Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

*** UPDATED x1 *** The trespassing issue

Thursday, Sep 15, 2022 - Posted by Rich Miller

Q: There are claims that the bill prevents police officers from forcibly removing a trespasser from one’s property. … Is that claim true or false?

Rep. Patrick Windhorst (R-Metropolis): Well, I think it’s at least partially true, if not completely true. That relates to a trespasser on property, not inside the residence, but on property. And it says that that person is not subject to arrest unless they are presenting a risk of the safety of an individual or the community. So if an individual is simply on property without authorization or trespass. The police are simply to cite and then leave. […]

Cook County Public Defender Sharone Mitchell: I think that Representative Windhorst is right that part of that legislation says that law enforcement should not arrest for the lowest level offenses. But the next line gives law enforcement the sole authority to make that decision. And it’s also important to note that that piece of legislation was actually taken from recommendations from a group of states attorneys, court system actors and prosecutors in a report that was released in April 2020. So that gives law enforcement the flexibility to actually make that decision themselves.

* This is from the April 2020 Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Pretrial Practices Final Report, mentioned by Mitchell, on the trespassing language…

Law enforcement shall issue a citation in lieu of custodial arrest, upon proper identification, for those accused of Class B and C traffic and criminal misdemeanor offenses, or of petty and business offenses, who pose no obvious threat to the community or any person, or who have no obvious medical or mental health issues that pose a risk to their own safety. Those released on citation shall be scheduled into court within 21 days. Subsequent court reminder notification shall be provided via mail, electronically, text or telephone.

What ended up in the statute…

(a-1) Law enforcement shall issue a citation in lieu of custodial arrest, upon proper identification, for those accused of traffic and Class B and C criminal misdemeanor offenses, or of petty and business offenses, who pose no obvious threat to the community or any person, or who have no obvious medical or mental health issues that pose a risk to 25 their own safety. Those released on citation shall be scheduled in to court within 21 days.

Mitchell says the statute gives law enforcement officers discretion to interpret what an “obvious threat” is. Somebody camped out on a person’s porch and won’t leave after being ordered to by the police could easily be declared a threat, in other words.

But even Democrats have told me they are looking for ways to tighten up the language in the fall veto session. We’ll see.

* As an example, Rep. Kam Buckner (D-Chicago) was on WGN Radio yesterday and said this about the SAFE-T Act…

Whatever we have to change we will change. I want to again say that we have committed to making sure that this will make Illinois safe and also furthers justice in this state. We’ve got to get it right and it will take some tweaking over time. We’ve already tweaked some, we’ll continue to do that where it’s necessary.

* Anyway, back to the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Pretrial Practices Final Report on this topic…

Arrest is an essential and integral function of effective policing. However, the practice is far more intrusive to individual freedom, subjecting a person to potential pretrial detention or unnecessary conditions of pretrial release. Citation in lieu of arrest authorizes law enforcement to release a subject, in appropriate non-violent cases, with a date to appear in court, rather than being subjected to formalized arrest and booking procedures.

The American Bar Association and International Association of Chiefs of Police foster a policy favoring issuance of citations. “It should be the policy of every law enforcement agency to issue citations in lieu of arrest or continued custody to the maximum extent consistent with the effective enforcement of the law.” Nationwide, law enforcement departments utilize some form of citation in lieu of arrest. Approximately 87% of police agencies participate in this form of policing with 80% of these jurisdictions having ten (10) years or more experience using this arrest alternative.

Republican Sen. John Curran and Republican Rep. Dan Ugaste were on that commission, as was a representative of the Illinois Association Chiefs of Police and former US Attorney Rodger Heaton.

* I asked Jordan Abudayyeh at the governor’s office for comment…

Under the SAFE-T Act, law enforcement officers can continue to use their judgement to arrest a person that is a threat to the community.

The statute clearly states, “law enforcement shall issue a citation in lieu of custodial arrest, upon proper identification, for those accused of traffic and Class B and C criminal misdemeanor offenses, or of petty and business offenses, who pose no obvious threat to the community or any person, or who have no obvious medical or mental health issues that pose a risk to their own safety.”

