Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Top court rejects “uneven reasoning” on SAFE-T Act
Next Post: Afternoon roundup
Posted in:
* As most of you will recall, the SAFE-T Act was revised by the General Assembly during last year’s veto session. The Civic Federation analyzed the newly revised law in December. From its section on detainable pretrial offenses…
• All non-forcible felonies that are not eligible for probation, if the defendant’s release poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community, based on the specific articulable facts of the case;
• All forcible felonies, if the defendant’s release poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community, based on the specific articulable facts of the case. This includes: treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, armed robbery, aggravated robbery, robbery, burglary where there is use of force against another person, residential burglary, home invasion, vehicular invasion, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement or any other felony which involves the threat of or infliction of great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement;
• The list of detainable offenses under 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(6) (which already included several gun-related offenses) is expanded to include: reckless homicide, involuntary manslaughter, residential burglary, child abduction, child endangerment, hate crimes, aggravated unlawful restraint, threatening a public official and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon other than by discharge of a firearm;
• A new section (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(6.5)) is added to include several offenses related to aggravated driving under the influence and animal cruelty; and
• Any attempt to commit the aforementioned charges if the defendant’s pretrial release poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community, based on the specific articulable facts of the case (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(7)).
* Revocation of pre-trial release…
If someone is released on a felony or class A misdemeanor, and the person commits a new felony or class A misdemeanor while on pretrial release, they are subject to revocation of pretrial release and entitled to a hearing. The revocation hearing must occur within 72 hours of the filing of the State’s petition or the court’s motion for revocation. The defendant is entitled to representation by defense counsel and an opportunity to be heard regarding the violation and evidence in mitigation. If a defendant was released on a Class B or C misdemeanor or any lower offense, and is charged with a felony or a Class A misdemeanor while on pretrial release, the pretrial release may not be revoked but the court may impose sanctions. However, the state can file a petition seeking detention in any eligible circumstance. (725 ILCS 5/110-6)
* Escape from electronic monitoring…
The amendment removes language from the SAFE-T Act that previously required someone to be in violation of electronic monitoring for 48 hours in order for it to be considered an escape and instead states that a person “knowingly escapes or leaves from the geographic boundaries of an electronic monitoring or home detention program with the intent to evade prosecution.” Anyone charged with a felony who escapes according to this revised criterion is guilty of a class 3 felony, and anyone charged with a misdemeanor who escapes is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. (730 ILCS 5/5-8A-4.1)
New language is also added to 730 ILCS 5/5-8A-4.15 to state that anyone charged with a felony or misdemeanor who knowingly and intentionally violates a condition of electronic monitoring or home detention without notification to the proper authority is subject to sanctions; and a person who violates a condition of the electronic monitoring or home detention program by knowingly and intentionally removing, disabling, destroying or circumventing the operation of an approved electronic monitoring device shall be subject to penalties for escape under Section 5-8A-4.1.
* Willful flight…
“Willful flight” is defined as intentional conduct with a purpose to thwart the judicial process to avoid prosecution. Isolated instances of nonappearance in court alone are not evidence of the risk of willful flight. Reoccurrence and patterns of intentional conduct to evade prosecution, along with any affirmative steps to communicate or remedy any such missed court date, may be considered as factors in assessing future intent to evade prosecution. The amendment also removes language that previously said “simple past non-appearance in court alone is not evidence of future intent to evade prosecution.” (725 ILCS 5/110-1(f))
If you have any other questions, please click here first.
* The Illinois State Bar Association also produced an informative guide. From its section on citations in lieu of arrest…
725 ILCS 5/109-1(a-1) makes explicit the official AOIC [Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts] interpretation of the Pretrial Fairness Act (PFA): someone who is trespassing and will not stop may be arrested. Requires that a citation be used first before custodial arrest while retaining exception to allow immediate arrest based on safety of others or the accused. Clarifies that arrests are not required for class A misdemeanors or felonies. Clarifies that any officer can release someone from custody and not only “the arresting officer.” Removes requirement that people released from police custody be scheduled into court within 21 days.
…Adding… AP…
In spring 2020, the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Pretrial Practices strongly endorsed bail reform, noting that found that a defendant who can’t afford bail sees his or her life unravel within days — loss of a job, loss of child custody, health problems without access to medication.
What’s more, the commission found that it tends to generate spurious plea deals. Defendants reason that pleading to a lower-level offense gets them out of jail sooner.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jul 18, 23 @ 12:07 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Top court rejects “uneven reasoning” on SAFE-T Act
Next Post: Afternoon roundup
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
===someone who is trespassing and will not stop may be arrested. Requires that a citation be used first before custodial arrest while retaining exception to allow immediate arrest based on safety of others or the accused.===
So all that drama about police not being able to do anything if somebody decides to camp out in my yard and won’t leave was…bull—-?
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jul 18, 23 @ 12:16 pm
===was…bull===
Yes. As noted above by the ISBA, the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts had already interpreted the law to mean the opposite of what the usual suspects were claiming, but the law was changed out of an abundance of caution.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 18, 23 @ 12:18 pm
I’m starting to find it amusing how the people who were complaining about the law being passed ‘in the middle of the night’ with no chance for anyone to read it… are going on 7 months later making statements showing they still have not read the law.
It’s less amusing when it’s still coming out of the mouths of law enforcement representatives.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Tuesday, Jul 18, 23 @ 12:30 pm
What’s with all these facts?
This has never been about facts./s
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Tuesday, Jul 18, 23 @ 12:37 pm
It’s less about bail and more about cash…on hand.
Comment by Dotnonymous x Tuesday, Jul 18, 23 @ 12:39 pm
==It’s less about bail and more about cash…on hand.==
It’s also about prosecutors losing leverage to get plea bargains. “Sign here and you’ll be released with time served.” doesn’t work when the defendant has not been sitting in jail awaiting trial for months.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Jul 18, 23 @ 12:58 pm
The trailer bill was the result of months of conversations with law enforcement and prosecutors. It removed opposition from those major groups.
And yet Republicans are still calling for a special session to address those imaginary concerns. Wouldn’t it have been easier for them to just vote for the bill?
Comment by wildcat12 Tuesday, Jul 18, 23 @ 1:19 pm
- It’s also about prosecutors losing leverage to get plea bargains. -
Good point, our criminal system is a trap in so many ways…awaiting new victims.
Comment by Dotnonymous x Tuesday, Jul 18, 23 @ 1:25 pm
I don’t have a problem with the law.
But is there anything Kim Foxx has done in six years that makes anyone think she can successfully execute this law? In a county that is second most populous in the United States.
The answer is no.
Comment by Almost the Weekend Tuesday, Jul 18, 23 @ 2:20 pm
I do not see what the big deal is. Opponents act like there is no way to hold people when obviously there is. They also act like money makes it less like to offend when in reality all it is is a money seizure by the state taking 10% of your money for taking your money. And most importantly a defendant is just charged he certainly is a long way from being convicted.
Comment by DuPage Saint Tuesday, Jul 18, 23 @ 2:29 pm
== that makes anyone think she can successfully execute this law==
Well she is gone soon and then the law and order types will need a new scapegoat for every criminal issue.
Comment by Big Dipper Tuesday, Jul 18, 23 @ 2:51 pm
Proft on Twitter naturally decides to personalize this decision by jumping on Welch issues with women. He’s not just doing one comment, it’s a thread of links and photos. I get opposing this decision, and in fact I have some issues with it. How about instead of snap talking you make constructive proposals about how judges should handle cases now. after all Danny boy, you went to law school, remember?
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Jul 18, 23 @ 4:53 pm
=== Proft on Twitter ===
There was no cash bail in the Wild West.
Maybe it was the lack of bail, not the proliferation of firearms, that made folks polite.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Jul 18, 23 @ 8:18 pm
I mean honestly, there are few movies I can think of where a guy is released on cash bail and you’re like “oh, I am so glad he is out on the streets.” its mostly villians with deep pockets.
We joke about revolving doors at the jail for fat cats, mobsters and drug lords.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Jul 18, 23 @ 8:22 pm