Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Another temporary tax hike?
Next Post: Because… Manar?
Posted in:
* Tribune…
Days after a man awaiting trial on murder charges was mistakenly released on parole, the Cook County Sheriff’s Office says it will no longer send convicted defendants who still have pending cases to be fingerprinted and photographed by the Illinois Department of Corrections and then immediately returned to the county jail.
The release last week of Garrett Glover, who as of Thursday evening was still the subject of an intense manhunt, sparked a war of words and finger-pointing between the two law enforcement agencies. On Tuesday, Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart sent IDOC Director John Baldwin a letter criticizing the agency for releasing Glover without checking his criminal history or calling his office.
“Either step would have immediately revealed the existence of the open murder case,” Dart wrote.
On Thursday, Baldwin responded, saying IDOC relies on the sheriff’s office to provide accurate information and that a search of Glover’s paperwork as well as a law-enforcement database showed no holds barring his release on parole.
“We are always willing to assist your office in whatever way we can; however, we cannot take responsibility for your office’s error,” Baldwin wrote.
* Click the pics for better views. Here is Sheriff Dart’s letter to IDOC…
* Part of IDOC’s reply…
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 10:00 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Another temporary tax hike?
Next Post: Because… Manar?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“$2 million dollar bond”
Comment by AP Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 10:04 am
gotta give the edge to IDOC here. lot more specific facts in the IDOC letter compared to Tommy Dart’s missive.
Comment by Jerseyville Joe Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 10:05 am
Don’t they realize at IDOC that this could ruin Tom Dart’s chances of being Mayor. Rahm Emanuel’s folks are salivating at the chance to stick this up Dart’s……..if he decides to challenge Rahm.
Comment by Michael Westen Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 10:10 am
I would give a slight edge to DOC. But the emphasis on whether there is an active warrant seems odd to me. Would that even exist for someone who was already known to be in custody?
To me it makes sense that Cook County would not issue a warrant until DOC informed the County that they let the guy walk three days prior. But maybe I’m wrong on that.
Comment by Juice Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 10:19 am
This is on Cook County. 100%.
Comment by Chicagonk Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 10:20 am
So…basically, the IDOC doesn’t have to pay or worry about housing Cook County offenders that have another pending case…Good move for the IDOC.
Comment by Shanks Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 10:20 am
So, with the knowledge they had, has anyone checked the address he had given? Just curious.
Comment by Ractin Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 10:34 am
Just go catch the guy and knock this stuff off.
Comment by A guy Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 10:40 am
I don’t know where the actual fault lies, maybe somewhere in the middle, but one of these letters comes off calm and reasoned, and the other comes off as blustery.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 10:46 am
Cook county is mad that IDOC didn’t check to see if a bond that had not been put online yet existed? Did they expect IDOC to have an officer personally call every county of every person to verify that the lack of a new record actually meant no new record? On the other hand, wouldn’t it have been really, really simple to xerox one single page and include it in the information sent with the person to IDOC?
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but IDOC saying to cook county, you keep them, is funny.
Comment by Delimma Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 10:51 am
The guy was charged with murder in 2015 after he was in IDOC custody. That was the reason given to me in comments the other day as to the lack of an active warrant.
Comment by A Jack Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 10:55 am
It’s a system failure. No point in blaming, unless there was a procedure in place to prevent it and the procedure wasn’t followed. Better to establish a procedure to prevent this in the future and advertise how you’re solving problems in real time.
Comment by NoGifts Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 11:15 am
Why won’t IDOC accept the longstanding offer to create a satellite office at Cook County Jail for processing turnarounds? Why does IDOC insist on busing jailed people to Will County only to see them released from there? Why not cut out the time?
On another front, why isn’t speeding up the court system one of Rauner’s criminal justice reform efforts?
Comment by Precinct Captain Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 11:24 am
Dearest IDOC & Sheriff: Please. You are all adults. Act like it. Work out a process that prevents it. And, wouldn’t you think that that process would already be in place by now?
Comment by sal-says Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 11:35 am
Bill Daley just weighed in on Chicago’s violence. First step in edging out Rahm, Toni and Tom? The Daleys can call in some big chits on many levels.
Comment by weltschmerz Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 11:44 am
===Bill Daley just weighed in on Chicago’s violence===
Nobody has listened to him since they ran him outta DC.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 11:53 am
From Cook I would like to see an actual timeline as to what happened when the person was charged. As a citizen, I don’t have a clue as to the process when someone in custody is charged with an additional crime.
I would also like to know from IDOC the process when someone is released. Isn’t there a statewide database of persons wanted in other localities? If not, why the heck not?
Comment by A Jack Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 12:18 pm
Why doesn’t Cook fingerprint and take the photographs of the defendants and send that to IDOC?
Comment by Anon Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 12:23 pm
Does Rauner’s “take no prisoners approach ” to politics extend to IDOC policy?
Comment by Truthteller Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 1:33 pm