If the law enforcement community needs more clarity regarding their ability to arrest people who are posing a threat to other people or themselves then our administration is happy to work with them and lawmakers to make that even more clear.

* The reason I asked for some clarification is because the trespassing issue has become a hot topic of discussion. Sen. Darren Bailey said this on Dan Proft’s WIND show last week…

The simple offense of trespassing in your house, on your yard, in your business. The law enforcement can only stand there, by this SAFE-T Act and write a warning. That’s all that they can do. They cannot forcefully remove these people. So we’ve got a pretty dire situation on our hands

*** UPDATE *** With thanks to a commenter, this was issued last month by the Illinois Supreme Court Implementation Task Force…

Law enforcement do have discretion to remove the person from the location of the alleged criminal activity, and then cite and release the person from another location.

So, all the people claiming that people can just camp out on somebody’s lawn, or move in to somebody else’s shed or cause a disturbance in a restaurant or whatever are wrong, according to the Supreme Court’s own implementation commission.

And if they go back? Well, they could easily be judged a threat at that point and arrested on the spot.

My problem with all this, however, is that proponents just don’t have the skills to point to simple things like this.

35 Comments

A not so happy birthday for CEJA

Thursday, Sep 15, 2022 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Today is the one-year anniversary of the governor signing the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act into law. Crain’s…

The elimination of carbon-emitting power plants in Illinois over the next 20 years will leave the Chicago area without enough generating capacity to meet its needs, forcing the region to import electricity from other states for the first time in modern memory.

That’s the conclusion of a new report by PJM Interconnection, the power-grid manager for a multistate region from northern Illinois to the mid-Atlantic. PJM blames the closing of fossil fuel plants—which to date has been driven by poor economics but soon will be mandated by the state’s year-old Climate & Equitable Jobs Act, or CEJA—for a projected capacity gap that will force the area to look elsewhere for power by 2030 at the latest. PJM further concludes that billions in spending on new and upgraded power transmission lines will be required to bring power to Chicago from Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania. […]

“The [Pritzker] administration finds this study incredibly myopic and is confident that as we work to implement the goals of CEJA over the next two decades there will be enough clean energy options for consumers and the grid—it’s exactly why the bill incentivizes the production of clean energy and the market has already moved away from fossil fuel options on its own,” spokeswoman Jordan Abuddayeh says in an email. […]

“Based on the additional clean, renewable energy expected to come online as a result of CEJA and the amount of power nuclear plants in northern Illinois can produce, we project that there will be enough generation at nearly all times of the year to continue to reliably meet our customers’ needs without importing power from other regions,” ComEd spokesman Paul Elsberg says in an email. “While it’s possible there will be times in future years when some generation will need to be imported to meet demand when it’s at its highest, this will depend on many factors—among them, how much solar energy, wind energy and battery storage is added to the power grid, and when.”

The report is here.

* And that’s not all. Earlier this week, Sangamon County Judge Raylene Grischow issued a preminary injunction against the Illinois EPA to stop its enforcement of an annual emissions cap that predated the actual implementation of the rules. The retroactive rule meant that Elwood Energy LLC did not have “fair notice” of “how its 2021 conduct was regulated until IEPA issued its rules in January 2022.” The company was asked to generate more electricity than normal in the fall of last year and that generation had left precious little space under the retroactive cap imposed in January. The company claimed it was losing millions of dollars because it could not operate. The ruling is here.

“By requiring compliance four months in the past,” Grischow wrote, “the rule penalizes Elwood and harms its business, in violation of the Federal and Illinois Due Process Clauses.”

React from the Illinois Clean Jobs Coalition…

We’re not surprised that fossil fuel companies would challenge Illinois’ new clean energy direction. The Climate and Equitable Jobs Act’s steady path to eliminating pollution from gas and coal plants is gradual, achievable, good for public health, and essential to becoming a leader in the clean energy economy.

