Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Pritzker administration rebuts Illinois Sheriffs’ Association claims about new criminal justice reform law

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

* Gov. Pritzker said this yesterday before signing the criminal justice reform bill into law…

He also took aim at opponents of the law, saying they “don’t want any change, don’t believe there is injustice in the system and are preying upon fear of change to lie and fear monger in defense of the status quo.”

Lots of fear-mongering out there, for sure.

* This is all over Facebook, apparently…

Posted by Illinois Sheriffs' Association on Saturday, February 20, 2021

* I asked the governor’s office for a point by point response…

When the Governor, bill sponsors and advocates decry the misinformation from opponents who want to protect the status quo, this social media post is exactly what they are talking about. Misinformation can easily spread on social media, and those who oppose efforts to make our criminal justice system more equitable prey on fear and misinformation to keep a system in place that disproportionately harms black and brown communities around our state.

The SAFE-T Act (HB 3653), does not prevent police officers from using force against individuals who actively threaten people’s lives. If a person does not pose such a risk, the law requires that officers prioritize non-lethal methods, including de-escalation, citations, and non-lethal force, as appropriate and based upon the totality of the circumstances. This law is consistent with best practices for law enforcement and will improve public safety for both the community and our police officers. Through additional training and codifying these best practices, the law aims to end the fear and trauma black and brown communities deal with every day because of the systemic racism that is part of our criminal justice system.

In each of these scenarios, the description of how the police can respond under the new law blatantly ignores the options that continue to be available to police who are seeking to protect the safety of an individual or the community.

1. “Critical Situations: There is an Active Shooter at a local high school. Police arrive and the suspect flees the scene. Uniformed officers catch up to the suspect who is still armed, no longer actively shooting and forcibly resisting arrest. The officers know who the suspect is and he could be identified & apprehended at a later date. Officers cannot use force against the suspect even though he just shot people moments ago.”

• The SAFE-T Act does not prevent law enforcement from appropriately using force against a person who poses an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death to another person or people. In order for an officer to use deadly force, the shooter must be an active threat. This bill does not change that requirement.

2. “Criminal Trespass: You arrive home and notice an unknown person sitting in your backyard. You call the police and wait for them to arrive. The police confront suspect and he refuses to leave. The individual cannot be arrested & no force can be used to make him leave, only a ticket can be issued.”

• This description of how police can respond under the new law ignores the clear provision in the law giving officers discretion to respond to individuals who pose a threat to the community or any person. Specifically, the SAFE-T Act amends the Code of Criminal Procedure to require that “a law enforcement officer shall issue a citation in lieu of custodial arrest . . . for those accused of traffic and Class B and Class C criminal misdemeanor offenses, or of petty and business offenses, who pose no obvious threat to the community or any person . . . .” Outside of these low-level offenses, officers retain discretion to arrest.

3. “Disorderly Conduct: You own a local store and an individual is causing trouble. The suspect is being loud and yelling obscenities at customers. Police arrive and realize he’s disturbing the peace of the store. The suspect will be issued a ticket, a court date within 21 days and officers will leave. The suspect cannot be forcibly removed & the store owner is left with the same problem.”

• Under the SAFE-T Act, police have the authority to cite instead of arrest for a breach of the peace violation, which is a Class C misdemeanor. However, police have discretion to arrest if the individual poses an obvious threat to the community or any person, or who has an obvious medical or mental health issues that poses a risk to their own safety.

4. “Obstructing: Police are investigating a homicide. A body is on the ground & the area is surrounded with crime scene tape. A person decides to enter the area after being told not to by a uniformed officer, walks through the crime scene and jeopardizes the investigation. This person would no longer be arrested for obstructing a police investigation & force cannot be used to remove the individual from the scene.”

• The SAFE-T Act does not prohibit an officer from making an arrest for the described offense.

…Adding… I checked in with sponsoring Sen. Elgie Sims to see if he had any differences with the governor’s responses and he said he did not. “Those are right on point.”

It should also probably be noted that the president of the Illinois Sheriffs’ Association has bragged about never enforcing any pandemic mitigations in his home county.

