Illinois Supreme Court halts SAFE T ACT [Archive]

Celticgirl

01-01-2023, 05:44 PM

Cunnington also wrote that the SAFE-T Act “creates new classes of offenses exempt from bail which are not included in the Constitution; it utterly abolishes monetary bail as an option for a judge to utilize to ensure a criminal defendant’s appearance in court; and contradicts the constitutional standard regulating when a defendant may be held without bail.”
“In eliminating monetary bail, the discretion constitutionally vested to the courts to protect victims and their families by this method is gone,” Cunnington wrote. “The constitutional requirement of bail is meant to help ensure victims’ safety, the defendant’s compliance with the terms of release, and the defendant’s appearance in court.”

Cunnington also ruled that the state legislature “improperly attempted” to amend the state constitution by disregarding bail as part of the pretrial release process. The judge said the more appropriate way to raise that issue would’ve been to let the electorate decide whether there should be a constitutional amendment about bail. Such a measure would be presented during an election and would require 60% of those voting on the question to vote “yes” for it to pass or more than 50% of all ballots cast to vote in favor of the question.
The state will appeal Cunnington’s decision to the state Supreme Court, according to a statement late Wednesday from Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul. His office noted that the ruling only applies to jurisdictions that fall under the more than 60 lawsuits -- later consolidated into one lawsuit in Kankakee County court -- against Raoul, Gov. J.B. Pritzker and other state officials. The ruling does not apply to Cook County.
But it’s not immediately clear when the state Supreme Court would hear the appeal or whether the pretrial provisions would be put on hold until the high court makes its ruling. The state Supreme Court has been overseeing the implementation of the no-cash bail policy and other pretrial provisions that have been slated to go into effect on Sunday.
The ruling represents a victory for opponents of the 764-page SAFE-T Act, who’ve long argued that the no-cash bail policy would drastically limit a judge’s ability to detain dangerous criminals ahead of their trial. Supporters of the law argue the end of cash bail is a way to ensure a more equitable court system.
Pritzker’s office late Wednesday called the ruling “a setback for the principles we fought to protect through the passage of the SAFE-T Act.”
“The General Assembly and advocates worked to replace an antiquated criminal justice system with a system rooted in equity and fairness,” he said in a statement. “We cannot and should not defend a system that fails to keep people safe by allowing those who are a threat to their community the ability to simply buy their way out of jail.”
House Republican Leader Jim Durkin, who will be stepping down from his post next month, issued a statement applauding Cunnington’s decision. “Legislation of this magnitude must not only be judged on substance, but also on process,” said Durkin, of Western Springs. “In that regard, the Illinois Democrats failed Illinoisans.”
The state’s attorneys also argued that the SAFE-T Act violates the so-called “single subject rule” of the constitution, which is meant to ensure bills are focused on a single topic. On that issue, Cunnington sided with the state, finding that the plaintiffs’ did not meet their burden to show the SAFE-T Act’s provisions “lack a ‘natural or logical connection to’ the criminal justice system.”
Legal experts interviewed by the Tribune said much remains unclear about the impact of the ruling, with one of the experts saying it leaves open the possibility that pretrial decisions could vary from county to county until the state Supreme Court weighs in.
“There may be some confusion in the interim,” said Jonathan Manes, an attorney with Northwestern University’s MacArthur Justice Center. “It’s important to get clarity soon from the Illinois Supreme Court.”
Manes also called Cunnington’s ruling “flawed,” and he noted how it doesn’t bind all judges throughout the state.
“I could certainly imagine a situation where come Jan. 1, criminal defendants in court are arguing they should be considered under provisions of the new law,” Manes said.
Harold Krent, a law professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology’s Chicago-Kent College of Law, called Cunnington’s ruling on the separation of powers violations “highly contestable,” arguing that the state legislature also has an interest in making sure the court system is fair. The legislature has already weighed in on similar matters, such as limiting judges’ discretion in sentencing.
In a statement, one advocacy group in favor of the no-cash bail policy argued that Cunnington’s ruling was incorrectly applied, saying the courts have made it clear that the term “bailable,” which is used in the Illinois Constitution, refers to the concept of pretrial release and not money. The group, the Illinois Network for Pretrial Justice, also contended that Cunnington’s separation of powers argument was also a misinterpretation of the law because the legislative and judicial branches of government share authority when it comes to the procedures followed by the courts.
“We anticipate that the poorly reasoned decision that found the (pretrial release provisions) unconstitutional will be swiftly corrected by the Illinois Supreme Court,” the group said.
Opponents of the no-cash bail policy stoked fears that the provision would free violent criminals, even though judges maintain the ability to keep defendants behind bars if the state could show they were a flight risk or a danger to the public.
Earlier this month, Pritzker signed into law several changes to the pretrial provisions ahead of the Jan. 1 effective date.
The changes clarify the standards that judges must follow when considering whether a defendant presents a danger to the public, and adds several offenses for which judges can detain someone if they’re deemed a threat to the community or another person, including aggravated robbery, second-degree murder and home invasion.
Prosecutors had expressed concern that it would be almost impossible to make an argument that a defendant is a flight risk because the SAFE-T Act originally limited their use of a defendant’s prior behavior of failing to appear in court as evidence. Under the changes, patterns of failing to show up for court -- but not a single nonappearance -- can be used in making the argument for detention.
Defendants charged with crimes before Jan. 1 would also have the option to remain under the old bail system or be moved to the new system. To ease the burden on the court system, the changes set specific time frames for detention hearings for those shifting to the new system.
The changes also make clear that police can arrest people for misdemeanors such as trespassing that generally require only a ticket, stating that arrests can be made if officers believe “the accused poses a threat to the community or any person” or if “criminal activity persists.” An arrest can also be made if the alleged offender has an “obvious medical or mental health” issue that poses a risk to their own safety, according to the changes.
jgorner@chicagotribune.com (jgorner@chicagotribune.com)
mabuckley@chicagotribune.com (mabuckley@chicagotribune.com)