Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart and Chief Judge Timothy Evans are debating the merits of streamlining all pretrial electronic monitoring under the chief judge’s office. This plan would bring Cook County in line with the rest of Illinois, where these programs are operated by pretrial services under the judicial branch.
Dart’s program has historically imposed 24/7 house arrest, making it difficult for people to work, take care of their children, or meet basic needs. An evaluation of the two programs found that the sheriff’s electronic monitoring program makes obtaining and maintaining employment more difficult and that “participants [were] unable to assist in doing simple things around the house such as taking out the trash or doing laundry.” While no one would defend denying someone in jail food or clean clothing, the sheriff’s policies prevented people incarcerated in their homes on electronic monitoring from going to the grocery store or a laundromat, until the Legislature intervened.
Even now, the sheriff’s policies state that someone on his program will be in violation — and at risk of being jailed — if they check their mailbox or do laundry in a common area of their apartment building. Before the Legislature amended the law around “escape” to require evidence that someone is evading prosecution, one man on the sheriff’s program was sentenced to 10 years in prison for taking a shower in his aunt’s apartment in the same building where he was on monitoring. It is no wonder the state Legislature had to act in the face of such unreasonable and draconian policies.
The chief judge’s program is subject to the same state laws as Dart’s, as is the Illinois Office of Statewide Pretrial Services. These programs all operate with very high compliance rates, even when monitoring people accused of serious offenses. Data shows that less than 1% of people on pretrial electronic monitoring are rearrested for violent allegations. There is obviously not a problem with reforms, only with the way the sheriff’s program is run.
False alerts cause problems
Although some have expressed reservations about the chief judge’s office taking over the sheriff’s program, claiming that his staff can’t arrest people without a warrant, that is misguided. If there is reason to believe someone committed a criminal offense, the supervising agency simply alerts police who can then arrest based on probable cause. That’s why this isn’t an issue in the more than 70 counties that rely on the Office of Statewide Pretrial Services.
A study by the nonprofit Transparency Chicago found that 80% of electronic monitoring alerts sent to the sheriff’s office were false. Even so, the sheriff’s office reflexively searches homes, places program participants in cuffs in front of their families, or takes a person into custody when an alert occurs. In contrast, the court’s program conducts an investigation and, if it believes a serious violation (as opposed to, for example, being late coming home from an authorized appointment), the issue will be referred to a judge. Represented by counsel, the person on electronic monitoring has an opportunity to contest the allegations or provide an explanation. Giving due process to a person before they are unilaterally taken back to jail is much fairer and more efficient.
We also must not forget that everyone on both of these programs is presumed innocent. The Pretrial Fairness Act ensures that judges have adequate time and information to decide whether someone is potentially a danger to others while awaiting trial. Jailing someone before trial, simply because of the charges against them, violates the state constitution, state law, and due process. It is also impractical.
The reality is that Evans’ program is “far more effective and humane” than Dart’s, which is a primary reason why a 2022 Cook County-commissioned study recommended consolidating the two programs. The chief judge’s program is much more aligned with best practices and available evidence. Elected officials should work together to ensure a smooth and successful consolidation, under the judiciary.
Cathryn Crawford is a public defense attorney and a former clinical professor of law. Shobha Mahadev is clinical professor of law and assistant dean for clinical education, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law.
The views and opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Chicago Sun-Times or any of its affiliates.
The Sun-Times welcomes letters to the editor and op-eds. See our guidelines.
Get Opinions content delivered to your inbox.