* Coverage roundup…

* Pritzker hails newly signed criminal justice reform bill as ‘substantial step’ in erasing ‘systemic racism’

* Illinois Gov. Pritzker signs criminal justice reform bill

* Gov. J.B. Pritzker signs sweeping Illinois criminal justice overhaul, which will end cash bail starting in 2023

* Pritzker signs sweeping police reform, criminal justice bill, despite opposition from law enforcement

* Pritzker signs controversial criminal justice reform bill

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 11:11 am

Comments

Every LEO on Facebook has shared this and has no idea what’s actually stated in the bill, now law. How can so many serve the public while proclaiming themselves victims, but i digress. I’m still waiting for the collapse of society and police departments having to euthanize their K9 units because of legal weed.

Comment by Dee Lay Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 11:21 am
== no longer actively shooting and forcibly resisting arrest . . . Officers cannot use force against the suspect ==

This is telling: the cops want to be able to use force against someone who is “not forcibly resisting arrest.” They want the right to carry out summary executions.

Comment by Quibbler Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 11:22 am
I get it, Sherriff’s Association. I also like to make crap up to scare people into not holding me accountable for things that I do.

Comment by Lane Pratley Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 11:26 am
Governor Pritzker continues to demonize and mischaracterize legitimate policy differences to his administration’s far left polices by stakeholders in the criminal justice system and concerned citizens.

“Opponents don’t want any change, he said, “don’t believe there is injustice in the system” and are liars and fearmongers who prefer the status quo.

It’s something many of us have learned about this governor: offer any resistance or opposition to his policies and he’ll resort to blaming, mischaracterizing and shaming, even when there are legitimate questions at hand. If you voted against his graduated tax amendment to force discipline onto Springfield, you were brainwashed by Republicans. If you disagreed with his budget priorities or executive orders during COVID-19, you’re a “carnival barker.” And if you oppose this new law, you’re fearmongering.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-chicago-police-reform-trust-cash-bail-20210222-ib5jnlbrsjarfczbsesyxkcuzu-story.html

Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 11:35 am
I remember Jan 1 of 2020 - the end of world as we knew it with legal weed. Thousands dead because of high drivers, kids using weed at record amounts, deadbeats everywhere….

Comment by Cool Papa Bell Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 11:36 am
How on earth can we expect good competent law enforcement if this is the level of understanding of the law by those expected to enforce it.

Comment by Banish Misfortune Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 11:41 am
Huh.

If police will lie about something as easily disprovable as this, I wonder what else they might lie about…

– MrJM

Comment by @misterjayem Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 11:42 am
Fear mongering at its best: The example in #2 is narrowly written to fall under the statutory definition of criminal trespass to property, which is a class B misdemeanor, and by “sitting in your backyard” they imply the person would “pose no obvious threat to the community or any person”, so yes according to the response, the new remedy is citation not arrest. Seems ok to me. Plenty of misdemeanors out there that don’t need to result in arrest. If there is a threat, the police can arrest.

Comment by natty lite Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 11:43 am
One of the ways to be a successful advocate or lobbyist is to provide accurate descriptions of what a [potential] bill actually says — so the legislators and voters know what they’re dealing with.

There’s spin, framing, and misleading focus, and then there’s just false.

Anyone who has passed on this posting of the Sheriffs’ Association, and knows or should have known it is basically false, is doing a real disservice.

Comment by walker Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 11:46 am
Thoughtful disagreement and good faith arguments are fine. Outright misrepresentation and untruths only take us down a rabbit hole that can lead to tragedy. We just saw that on January 6th. That Facebook post is outright misrepresentation, and is clearly an effort to create fear. Be better than that.

Comment by Lincoln Lad Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 11:49 am
“If police will lie about something as easily disprovable as this, I wonder what else they might lie about…”

I’ve experienced, first hand, an investigator lying on the witness stand in federal court during a criminal trial, and the prosecuting attorney knew it.

Comment by Steve Polite Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 11:51 am
LEOs still enjoy qualified immunity from prosecution and can still legally steal your possessions under the doctrine of civil asset forfeiture.

