County Courts Adjust to SAFE-T Act

by Randy Pierce

Representing a significant set of changes in the handling of individuals accused of committing crimes throughout the state, the Illinois “Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity – Today” Act formally went into effect last September and has led to significant, appropriate adjustments in the approach of the local court system regarding the newly applicable procedures.

This topic was the subject of a presentation made to the Madison County Board Judiciary Committee earlier this month by Associate Judge Emily Nielsen who has been handling the docket for cases falling under the SAFE-T Act four days a week since February.

The state’s SAFE-T Act, which was approved at the legislative level in Springfield and formally implemented September of last year, consists of changes to the criminal detention process and incorporated a no-cash bail release provision for certain offenders along with other measures related to law enforcement such as the mandate that officers wear body cameras.

Passed by the Illinois General Assembly in early 2021 in the aftermath of the beating death of George Floyd involving police officers in Minneapolis, Minnesota after being brought forward by three upstate legislators, the SAFE-T Act includes a major component authorizing judges at the circuit level to determine if certain defendants awaiting trial for criminal offenses should be detained or released pending their hearing dates.

Nielsen, who explained that she was asked to appear before the judiciary committee by Stephen Stobbs, chief judge for the Illinois Third Judicial Circuit which includes Madison and Bond counties, said, “We are really all learning together at the same time.”

“I think that we’ve really found our stride in terms of procedures on a day-to-day basis and efficiency and how we work through the files,” Nielsen continued.

After noting that the county attorneys and Nielsen herself were new to the docket of cases that are related to the SAFE-T Act in February, she feels these are being addressed quickly and efficiently with the new law mandating that hearings be held within 48 hours of a defendant’s initial appearance on various charges.

“As you know,” Nielsen told the committee members, “we don’t get any control over when people choose to commit crimes. It tends to come in waves.”
Exemplifying this, she said the number of cases any single afternoon can be none or as many as 12 to 15.

A major issue being faced in this scenario concerns whether or not a suspect/defendant should be detained in jail or allowed to go free pending further trial appearance dates. The state’s attorney’s office is required to present evidence at the hearings with a focus on whether or not the defendant’s release would jeopardize the safety of the public, any group or individuals.

The cash bail provision utilized under the pre-SAFE-T Act procedures for the release of a defendant no longer exists, Nielsen stressed.

Entering the discussion, the county’s public defender, Mary Copeland, who plays a significant role in this process, explained how judges would previously determine if an individual’s cash bond would stay in place, be increased or reduced or eliminated in favor of “recognizance,” all of these possibilities often on the defendant’s history. This process has essentially been speeded up, she added, with judges being presented with more definitive evidence and facts on the specific cases.

There are fewer defendants now who, because of the potential danger factors, are held in custody in compliance with the SAFE-T Act with Nielsen remarking that “people that are detained in the jail for the most part have committed violent crimes. There’s nobody being held now on possession of small amounts of drugs and retail theft.”

The judge’s decision on whether or not someone should be detained, Nielsen said, is based on three factors: if a “qualifying offense” has been committed per the SAFE-T Act, if the evidence is convincing enough to determine the individual is indeed dangerous and that no conditions exist that would eliminate the existence of the potential danger.
Should all three of those criteria be met, then the judge, according to Nielsen, can issue consent to hold the defendant in jail.

A bit later in the same meeting, Copeland shared her take on the situation, “It has really been an uphill battle, but we’ve all worked together. I feel very privileged to operate in a county in which all the moving parts are working together.”

Copeland added that she wanted to give a “shout out” to the secretaries and clerical people in her office, at the jail and on the state’s attorney’s staff for making sure the necessary information is provided to the various people who need it at all the levels in this process.