Will County Sheriff’s Office will move forward ‘status quo’ after cashless bail deemed unconstitutional

Unless the Illinois Supreme Court rules otherwise, the Will County Sheriff’s Office, which oversees the county jail, plans to move forward without implementing the cashless bail provision of the SAFE-T Act that was deemed unconstitutional by a Kankakee County judge.

On Thursday, Will County Sheriff Mike Kelley, his administrators and all stakeholders within the 12th Judicial Circuit Court, had a meeting regarding the ruling on the SAFE-T Act issued Wednesday by Thomas Cunnington, chief judge of the 21st Judicial Circuit, according to sheriff spokeswoman Kathy Hoffmeyer.

Before the judge’s ruling, it was the plan of the sheriff’s office, in the event the SAFE-T Act was deemed unconstitutional, to “move forward, status quo, until the [Illinois] Supreme Court hears the case and changes the ruling on it,” Hoffmeyer said.

“Therefore, according to Judge Cunnington’s decision, with the [SAFE-T Act] deemed unconstitutional, nothing is changing,” Hoffmeyer said.

Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow was not available for an interview on Thursday about ruling. Glasgow was one of the lead prosecutors in a consolidated lawsuit case filed in Kankakee County against the SAFE-T Act.

Cunnington had ruled the cashless bail provision of the SAFE-T is unconstitutional. But Cunnington did not grant prosecutors’ request for a preliminary injunction – or a court order – to prevent the enforcement of the bail provisions in the SAFE-T Act.

The preliminary injunction was not needed because Cunnington issued a final decision on the merits of the case, which held the pretrial provision of the SAFE-T Act is unconstitutional, according to Glasgow’s office.

Yet Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s Office said Cunnington’s decision was binding only in the consolidated case.

Cunnington’s ruling does not affect the rights of other people, including criminal defendants awaiting trial, who were not parties to the case, and whose rights under the SAFE-T Act and Illinois Constitution remain unaffected by Cunnington’s ruling, according to Raoul’s spokeswoman April McLaren.

“As of Jan 1, individuals – who are presumed innocent until proven guilty – will have the right to seek release from jail pending their trials — as allowed by the SAFE-T Act and the Illinois Constitution. Judges in those individual cases will have to decide if they agree with Judge Cunnington’s decision,” McLauren said.

That would mean in Will County, defendants can still seek release from jail without having to pay cash bail and it would be up to the judges in their cases to decide whether they agree with Cunnington’s decision.

State Rep. Mark Batinick, R-Plainfield, who’s against the SAFE-T Act, said he’s waiting on a decision from the Illinois Supreme Court on Cunnington’s ruling. He suspects the supreme court may overturn the ruling because they have a Democratic majority.

In a statement, state Rep. Dagmara Avelar, D-Bolingbrook, said the vast majority of the reforms in the SAFE-T Act were found to be entirely constitutional and Cunnington’s ruling was “not the final word on this.”

“The Illinois Supreme Court will review this case on appeal and, I trust, make a ruling that protects the safety and integrity of Illinois’ communities,” Avelar said.

State Rep. Tony McCombie, the incoming leader of statehouse Republicans, expressed her gratitude for the ruling late Wednesday night by a Kankakee County Circuit Court judge that cashless bail provisions in the Safe-T Act are unconstitutional.

[Kankakee County judge rules cashless bail provision of SAFE-T Act unconstitutional ]

“Today’s ruling by Circuit Judge Thomas Cunnington was the correct one,” said McCombie, a Savanna Republican, in a news release dated Wednesday and received by Shaw Local News Network early on Thursday.

McCombie said Republicans have “loudly and consistently” expressed their concerns about the SAFE-T Act, which was signed into law by Gov. JB Pritzker on Jan. 22, 2021, with added amendments on Dec. 6 of this year.

During the mid-term elections, it was a top issue for many Republicans running for state legislative seats.

The main criticism from the minority is that rapid release of accused persons puts law enforcement officers and victims of crime at an elevated risk.

“I am grateful the courts have ruled on the side of common-sense and am hopeful that any appeal will be upheld to protect Illinois families and the most vulnerable throughout the state,” McCombie said.

State Rep. Andrew Chesney, a Freeport Republican who was elected to the state Senate representing the 45th District, said minority-party input earlier in the process would have been helpful.

“This all could have been avoided if the Democrats had simply held real bipartisan working groups and hearings that took into consideration the testimony of law enforcement, states attorneys, victim advocates and others,” Chesney said. “Let’s see if the lesson is learned.”

Chesney’s predecessor, state Sen. Brian Stewart, also a Freeport Republican, said in a news release he opposed both the original bill and the amendments. Based on the response from the law enforcement community, he said he was also not surprised by the court ruling.

“Despite the recent changes, the SAFE-T Act will also still increase costs on police departments and local governments,” Stewart said, adding, “meaning that many communities would likely see cuts to their local police departments, higher property taxes, or a combination of the two.”

Don Tracy, chairman of the state Republican Party, also issued a statement.

“For now, it should serve as a message to Governor Pritzker and Democrat legislators that they can’t subvert our constitutional process by ramming their unpopular and dangerous soft-on-crime policies through the Legislature in the dark of night.”

The ACLU of Illinois issued a statement about Cunnington’s ruling that said, “Despite this ruling, the good news is that the money bond system in Illinois’ most populous counties ends on [Jan. 1].”

“This means that while this decision is appealed, many people across the state no longer will be held in jail before trial simply because they lack access to resources necessary to meet a money bond,” according to the ACLU’s statement.