Miss me with this victimhood nonsense.

Comment by sulla Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 11:57 am
Hack propaganda from a special interest lobbying group is all this is.

Comment by Third Reading Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 12:00 pm
@Quibbler
I had the same thought! If the shooter is no longer posing a danger, then no, the policy should not be allowed to just execute them. Really shows you how these supposed peace keepers see themselves…

Comment by Actual Red Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 12:06 pm
Stunned to hear a sitting Governor claim 102 of the 104 State’s Attorneys in Illinois are fear mongers who don’t believe there is injustice in the criminal justice system.

Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 12:14 pm
==Stunned to hear a sitting Governor claim ….=

LP, after years of you defending Rauner and Trump, it’s amazing what “stuns” you.

Comment by don the legend Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 12:47 pm
If the sheriffs association’s primary mission is to provide compelling social media content, they’re doing a great job. If there mission is to shape public policy, they are failing miserably.

Here’s a suggestion: contact the bill sponsors (or any legislator) and point out the new law might create a gray area in resolving trespassing incidents. Advocate for a trailer bill that allows responding police officers to remove trespassers from private property in addition to issuing them a citation. That just might solve the problem.

Comment by Roman Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 12:51 pm
LP, can you point to where the 102 State’s Attorneys defended the claims in this flyer? You keep criticizing people for things they didn’t say.

Comment by Not a Superstar Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 12:55 pm
@ natty lite
Just give him a ticket and leave him sitting in your yard?
In the store yelling scenario, can’t do anything unless he’s obviously crazy? Not if he’s just a jerk?

In both of those, police should have the right to demand that they vacate the premises and to arrest them if they violate the valid police order. Of course, they will be released without bail, but at least the home/business owner ids free of harassment for a few hours until the judge goes home to his gated community, where private guards will beat the ___ out of anyone who makes trouble.

Comment by Streamwood Retiree Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 1:00 pm
Pritzker could’ve saved himself the trouble of responding by saying, “When is the last time the Illinois Sheriff’s Association was right about anything?”

Comment by Jocko Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 1:02 pm
Hmm… #2. So, I am going to find a really nice house better than mine with a nice yard and camp out in the back with some snacks. maybe catch a nap.

Comment by O-Man Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 1:05 pm
Police have authority over criminals…the Public has authority over Police…that’s the Democratic way, whether they like it… or not.

Comment by Dotnonymous Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 1:14 pm
Same law enforcement groups that said drug cartels would set up shop in our small towns and they would have to euthanize police dogs if we allowed recreation marijuana.

Comment by Howard Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 1:15 pm
Going out to check my back yard for trespassing pot smokers.

Comment by Dotnonymous Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 1:27 pm
==police have discretion to arrest if the individual poses an obvious threat to the community==

Like walking on the street during a snowstorm?
https://tinyurl.com/3bmtt4fa

Comment by Jocko Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 1:30 pm
Let me start with all-in-all I am good with the law but…

A thought on point 2.

I think this is many ways is going to be the point that “plays” with people.

There is a book that came out last month.
Land: How the Hunger for Ownership Shaped the Modern World — Simon Winchester (the same guy who wrote Krakatoa)

In it, he talks about Trespassing (along with a lot of other things) and one interesting thing that comes up is Scotland really doesn’t have trespassing as law in most cases anymore.

That being said, an early point he makes in the book (like Chapter 2) there is this.

But it remains a reality that, in most societies today, ownership of land happens—even if the very concept of ownership reduces itself to one simple and popularly accepted fact, as a land lawyer put it: ownership means that you have the right to call the police to throw anyone else off what the title documents say belongs to you. It is not so much that you own it; it is just you own the right to tell everyone else to keep off it.

If that starts not happening and there are documented cases of it, you are going to see pushback.

Some kids are goofing off in a farm field marked no trespassing riding going to fall under this?

• This description of how police can respond under the new law ignores the clear provision in the law giving officers discretion to respond to individuals who pose a threat to the community or any person.

Are they posing a threat to the community or any person? You could easily argue they are not. You think farmers who border more developed areas are going to be happy with that?

