Law enforcement officials say SAFE-T Act remains work in progress, but more improvements needed

QUINCY — Most people involved in local law enforcement had their doubts about the need for and effectiveness of the SAFE-T Act before it became law on Sept. 18, 2023.

The act recently celebrated its first anniversary, and while those same local law enforcement officials aren’t singing its praises, they say some — not all — of their concerns have been alleviated. 

“I’ll reserve judgment on whether the SAFE-T Act is working,” said Adam Yates, chief of the Quincy Police Department. “What I’ll say is that we are working within the SAFE-T Act. The rules are laid out for law enforcement. We have to operate within the rules. We don’t have a choice, so we are operating within the rules as they have been given to us.”

The law to end cash bail in Illinois passed the General Assembly during a special lame-duck session in January 2021. Known as the Pretrial Fairness Act, it was part of a broader criminal justice reform package known as the SAFE-T Act that was backed by the Legislative Black Caucus.

“I was concerned initially, mostly because of no bail,” Adams County Sheriff Tony Grootens said. “That means they’re releasing people back into the community who probably shouldn’t be released back into the community. However, to my surprise, at least in Adams County, we’re not having a serious issue with it. It did cut down on the population in jail some, but I expected that as well.”

Many concerns addressed in trailer bills

When Gov. JB Pritzker signed the Pretrial Fairness Act into law on Feb. 22, 2021, it prompted several lawsuits in circuit courts throughout the state by county sheriffs and state’s attorneys who challenged its constitutionality. In December 2022, Pritzker signed an amendment to the original law that clarified which individuals and what crimes would be eligible for detention.

Yates said many of the concerns voiced by the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, the Illinois Sheriffs Association and the Illinois State’s Attorneys Association to clean up the language were addressed in trailer bills.

“The bill was put in a position where it made more sense for what actually goes on in the criminal justice system,” Yates said.

First Assistant State’s Attorney Todd Eyler said the law continues to evolve. He explained that the Appellate Court handed down a decision in late September that impacts how his office deals with certain procedures under the SAFE-T Act.

“It’s a work in progress,” he said. “We deal with that as best as we can. There are still issues with it, and it’s still not perfect, but I will admit that it’s not been as bad as we thought it would be.”

Eyler frustrated with ‘catch-and-release’ method used with criminals

One of the biggest problems, Eyler said, is the frustration of the catch-and-release method used with many criminals who, before the SAFE-T Act, would have stayed in jail.

Both Eyler and Yates mentioned several instances where people arrested for minor offenses repeatedly violate the law because the criminals see no immediate deterrent. 

“There’s an option, if we can get the judges to buy into it,” Eyler said.

Eyler said if a person continues to be arrested repeatedly, a judge could sanction that person to serve up to 30 days in jail.

“There’s a tool and an ability for us to deal with those people, but the problem that we’re seeing is we don’t have judges buying into that,” Eyler said.

“Somebody may repeatedly get arrested, and we file these petitions every time they get arrested, and the judge will simply give them credit for time served. They’ll sentence them to one or two days in jail, credit for time served and let them out, as opposed to saying, ‘Look, buddy, you were on pretrial release. You didn’t abide by it. You’ve been arrested X number of times since, and you’re not getting this. So let me help you understand and appreciate this. You’re going to sit in jail for 30 days.’ And (the judges) are not doing that.”

Eyler said he believes some judges believe what they’re doing is best for the person charged.

“But it’s not helping those types of situations,” he said. “And if (the judges are) too naive to see that and understand that, then shame on them.”

Hoover: SAFE-T Act helps defendants without a lot of money

Chief Public Defender Jonathan Hoover believes the SAFE-T Act is an improvement for defendants — and their families — who don’t have a lot of money.

“What happened a lot of times was whether you were incarcerated before your finding of guilt or innocence, you were being detained as a presumed innocent individual,” Hoover said. “Your freedom was based on the money you can round up (for bail). (That money) comes from different sources that people don’t think about. Their parents, their family members will pull money together.

