Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Reader comments closed for the weekend
Posted in:
* This bill passed without any interest group opposition…
Illinois House members on Wednesday approved and sent to the governor’s desk follow-up legislation to make it easier for police to carry out the controversial criminal-justice reform bill passed and signed into law one year ago.
Senate Bill 3512 was approved on a 67-42 vote in the House, with no Republican votes. The bill passed the Senate in October on a 40-17 vote. […]
The bill’s language, which was negotiated with the chiefs group and other law-enforcement organizations, also would delay until July 1 the effective date of new police training requirements and a new police officer decertification process. […]
[Ed Wojcicki, director of the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police] said he supports the delays because personnel need more time to be trained to carry out the law.
* Capitol News Illinois…
The bill outlines that when someone is detained, law enforcement must allow them to make up to three phone calls within three hours of being detained. If the individual is moved from one detention center to the next, the three phone calls and three hours will restart.
But House Minority Leader Jim Durkin, R-Western Springs, argued that the bill did not provide enough clarification between the words “police custody” and “detention”.
“Police custody means that they’re not free to leave. That means that they’re sitting in a squad car and under the way you’ve drafted your bill, that means that the police have to give that person three phone calls,” Durkin said.
But the bill clarifies that the definition of “detention” is police stations, places that operate municipal police departments, county police departments and other law enforcement agencies.
That was not a serious objection. But I suppose it’ll make for a cheap direct mail hit.
Durkin warned the measure could lead to witness tampering and intimidation, particularly in domestic violence situations.
“What you’re describing is felony tampering of a witness, leader,” Slaughter said.
“It doesn’t make a difference, you’re still allowing that phone call to be made,” Durkin said. “Sure they can get charged down the line but the fact is the call is going to be made and they’re going to scare the hell out of that victim who has been the subject of abuse by the family member.”
They could do that with only one phone call. But, again, direct mailers galore.
*** UPDATE 1 *** Oops. I forgot about Greg Hinz’s interview of Speaker Welch that also touched on a new anti-crime package…
Welch: We’re still early in the process. We’ve only had one day of session this year. But there’s some things that we’re looking at. Certainly in the carjacking space. We’re looking at things in organized retail theft space. We’re looking at all of the things that we can possibly do, legally, constitutionally that we will be able to agree on, Democrats and Republicans. Everyone’s at the table right now. I do anticipate some things getting done this session that’s going to continue to build on success we had 2021. But specifically around carjackings, organized retail theft in particular.
[Hinz brings up Mayor Lightfoot’s “contention that there are people released on electronic monitors who shouldn’t be.”]
Welch: On the electronic monitoring issue that the mayor is raising, our lawyers are looking at that. You’ve got to remember the things that we have to do also have to pass constitutional muster. […]
Welch: Crime is a concern to all of us, that you do the crime you should do the time. We should also want to make sure our friends in law enforcement have the resources that they need, that law enforcement needs to be properly funded. That they need to be trained and educated. Those are things that we can help do in on budget as well. And those are part of the conversations that are ongoing as well.
Please excuse all transcription errors.
*** UPDATE 2 *** Feigenholtz is backtracking…
State Sen. Sara Feigenholtz (6th), who was a proud supporter of last year’s massive criminal justice reform bill, appeared to have a severe case of buyer’s remorse during the Zoom session.
“We are looking very closely to some of the reforms that we enacted,” Feigenholtz said. “It’s a big bill, and we’re gonna have to go back and make a lot of changes and remediate.”
“I don’t think that anybody bargained for repeat offenders and people who were in possession of a gun and accused of violent crime to be released on a [recognizance] bond,” she continued. […]
“We have a lot of work to do,” Feigenholtz said.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jan 7, 22 @ 2:52 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Reader comments closed for the weekend
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Hopefully the Dems will include some GOP Legislators in these next discussions. And hopefully several Moderate Dems will assert themselves in these next discussions.
Comment by Watching Friday, Jan 7, 22 @ 2:58 pm
If you watched the Blueroom Stream video of the debate, after Durkin made his dramatic, angry speech you could see him sit down and give a big wink to whoever was sitting next to him. So, I agree, I don’t think his objections were serious.
Comment by Heat Wave Friday, Jan 7, 22 @ 3:13 pm
===Hopefully the Dems will include some GOP Legislators in these next discussions.===
The GOP Legislators have to act responsibly to be taken seriously. Rich’s characterization of Durkin’s call for the Governor to act: “Durkin says governor should take unspecified action to reopen Chicago schools.”
Rich followed up with Durkin, asking “what specific action” and this was Durkin’s response: “The Governor has all the resources of the state available to him and instead of leading on an issue impacting hundreds of thousands of Illinois families, he’s sitting on his hands.”
Comment by Anyone Remember Friday, Jan 7, 22 @ 3:27 pm
The Rs have NEVER been serious about dealing with crime, this is all a campaign stunt. Nothing new to see here….
Comment by Spiro Agnew’s calling Friday, Jan 7, 22 @ 3:29 pm
As a general idea…
Getting ahead of something, or being “visionary” to reforms, there will first be growing pains, but what is the fear is that the vision of the want is usurped with the unintended consequences or unforeseen truths yet to appear.
Crime reform is now a want for Republicans to be a negative reality. Given how things are shaking out, unintended and even happenstancely…
Republicans will use a discussion to reform in hopes, politically speaking only, to turn reform into regressing criminal justice.
There’s going to be some heavy lifting, “there’s a lot of work to do” is the pivot off the points made.
I’m keeping in mind, the votes and signatures so far for reform are going to need some real backstop trailing legislation to counter what could be a full bore attack on what has already been made law.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 7, 22 @ 3:30 pm
The detention issue is a problem. The definition is basically any building operated by law enforcement, or where you are detained by law enforcement, such as a school or hospital. Only courthouses excluded. (Page 166). Subsection (d) then allows for the 3 phone call rule to start anew any time a person is moved. So yes, if you start in custody at a school, 3 calls. Moved to a police station, 3 calls. Move to the county jail, 3 new calls. Etc. The language is: (d) If a person who is in police custody is transferred to
a new place of detention, that person’s right to make 3 telephone calls under this Section within 3 hours of arrival is renewed.
You’re going to need to hire a bunch of people to just document the phone calls being made and why, and the exigent circumstances.
Comment by Mary Friday, Jan 7, 22 @ 3:32 pm
What time the clock started ticking for 3 hours to allow 3 phone calls was of tremendous concern to law enforcement during the original SAFE-T Act negotiations. But this trailer bill took care of it. It’s disappointing to see the Republicans make opposition political theater on a bill that both law enforcement and the interest groups on the other side had no objections to.
When the 2015 police reform bill passed Republicans spoke eloquently on the floor about the ability to come together on an important issue and make meaningful progress. How times have changed…
Comment by Leslie K Friday, Jan 7, 22 @ 3:34 pm
there ya go, Dems concerned that they’ve taken things a bit too far based on what happens in the real world. things getting hot.
Comment by Amalia Friday, Jan 7, 22 @ 4:09 pm
also that CWB piece has some very interesting bits about who knows what about crime numbers. and Feigenholtz calling out the ASA who barked the wrong numbers. wow.
Comment by Amalia Friday, Jan 7, 22 @ 4:22 pm
Thanks for finally talking about >Capitol
Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar *** UPDATED x2 *** Criminal justice trailer bill
coverage roundup - Speaker Welch talks about 2022 anti-crime agenda - Feigenholtz backtracking on reform
Comment by northern territory Wednesday, Jan 19, 22 @ 7:35 pm