This is going to be the one that plays with folks because the expectation is that if I don’t want you on my land and you refuse to go, law enforcement will make you go.

Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 1:32 pm
=== Some kids are goofing off in a farm field marked no trespassing riding going to fall under this? ===

No because that condition does not fall under the example given for a piece of residential land. There are different penalties for private property, farm land, and publicly supported property.

In your example, the violation is a class A misdemeanor, or even potentially a class 4 felony.

Neither of which fall under the purview of the new bill pertaining to class B and C misdemeanors only.

I can cut you some slack for not reading the boring, yet quite specific to your example, legalese in the ILCS.

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 1:43 pm
In 2 and 3, the rebuttal from the governor actually confirms what the sheriffs are saying. In 2, if somebody is say, fishing in your pond without your permission, they can be cited, however, if they aren’t threatening you, they can stay and keep fishing in your pond, there’s no latitude for the police to arrest and physically remove them.
In 3, if the subject creating the disturbance is not threatening anyone, he cannot be arrested and physically removed by police. He can continue to remain in the store and harass patrons and employees.
In both these scenarios the property owner is left with the same issue and the onus is on them to solve it.

Comment by Han’s Solo Cup Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 1:46 pm
Going out to my back yard…to see if the sky is falling.

Comment by Dotnonymous Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 1:49 pm
==No because that condition does not fall under the example given for a piece of residential land. There are different penalties for private property, farm land, and publicly supported property. ==

Yep, did not read the entire bill.

But if anything this makes it worse not better from a ‘looks bad’ perspective.

So let me get this straight officer if the kid who is currently in my backyard was at the park and refusing to go you would remove him, or on the farm field a mile away you would remove him, but since he is in my back yard and not causing an obvious risk to me or the community you can just write him a ticket?

How about land owned by an HOA? Lots of retention ponds in my area, are those, for want of a better way of putting it Class A vs Class B properties?

Are we really expecting LEOs to make that call in the field?

Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 1:54 pm
Does this mean if someone climbs the fence at the Governors mansion and stages a peaceful protest the police can arrest that person but if that same person stages a peaceful protest at the governors personal residence they can stay as long as they are not threatening anyone? That how I read it. Someone that thinks I’m wrong then please site the part of the new law that I seem to be missing.

Comment by Nagidam Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 2:17 pm
I think the easiest way to prove or disprove what the sheriff is claiming, is to go camp in his yard.

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 2:30 pm
also, a custodial arrest is different than being able to remove someone from property.

In the old method, the custodial arrest also had the benefit of removing someone from the property.

That’s all that is changing here. Trespassers can still be removed from property independent of a custodial arrest.

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 2:33 pm
So, on a related note, how many law enforcement officials resigned yesterday, when the bill was signed? I heard there was an Exodus planned.

Comment by H-W Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 2:39 pm
I think this is a good ideal..it is not defunding the police, just changing the policies. the police departments all over the United States have been corrupt…A friend of mines grew up in a police household, her father was a officer and she would hear things, about how they let other officers slide pass on a crime, and so on…they have a brother-hood they protect

Comment by Shela Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 2:45 pm
-Invisible Man
On what grounds and under what authority could the police physically remove remove someone absent a custodial arrest? Not being snarky. Legit curious.

Comment by Han’s Solo Cup Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 2:45 pm
===That’s all that is changing here. Trespassers can still be removed from property independent of a custodial arrest.===

How do you remove a trespasser if there can no longer be a custodial arrest for class b & C offences? The new law states they shall issue a ticket in lieu of custodial arrest. Custodial arrest is the physical detaining of a suspect and taken to jail.

Comment by Nagidam Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 2:49 pm
same level of nonsense we heard when legalized pot discussions were under way. LAW ENFORCEMENT wants to protect THEMSELVES AND NOT THE PUBLIC. Always been that way and needs to stop

Comment by truthteller Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 3:13 pm
It appears to be a hasty and poorly drafted bill. We have seen how well our Cook County public defender #2, K. Foxx, who is masquerading as a prosecutor, has done with her catch and release policies.