These provisions were rigorously reviewed by experts. The preliminary injunction would allow a 1,700-MW methane gas plant to flout CEJA’s emissions limitations because JPower’s Elwood gas plant has claimed it cannot accurately calculate how much nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and other harmful pollutants it emits.

We are confident the provisions will ultimately be upheld by the judicial system and thwart Elwood’s efforts to avoid compliance. We look forward to achieving CEJA’s bold goals of decarbonizing our electric sector and creating good, equitable jobs and economic opportunities in the clean energy sources that will power Illinois in the future.

…Adding… On a related note, here’s a press release…

The Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) approved the Dakota Access Pipeline and Energy Transfer Crude Oil Pipeline expansion in the Prairie State today.

The approval comes after a court decision vacating the previous approval, because the prior approval did not demonstrate how the expansion benefited Illinoisians and the ICC failed to consider the troubling record of the pipeline operator.

In January 2022, the Illinois 4th District Appellate Court vacated the approval of the pipeline expansion and remanded it back to the ICC. The suit was brought by Save Our Illinois Land (SOIL), the Sierra Club, NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), and area landowner William Klingele.

Following are quotes from the litigants:

“This decision shows the ICC’s continued favoritism toward business interests at the expense of Illinois citizens. It endangers us all,” said Deni Mathews, chairperson of Save Our Illinois Land. “Instead of evaluating the full impact of such projects, we are left to grapple with the continued effect of carbon pollution on our air, water, and soil. Carbon emissions increase while our earth’s climate systems are providing clear evidence that we must stop.”

“In signing off yet again on this reckless expansion of the Dakota Access pipeline, the ICC is putting critical water resources at even greater risk,” said Catherine Collentine, Director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Dirty Fuels campaign. “From the beginning, DAPL has threatened clean drinking water and trampled on Indigenous rights. Allowing even more dirty oil to run through it could be disastrous for communities along its route. We will continue to work to shut down this dangerous oil pipeline altogether.”

“This pipeline expansion threatens our health, our climate, and Illinois’ waters,” said J.C. Kibbey, IL clean energy advocate at NRDC. “There are few, if any, benefits to the people of this state, but the massive risks to Illinois are clear. While we bear the risk, big out-of-state fossil fuel companies reap the profits.”

13 Comments

*** UPDATED x1 - Victim’s attorney speaks out *** Proft lashes out at Chicago TV stations as more stop running his “Scream” ad

Thursday, Sep 15, 2022 - Posted by Rich Miller

* I heard this morning that ABC7 and WGN had followed the lead of NBC5 and stopped airing the “Scream” ad paid for by the People Who Play By The Rules PAC. I asked the committee if this was true and they confirmed it today. Here’s Dan Proft…

All the network affiliates approved the ad. Then came the push back from the targets the ‘news’ stations serve, Gov. Pritzker and Mayor Lightfoot, and other enthusiasts of lawlessness and unchecked violence and down came my ad. It began with NBC and, since all these network affiliate executives share a brain, the rest of the stations, with one notable exception, followed. The video of the attack is perfectly fine for use by the ‘news’ stations if it’s in furtherance of their salacious ‘if it bleeds it leads’ coda. But if someone takes the attack in question, same video, and connects the dots to the people who’ve abdicated their responsibilities for providing public safety, well, then down it must come. It’s indicative of the lengths the Chicago Democrat Media Complex will go to protect their own–and I’m not talking about their viewers.

Discuss.

Also, as we’ve discussed before, the video does appear to have been altered.

*** UPDATE *** From the victim’s attorney…

Rich – I represent the victim in the Scream Ad that Dan Proft has been running and I just wanted to note that the victim was never asked or consulted by them regarding the use of that video. Not that she would have agreed to allow it, but at least she should have been given a heads up that it was coming out. She wishes to remain anonymous and heal from this whole ordeal and the Scream ad isn’t helping. All the best. Tom

Thomas More Leinenweber
Leinenweber Baroni & Daffada, LLC