Kankakee County Judge found what key security of sweeping illinois state criminal justice the law violates the state constitution, potentially passing back controversial measure that would eliminate cash bail as of New Year, according to copy of judge’s decision received by the Tribune.
Judge’s ruling only affects pending release provisions of law, leaving all other measures of what is known as the SAFE-T Act is unchanged. Judge Thomas Cunnington is expected to give his ruling on Thursday morning.
Cunnington decision stems from a lawsuit filed by dozens of Illinois state attorneys. Cunnington agreed with in prosecutors”the argument that the state legislature violated the division of power component of Illinois State Constitution when it passed a measure eliminating cash bail and therefore intervened with responsibilities of judicial branch.
He noted in his 36-page opinion that the Illinois Supreme Court specifically held that judges have “an independent, inalienable power to deny or revoke bail to “preserve an orderly process”. of criminal procedure.'”
Cunnington also wrote that the SAFE-T Act “creates new classes of offenses released from bail that are not included in Constitution; completely abolishes the cash deposit as option for referee use for ensure a criminal defendant’s appearance in court; and contrary to constitutional standard regulating when the accused may be detained without the right of bail”.
“With the removal of bail, the discretion afforded to the courts constitutionally to protect victims and their families through this method is gone,” Cunnington wrote. “Constitutional requirement of pledge is for help ensure victims safety compliance by the defendant with in terms of release and appearance of the defendant in court.”
The state will appeal decision to the state Supreme Court, according to a statement by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raul late Wednesday night. But it’s not right away clear when the Supreme Court on case or whether pre-trial provisions will apply on until the Supreme Court makes its decision. State Supreme Court oversees execution of No-cash pledge policy and other pre-trial provisions that should have been included in effect on Sunday.
The ruling represents a victory for opponents of SAFE-T at 764 pages, who has long argued that no-cash pledge policy drastically limit the powers of the judge ability to apprehend dangerous criminals ahead of their test. Supporters of law argue end of cash pledge is way to ensure a more fair trial system.
Pritzker office late Wednesday night called the decision “a failure for the principles we fought to protect through the passage of SAFE-T Law”.
“The General Assembly and the lawyers have been working to replace the obsolete criminal justice system with a system rooted in fairness and fairness,” he said. in statement. “We cannot and should don’t defend system what can’t be saved people safe, allowing those who pose a threat to their community in ability simply buy them way out of jail”.
House Republican Leader Jim Durkin who will walk down from him post next month, issued a statement applauding Cunnington decision. “Legislation of this value should not only be assessed on substance, but also on process,” said Durkin. of Western Springs. “Because of this, the Illinois Democrats failed Illinois.”
lawsuit also argued that the SAFE-T Act violated the so-called rule” of constitution, which is intended ensure accounts are concentrated on single theme. On what issueCunnington on the side with the state, having established that the plaintiffs did not fulfill their duty show provisions of the SAFE-T Act “have no ‘natural or logical connection’ with criminal justice system”.
Opponents of No-cash pledge policy raised fears that this provision would release violent criminals, even though judges retain ability hold defendants behind bars if the state could show they were flying risk or danger to public.
Earlier this month, Pritzker signed several laws into law. changes to pre-trial provisions ahead of effective date is 1 January.
changes clarify the standards that judges must follow when considering whether the respondent represents danger to the public adds multiple offenses for which judges can detain someone if they are deemed a threat to community or any other person, including aggravated robbery, second-degree murder and home invasion.
The prosecutor’s office expressed concern that it would be virtually impossible to argue that the defendant was a fugitive. risk because the SAFE-T law originally prohibited them from using defendant’s superior history of not show up in court. Under changespatterns of unable show up for trial — but not a single absenteeism — can be used in making an argument for detention.
The defendants have been charged with crimes before January 1 also have option to remain under the old mortgage system or move to new system. To ease the burden on court system, changes set specific dates for detention hearings for those who go to new system.
changes also make clear what the police can arrest people for misdemeanors such as trespassing, which usually only require a ticket, stating that arrests can be made if the officers believe that “the accused poses a threat to community or any person” or if “criminal activity is maintained. An arrest maybe also to be made if the alleged perpetrator has “obvious health or mental health problems” that represent risk to your safetyaccording to changes.
jgorner@chicagotribune.com
mabuckley@chicagotribune.com
