The Briefing:

The 48-hour requirement existed before the Pretrial Fairness Act, because the Illinois State Constitution requires it.

McHenry County State’s Attorney Patrick Kenneally’s claims about the Pretrial Fairness Act are rife with inaccuracies. For instance, his assertion of a ‘30% increase in crime by individuals on pretrial release’ is misleading. The actual numerical difference is a mere 17 cases, exaggerated through percentages to appear alarming.

This is contradicted by rigorous research from Loyola University showing that failure-to-appear rates have declined slightly under the law, from 13.6% to 12.5%.

Possession of a machine gun is and always has been a detention-eligible offense under the Pretrial Fairness provisions of the SAFE-T Act, and is detainable under both the safety and willful flight bases.

The senators assertions were patently false, which is why the WAND TV reporter eventually removed them from his article. Under the Pretrial Fairness Act, a judge can absolutely detain someone accused of residential burglary or child pornography. The law also made more DUI offenses detention-eligible than before the enactment of the law.

State’s Attorney Villareal suggests that 75% of defendants are released pretrial solely because of the Pretrial Fairness Act. But data suggests otherwise. In the 14th Judicial Circuit, which includes Rock Island, 80% of people facing felony charges were in the community awaiting trial prior to implementation of the Pretrial Fairness Act. Under the old money bond system, people accused of aggravated battery of a police officer or aggravated battery of a doctor could not be denied pretrial release.

The Pretrial Fairness Act allowed for detention and the Dekalb County State’s Attorney petitioned for it. After hearing arguments from the defense and prosecution, the judge chose to release Mr.Sweeney and was not "forced" by the law to do so.

There is nothing in Illinois law requiring the Sheriff to stop tracking individuals on electronic monitoring.

Class 4 non-violent felony offenses were not detainable offenses even prior to the Pretrial Fairness Act. The only option a judge had under the old system was to order a money bond, which if paid, would guarantee an individual’s release.

While the Pretrial Fairness Act does eliminate the use of wealth-based pretrial incarceration, and mandates that many arrested individuals are given a chance to succeed on pretrial release, it does not eliminate the court’s ability to jail someone awaiting trial.

Under the Pretrial Fairness Act, all Class 3 felonies and above are detainable offenses for which someone can be denied release when certain findings are made. Failure to register, distribution of controlled substances, and possession of a stolen vehicle are all felony offenses for which pretrial release may now be denied when certain findings are made—and which were not eligible for detention prior to the new law. Judges could only order a money bond, which if paid, would guarantee an individual’s release. Now judges have the power to deny release altogether when someone poses a risk of intentionally evading prosecution.

Trespass to Residence is a Class A misdemeanor or a Class 4 felony. There is no requirement that police cite and release people for those levels of charges. Even if she was being charged with a lower level version of trespass, police would have been able to arrest this individual during the initial incident had she presented a danger to others. After the initial citation was issued, police could have arrested her if she continued to engage in criminal behavior. Prosecutors would also be able to charge the person with violating the terms of their pretrial release, and a judge could hold them in custody for that violation.

The Pretrial Fairness Act eliminated money bond as a condition of release, but prosecutors can still ask for and judges can still order many other conditions of release.

Under the Pretrial Fairness Act, people can be detained for safety reasons if they are accused of a felony that involves the threat of or infliction of great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement. Strangulation would meet this standard.

The Pretrial Fairness Act permits courts to deny pretrial release to people accused of robbery on the basis of either community safety or evading prosecution.

Before the Pretrial Fairness Act, people on pretrial electronic monitoring needed the Sheriff or a judge to approve their “movement” to leave their homes for any amount of time. If a person on electronic monitoring wanted to go somewhere, they had to get documentation and share it with the Sheriff’s Office three days in advance. This process took a notoriously long time, and in many instances, people were arbitrarily denied movement and not given permission to leave their home. In addition, many appointments do not regularly provide the written notices required by the Sheriff’s Office, making it impossible for people to provide documentation.

The Pretrial Fairness Act guarantees people incarcerated in their homes on electronic monitoring the ability to perform essential tasks such as grocery shopping and laundry, but there is nothing in the law that requires Sheriff Dart to “shut everyone's device off”—nor does he. The Cook County Sheriff’s Office uses GPS devices to track movement and the tracking remains on during essential movement, constantly tracking and recording people’s locations. This statement by Sheriff Dart is intentionally misleading to the public: in spring 2022, WBEZ issued a correction after Sheriff Dart made similar false statements implying that people on electronic monitoring were not monitored during essential movement.

The vast majority of bond payments are used to pay fees and fines that support government functions. A 2022 report by the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts and the Civic Federation found that the 95 Illinois counties that provided data collected a total of $83.1 million in bond payments in 2021. Of that, only $2.5 million—just 3%—went to restitution payments.

The presumption of innocence is a hallmark of America’s criminal legal system. Everyone deserves to be treated as innocent while they are awaiting trial. While the Pretrial Fairness Act does eliminate the use of money bond as a means to detain someone and mandates that most arrested individuals are given a chance to succeed on pretrial release, it does not eliminate the court’s ability to jail someone awaiting trial.

The Pretrial Fairness Act did not change the amount of time prosecutors have to prepare a case. For decades, the court has had 90 days for trial before a person in custody awaiting trial is entitled to release. In reality, it is rare for a serious case to go to trial in that timeframe. The Pretrial Fairness Act actually increased flexibility on this deadline, and now state can receive deadline extensions based on certain situations. The defense also may request extensions.

The Administrative Office of Illinois Court established the Illinois Supreme Court Pretrial Implementation Task Force in 2020. The Task Force included law enforcement, judges, public defenders, and advocates. For two and a half years, the Task Force prepared numerous resources on how counties can implement each element of the law. In 2022 alone, the Task Force held eight public town hall events and six regional educational summits attended by thousands of people. The Task Force was operational through August 2023 when the Illinois Supreme Court created the Committee on Pretrial Education to provide judges, pretrial officers, and other members of the judicial branch with ongoing education and training.

In this article, the McLean County State's Attorney falsely stated that misdemeanor domestic violence was non-detaintable, this is false. Under the Pretrial Fairness Act, state's attorneys will be able to request detention in misdemeanor domestic violence cases.

The Pretrial Fairness Act will uphold public safety, ensure everyone has access to the presumption of innocence — regardless of their financial status — and reduce the number of people jailed while awaiting trial in Illinois.

Her statement is a clear misinterpretation of the provisions of the law meant to reduce arrests for low-level allegations. Police have complete discretion to decide when someone is an “obvious threat to the community” exists, and will not be barred from arresting anyone who they believe poses a threat to public safety.

While the Pretrial Fairness Act does eliminate the use of money bond as a means to detain someone and mandates that most arrested individuals are given a chance to succeed on pretrial release, it does not eliminate the court’s ability to jail someone awaiting trial.

These claims ignore the wealth of evidence from numerous jurisdictions showing that pretrial jailing can be reduced without harming public safety.

The current standards that judges must use when deciding whether someone may be detained pretrial are not substantially different from the new standards that will go into effect with the Pretrial Fairness Act.

The Pretrial Fairness Act will not result in the simple release of every person arrested. Instead, it focuses court resources on serious cases and cases involving allegations of violence. This ensures that a judge considers each person’s circumstances and the allegations against them before deciding to jail them or impose conditions on their release as part of a comprehensive, individualized hearing.

In reality, experts, advocates, stakeholders, and legislators have been transparently discussing the proposed legislation for years—including in subject matter hearings that Representative Windhorst himself participated in.