how can we mitigate unintended consequences of sweeps that could impact uninvolved persons? How could an approach be targeted/narrowed to identify those most at risk of dangerous re-offending, sending law enforcement to specifically find them and not just all those with warrants?
McCombie’s bill seems to fly in the face of the individualized decision-making that is a key under elimination of money bail, but if the judges aren’t doing the hard work making detention decisions in the first instance, what are the best follow-up responses?
We need to think carefully about how much we want law enforcement to be proactive in finding those with warrants, and how much we need to pressure judges and prosecutors to make more thoughtful detention decisions on the front end.