As the end of the veto session nears, Illinois legislators are debating final changes to the SAFE-T Act, NBC 5’s Mary Ann Ahern reports.
Just hours after the Illinois Senate approved the measure, the House has also voted to approve major changes to Illinois' SAFE-T Act Thursday, sending the amended bill to Gov. J.B. Pritzker's desk.
The measure required 71 votes to pass the House, and that's exactly how many votes it got as lawmakers approved the bill on a straight party-line vote.
The measure, having been approved by both chambers of the legislature on the final day of the lame duck session, now heads to Pritzker's desk, where he is expected to sign it into law.
The votes come one day after Illinois State Sen. Robert Peters filed an amendment to the act, which is set to eliminate cash bail in the state on Jan. 1, 2023.
The amendment focused largely on clarifying language on several fronts, including whether defendants detained prior to Jan. 1 will be released once the legislation goes into effect, and making clear which crimes would qualify for pretrial detention.
Illinois' Senate Democratic Caucus said the clarifications to the bill were made in "collaboration with law enforcement, states attorneys and other stakeholders."
Still, critics say there are lingering questions over why some conditions of pretrial release will not be made public and why nonviolent burglary was not listed on the list of detainable offenses.
"Republicans have been frozen out of the process," said State Sen. John Curran. "We represent 35% approximately of the state and never once in two years have we been allowed an opportunity to participate."
Related Stories to This Headline
“The SAFE-T Act was the result of hours of testimony and negotiations with domestic violence advocates, proponents of reform, law enforcement and states attorneys at the table working to create a pathway to a better and more equitable criminal legal system,” State Sen. Elgie R. Sims, Jr. said in a statement. "However, due to the misinformation campaign led by opponents of the measure, we spent countless hours dispelling falsehoods and working to ensure that the law was not taken out of context. The trailer we passed allows us to clarify the language of this transformational law while preserving the protections for crime survivors and ensures we stop criminalizing poverty in this state.”
Feeling out of the loop? We'll catch you up on the Chicago news you need to know. Sign up for the weekly Chicago Catch-Up newsletter.
Here's a look at what could change if the measure is approved:
Q: What additional crimes will be added to list that would qualify for detention?
The list of so-called “forcible felonies” that could invite judicial discretion on pretrial detention originally included first and second-degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, kidnapping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm, or any other felony that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against an individual.
But the latest proposal adds non-probationable felonies, forcible felonies, hate crimes, attempts of crimes that are otherwise detainable, and others to the so-called detention net — crimes that qualify a suspect for detention. Additions include offenses that require jail or prison time, and not probation; all forcible felonies; hate crimes, animal torture and DUI causing great bodily harm. Judges may also choose to release such suspects.
“We still have a detention net that is very clear, judges have discretion within that detention net,” Peters said. “But again, the intent and the core parts of this legislation remain intact.”
Q: What happens to those currently detained on Jan. 1?
According to a spokesperson for Illinois Senate President Don Harmon's office, the new language would clarify that "those currently detained can request to have the new system applied to their situation."
In order to make the process "manageable for courts," legislators proposed a tiered system for granting hearings on such requests. The hearings would then determine whether a current detainee should be released. The tiers would include:
- Lowest level offenses (example: petty shoplifting) hearings must be within 7 days of request.
- Those detained but considered flight risks would get hearings within 60 days.
- Those considered to be potential threats to safety get hearings within 90 days.
Q: Can police detain or arrest someone who is trespassing?
Proponents of the bill say this was always allowed under the SAFE-T, but the amendment seeks to clarify some language.
For trespassing violations, officers would be required to issue a citation to a suspect first, unless the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses a threat, or if they have an obvious mental or medical health issue. If an officer issues a citation and the trespassing continues, then an arrest can be made.
Under the latest proposal, an officer can arrest someone for trespassing if:
- The person poses a threat to the community or any person;
- Arrest is necessary because criminal activity persists after issuance of the citation; or
- The accused has an obvious medical or mental health issue that poses a risk to their safety.
If the above conditions are not present, a citation would be issued.
Q: What determines if a person is considered "dangerous"?
The proposed changes also expand definitions for "willful flight," and expand judicial discretion in determining whether a defendant poses a danger to the public or a specific individual.
According to Harmon's office, the amendment "makes consistent throughout the entire act what a prosecutor must show to detain an individual on grounds the individual is a threat."
The so-called “dangerousness standard” would be met if "the person poses a real and present threat to any person or persons or the community, based on the specific, explainable facts of the case."
What if someone misses a court date?
Also included in the new proposal is a provision that allows judges to issue arrest warrants or summons when someone misses a court date.
A summons is an official notice to appear in court, while an arrest warrant tells police to arrest and detain, officials stated.
The amendment also clarifies what is considered “willful flight” under the bill, adding that "intent is to detain those who are actively evading prosecution, not someone who failed to appear in court because, for example, they missed their bus," Harmon's office said.
Here is the full text of the bill:
