* According to Chicago Appleseed, 83 percent of the people on electronic monitoring in Cook County “had to pay a money bond to leave jail and be placed on electronic monitors.” With that in mind, here’s The TRiiBE and the Chicago Reader…

While awaiting trial, Shane (a pseudonym) has worn an electronic ankle monitor and been confined to their home, a high-rise apartment they share with their elderly mother and two children, for over two years. During their confinement, they have been visited hundreds of times by sheriff’s deputies who were summoned by erroneous automatic alerts that accused Shane of leaving home without authorization.

Deputies came so often that Shane’s toddler began to think they were family friends. “He calls them his buddies because he’s so used to seeing them,” Shane said. But their oldest son understood who the deputies were. “And that’s why a lot of these children grow into men and they disrespect authority, or they feel like they hate the police because they see them doing things that are not conducted in a proper manner.”

The alerts that sent texts to Shane’s phone and deputies to their front door originated from Track Group, a subcontractor that operates ankle monitors used by the Cook County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO). Track Group sends alerts to Protocol, a call center that then sends the texts. Shane is one of hundreds of people who were similarly inundated with text alerts from Protocol while on CCSO’s pretrial home-monitoring program over an 18-month period, according to data newly obtained by The TRiiBE and the Reader.

As of press time, 2,017 people are wearing electronic ankle bracelets under CCSO’s pretrial house arrest program. They’re required to remain inside their home 24 hours a day, but can leave for “essential movement” to go to work or run errands. Sheriff Tom Dart has advocated for repealing the provisions in the 2021 SAFE-T Act pertaining to essential movement. According to a recent article by The Intercept, Dart has systematically limited people who use essential movement for work from also running errands.

The alerts, which often summon sheriff’s deputies and carry an implicit threat of being taken to jail, can be disruptive and frightening. Many of the people who were texted repeatedly said in interviews they were inside their homes when the alerts occurred. […]

In a previous story, we reported that in 2021, 80 percent of alerts were found to be false, and spoke to several people on pretrial monitoring who received frequent alerts accusing them of going AWOL even though they were inside their homes. We also chronicled the tribulations of Jeremy “Mohawk” Johnson, who documented his two-year ordeal of repeated false electronic-monitor alerts while he awaited trial on charges stemming from a 2020 protest.

Since then, we have obtained data on hundreds of thousands of text messages sent to some 10,000 people who, like Shane, were in the home-monitoring program between January 1, 2020, and June 22, 2022. The data shows that Johnson’s experience was far from unique.

During that 18-month period, most people on electronic home monitoring got a text from Protocol about three times a month, on average. But a significant number of people were texted far more often. One thousand people on home monitoring were texted an average of three times a week. Thirty people received upwards of 20 texts per week. Twenty-two people got more than 1,000 texts, an average of two a day.

Tracey Harkins, a criminal attorney who often represents defendants who are on home monitoring, said that attorneys have no choice but to advise their clients to call Protocol every time they receive a text, and to film themselves to prove they’re at home. She added that her clients have told her that the call center sometimes doesn’t pick up. “They call and the phones keep ringing and no one answers,” she said.

What a nightmare, not to mention a complete mess.

* State law allows people confined on electronic monitoring to have two, eight-hour periods of movement per week for things like doctor appointments, grocery shopping or even taking the trash to the alley. They’re still tracked during that time because they have to wear ankle bracelets, but Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart has interpreted the law to eliminate those time periods for people who already have a judge’s permission to work or go to school…

Eddie Raymond needed to run to the store to grab some toilet paper on a January day this year. Under an Illinois law that had gone into effect at the start of the month, he was entitled to leave home at least two days a week to run such an errand — notwithstanding the GPS monitor affixed to his ankle that allowed the local sheriff’s office to track his every move. When Raymond contacted the sheriff’s call center to check in before leaving home, though, he was told that he didn’t have permission to go out that day. The explanation startled him.

“They said if you have work movement, you’re not supposed to get your essential days, because your essential days qualify for work,” recalled Raymond, who asked to be identified by a pseudonym to protect his privacy. “I told them that doesn’t make sense.”

Raymond had unknowingly run into a policy quietly implemented by Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart. He wasn’t getting his “essential days,” guaranteed by law, because he also had regularly scheduled permission to go to work.

* Yet, Sheriff Dart is taking a hardcore stance…

“Our city is overwhelmed with violence and we’ve taken a group of people who are charged with violent offenses and saying ‘go out, we’re going to shut our eyes for two days just to see what happens,’” said Sheriff Tom Dart.

