DeKalb County State’s Attorney Rick Amato ‘disappointed’ by SAFE-T Act cashless bail ruling

SYCAMORE – Local officials have mixed reactions to Illinois Supreme Court’s Tuesday decision upholding the constitutionality of the SAFE-T Act, priming Illinois to become the first state in the nation to implement a cashless bail system.

The Illinois Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the constitutionality of a state law ending pretrial cash bail, ordering implementation in mid-September, reported The Associated Press. The ruling overturns a Kankakee County judge’s opinion in December that the law violated the constitution’s provision that “all persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties.”

DeKalb County State’s Attorney Rick Amato said the Supreme Court’s decision wasn’t what he was hoping for. He said he wasn’t surprised by the ruling, however.

“I’m disappointed that the decision went the way it did,” said Amato, a Republican. “As months started to drag on into the waiting for the decision, it became evident of what the decision was going to be. Affirming the decision in Kankakee wouldn’t have taken the months that it did. So I expected after this started to go as long as it did, that this would be the way the Supreme Court would rule.”

DeKalb County Board Chair Suzanne Willis, a Democrat from District 10, said she’s in favor of cashless bail. She said she also doesn’t support people stuck in jail because they can’t afford to post bail, while others with greater socioeconomic means might find it easier to post money.

“That [cash bail] strikes me as really unfair. It seems to me if you ought to make decisions about whether somebody gets bail or not, that should be based on who they are and what they did, and not on how much money they have,” Willis said.

Willis’ words echo those pushed by Democrats across the state, including Gov. JB Pritzker, over the past year to throw support behind the new legislation. Cashless bail will go into effect in Illinois in September, nine months after its planned start date.

That [cash bail] strikes me as really unfair. It seems to me if you ought to make decisions about whether somebody gets bail or not, that should be based on who they are and what they did, and not on how much money they have.”

—  Suzanne Willis, DeKalb County Board chair

State Sen. Dave Syverson, R-Cherry Valley, issued a statement in support of officials, such as Amato, who have said the cashless bail provisions of the SAFE-T Act could make Illinois communities less safe.

“State’s attorneys and law enforcement personnel from across Illinois have stated in no uncertain terms that their work – and the ultimate safety of their communities – will be threatened by many provisions of this controversial overhaul of the state’s criminal justice system,” Syverson said. “With crime increasing across the state, eliminating cash bail just puts more criminals back on the streets. I am not surprised that the politically aligned Court would side with the Governor, but this is certainly not the ruling I had hoped for. It clearly sends yet another message that there are limited consequences for committing crimes in Illinois.”

DeKalb County Sheriff Andy Sullivan said his personal opinion on the decision doesn’t matter, and affirmed his office will follow the court’s ruling.

“I do think that it takes away the judge’s discretion at the local level, but again that’s my opinion and now I have to focus my attention on preparing the members of the Sheriff’s Office with the implementation of this new law, which I will do, and we’ll be ready by Sept. 18,” Sullivan said.

Judges in Illinois still will maintain the ability to determine eligibility for bail based on a set criteria, according to the SAFE-T Act. That criteria, however, has been updated to prohibit cash bail, and include more steps for prosecutors and judges to use to determine qualification for release.

Proponents of the new provision have said a cashless bail system will allow judges to determine a person’s release based on the dangers they pose to the community rather than their ability to post money. Opponents have argued a cashless bail system could mean those charged with violent crime could be released and pose a danger to residents in the area.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Ann Theis delivered the court’s opinion, approved 5-2, and ordered the halt on the law be lifted 60 days after Tuesday’s opinion, on Sept. 18.

Amato said his office, however, will face challenges that may not be seen on the face of the new system.

“The biggest challenge on the bill isn’t just cashless bond – defendants in, defendants out – that across the board is fairly understandable. Now, there’s some nuances because … there’s a process in which we have to go about showing why this defendant can’t be released. So that part is going to be challenging, but not that different,” Amato said. “There’s a lot of how-to issues that are completely unanswered, and the feedback and direction we’ve gotten from the Supreme Court has been nothing that’s going to be helpful to our community. So, bond-in, bond-out, I think is pretty understandable, whether it’s cashless bond or not, but of course it’s deeper than that.”

Amato said he still has questions about how a cashless bail system and extra responsibilities placed on prosecutors and law enforcement.

“That’s going to put a big strain on the system, and the fact that it’s just a 60 day turn around – that law enforcement has to be ready is a big challenge. So our office has to make sure everybody is following the law,” Amato said. “This is a law whether you like it or not, and we have to follow it and make sure our law enforcement is in line and following it correctly to protect our community and protect our victims.”

Sullivan said his office will be working in tandem with Amato’s office to be ready for the implementation of the cashless bail system in the final days of summer. Both elected officials said Tuesday they haven’t received further guidance from the state yet.

“I have not received anything from Springfield regarding this,” Sullivan said. “So we know we have to follow the law and what the law requires.”