Comment by Chiview Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 3:31 pm
“This description of how police can respond under the new law ignores the clear provision in the law giving officers discretion to respond to individuals who pose a threat to the community or any person. Specifically, the SAFE-T Act amends the Code of Criminal Procedure to require that “a law enforcement officer shall issue a citation in lieu of custodial arrest . . . for those accused of traffic and Class B and Class C criminal misdemeanor offenses, or of petty and business offenses, who pose no obvious threat to the community or any person . . . .” Outside of these low-level offenses, officers retain discretion to arrest.

Criminal Trespass to your backyard is a Class B misdemeanor. If the individual is not threatening anyone but just refuses to leave the property, please explain how an officer will require someone to leave? And please don’t parrot some of the earlier responses about an officer issuing a valid order. There is no such thing.

Comment by DD Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 3:52 pm
Police being able to physically remove a trespasser is an independent action from a custodial arrest.

Previously, the custodial arrest also served the end goal of removing a trespasser from property. Now, the ability to remove/escort a trespasser from property is a different action than a custodial arrest which has existed this whole time but was made moot by the custodial arrest. Being arrested or simply escorted has always been at the discretion of officers, which allows for uneven application of the law - which this change is working to address.

Then another criminal offense can easily come into play of disorderly conduct which in the example given can easily be charged to a class A misdemeanor, then a custodial arrest under 720 ILCS 5 26-1 a(11)

Point being the police still have plenty of options to remove a trespasser.

I will never call anyone snarky for asking a question in good faith. I’m not a sherrifs department after all.

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 3:58 pm
==If the individual is not threatening anyone but just refuses to leave the property==

Has this been a thing? Since when?

Comment by Jocko Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 3:59 pm
The section you quoted references looking in someone’s windows. Disorderly conduct in and of itself is a class C misdemeanor. I’m still not seeing where the police would have the authority to physically remove someone absent an arrest. I looked under disobeying a peace officer and obstructing a peace officer, but neither apply. I think if the police lay hands on you and remove you from a property it constitutes a seizure. Which they are no longer authorized to do. I’ll keep looking, but I think I have to believe the sheriff’s position here might be correct.

Comment by Han's Solo Cup Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 4:28 pm
The Invisible Man

Respectfully, I’m not following your explanation. If an officer issues a citation and then attempts to escort the offender from the property, what can the officer do if the subject refuses to leave or be escorted? Often in criminal trespass cases, the custodial arrest is made as a last resort when a subject refuses to leave the property. Please don’t think I’m speaking down to you, but an officer cannot use force to escort someone and then not arrest the person.

Comment by DD Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 4:41 pm
being escorted off of private property is not an arrest, and a refusal at that point is not charged as the original trespassing charge.

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 5:11 pm
Pritzker should be careful about p-ing off law enforcement too much. George Ryan did, and look what happened to him.

Comment by DuPage Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 5:11 pm
TheInvisibleMan,

Then what is the charge?

Comment by DD Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 5:40 pm
===being escorted off of private property is not an arrest, and a refusal at that point is not charged as the original trespassing charge.===

Ok so being escorted of the property is not a custodial arrest as the person was not taken to the police station. what is this person being charged with that would allow the police to physically touch this person that was just issued a citation under this new law?

Comment by Nagidam Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 6:51 pm
Just a quick note that the arresting authority has the sole discretion to determine whether someone is posing a safety risk and therefore can arrest and LITERALLY NO ONE ELSE in this fairy tale.

Also note that this was a direct recommendation of the Supreme Court Commission on Pretrial Practices

https://courts.illinois.gov/Probation/FinalReport.pdf (pg23)

Comment by Dee4Three Tuesday, Feb 23, 21 @ 10:24 pm
The governor better hope it’s just fearmongering.

People live in the suburbs specifically to ensure their private property remains private and inviolable, under threat of force of law.

If, by Nov 2022, that is shown to no longer be the case, those suburban vote totals will be… interesting.

Comment by JB13 Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 8:37 am
===what is this person being charged with that would allow the police to physically touch this person==

this is hilarious, thanks for the laugh

Comment by crazybleedingheart Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 10:05 am