“I think it helps keep money in the community and also keeps level the playing field for who is released pre-trial.”

Before the law went into effect, an analysis of data being monitored by the Center for Criminal Justice at Loyola University in Chicago statewide showed about $140 million each year was paid by defendants in the form of posting money to secure their pretrial release.

The Loyola analysis also shows detention hearings now take considerably more time. In urban counties that handle large numbers of criminal cases, the median length of a detention hearing went from four minutes before the law took effect to 16 minutes under the new rules.

Researchers also noticed a change in the issues discussed during those hearings. Most of the discussion centered on the offense being charged and the defendant’s criminal history. Since the new law went into effect, more focus is on the strength of the evidence against the defendant and the risk the defendant poses to other individuals.

The population numbers in the Adams County Jail are down. Figures provided by Chief Deputy Pat Frazier show the average daily population before the SAFE-T Act was around 130. That average now is down to about 100, and that figure includes a handful of federal inmates for whom the county receives money to house.

What changes need to be made?

Hoover said the process is more time-consuming.

“It’s added a lot of burden for all of us,” he said. “A (public defender) needs to be there, a judge has to be there, a state’s attorney has to be there. They’re all important things that I’m glad are happening, but logistically, it’s a lot more difficult with a lot more resources. The thing about the justice system is it needs to be funded for both sides. This is just another step towards preventing an innocent person from being incarcerated.”

Grootens would like to see more people arrested for non-violent crimes to be detained in the county jail.

“If someone steals a car, for example, and he’s going to get out,” he said. “We’ve had a problem in Quincy and Adams County. We had a regular group of car thieves going around and stealing cars. We caught them, and they were released to do it again.

Grootens says he occasionally reads about someone who was released, then commits a violent crime and ends up being detained.

“That’s what you don’t want to happen,” he said. “If you arrest someone for theft, the judge has to release him because there’s no violence associated with that charge. Then that person turns around and forcibly commits burglary and hurts somebody in the process of it. (Before the SAFE-T Act) the judge would have made him post a cash bond and taken (the criminal’s) record into consideration.

“It would have been a better deal for the public overall (for someone to post bond in that circumstance). I think the public is not safer as a result of it.”

Yates agrees.

“I’ve had officers tell me they get frustrated because they do these investigations, they make an arrest, and 30 minutes later, they see the individual walking down the street,” Yates said. “They literally went to jail, got booked, were given a court date and down the road they go. It also has to be frustrating for the victims reporting crimes or having items stolen or are potentially victims in other ways.”

“When you arrest somebody for shoplifting, and they sit in jail waiting to see the judge and they’re immediately released, what keeps them from going out and shoplifting again?”

Yates also doesn’t like how the new law says if a person is on home confinement or forced to wear a GPS ankle monitor, it’s similar to being in jail. Therefore, when a person is sentenced, all the time on electronic monitoring or home confinement counts as time served toward a sentence.

Eyler wants the list of detainable offenses to be expanded.

“Somebody can be charged with burglary, and we can’t detain them,” he said. “Burglary is a Class 2 felony. It’s a serious offense, but it’s a non-detainable offense. If there’s no allegation of great bodily harm, they can’t be detained.”

Both Yates and Eyler fear the worst has yet to happen — a situation where a person would still be alive had someone given pretrial release by a judge been detained in jail.

“We’ve not had that in Quincy,” Yates said. “We will have that in Quincy, I assure you. At some point that will happen. But I’m not aware of a situation in the first year where we can say, ‘See, that happened. This is why this doesn’t work.’”

Eyler told the story of someone who had an interaction with police in the early morning hours, but he was released because his offense was non-detainable. Two hours later, that person was arrested for robbing a gas station.

“That’s not a situation where somebody is arrested and released, and then they go out and they physically hurt somebody or kill somebody,” Eyler said.

“But you’re not that far away.”