Defendants still wear their ankle monitors on their “free movement” days but their whereabouts are not tracked in real-time because the sheriff has no way to quickly sort through the legitimacy of “basic necessity” stops.

Advocates point to recent studies that have found the increased use of electronic monitoring is not a key driver of crime.

According to Chicago Appleseed, less than 2 percent of the people on EM were rearrested for Class 2+ felonies. A significant chunk of the 8.8 percent total rearrested were busted for previous warrants.

* Jordan Abudayyeh…

There is nothing in the act that prevents the Sheriff from tracking in real time those who are on electronic monitoring awaiting trial. The act clearly states the Sheriff “may promulgate rules that prescribe reasonable guidelines under which an electronic monitoring and home detention program shall operate.” The statute does not prohibit them from requiring more detail (date, time frame, location address) of where the person on electronic monitoring intends to go when granting movement. There is also nothing in the Act that says those on electronic monitoring cannot be tracked during these movements. Perhaps, instead of spreading misinformation, the Sheriff could focus on making sure his agency promulgates rules and secures the resources its needs to run an effective electronic monitoring program.

* More…

* Cook County judges are violating the SAFE-T Act’s electronic monitoring reforms: For example, despite the new requirement that judges should review electronic monitoring every 60 days, many people are languishing on ankle monitors for months or even years, even though they have complied fully with all their obligations.

* Law Professors Pushing Back on State’s Attorneys Proposal to Gut Pretrial Fairness Act: We are law professors and faculty from across Illinois, and we write to urge you to reject SB 4228, a SAFE-T Act trailer bill drafted by the Illinois State’s Attorney Association. This bill is a dangerous attempt to undercut the Pretrial Fairness Act and increase incarceration in Illinois. Under the Pretrial Fairness Act, individuals charged with serious crimes can already be detained if they pose a flight risk or risk to public safety. The provisions included in SB 4228 would dramatically increase the number of people in jail by granting prosecutors and judges broad discretion to lock up people who are accused of only minor offenses—people who do not pose a risk of any immediate harm to anyone. Moreover, SB 4228 violates the Illinois Constitution by creating a presumption of detention, and raises serious due process concerns. Ultimately, SB 4228 would incarcerate even more people without trial, exacerbate existing racial disparities in the Illinois criminal legal system, and subject more people and families to the severe harms associated with pretrial incarceration.

…Adding… Sheriff Dart’s office…

The only “misinformation” being promulgated comes from the Governor’s office, which signed a law without, apparently, a full understanding of the implications. There are currently more than 2,000 individuals who have been court-ordered to the Sheriff’s electronic monitoring program, and 75% of them are facing violent charges, including murder, attempted murders, aggravated criminal sexual assault, and gun-related offenses. On days that are not designated for free movement, the courts or the Sheriff’s Office approve movement for individuals based on where they are going and what they will be doing, and the Sheriff’s Office works to monitor them to make sure they are where they said they would be.

For example, if someone has approved movement to go from home to a grocery store and back home and we see the participant is five miles away in the opposite direction, we know they are likely not following the approved movement and our staff can investigate. This accountability helps to protect public safety, because it enables individuals on EM to perform tasks outside their home while serving as a deterrent against straying outside the areas they are approved to visit. With the imposition of the free movement this new law mandated, monitoring movement is impossible because there are no restrictions on where individuals can go during that time. The practical effect of free movement is that alerts about the whereabouts of individuals must be silenced and unmonitored during the hours that individuals are on free movement to avoid generating potentially millions of erroneous movement alerts each week.

It’s one thing to field criticism from advocates who have no obligation to promote public safety, but another thing entirely to hear such dismissive statements come from the state’s top elected official. Perhaps, instead of leveling snide accusations of misinformation at the Sheriff responsible for running the nation’s largest pre-trial electronic monitoring program, the Governor could focus on understanding the real challenges free movement presents, and the threat it poses to public safety. The Governor’s Office is invited to set up a time first thing Monday morning, or anytime that is convenient, to visit our Electronic Monitoring Unit so it can begin to understand the real-world effects this so-called reform has on public safety. We are confident that after educating themselves on the challenges this law has placed on our staff, the Governor’s Office will work tirelessly to provide the resources the Sheriff’s Office, as they said, “needs to run an effective electronic monitoring program.”

And…