Recent Development in the Pretrial Fairness Act by New Appellate Ruling
As we have extensively covered, the Pretrial Fairness Act (or SAFE-T Act as it is commonly referred to) has seen its share of developments and interpretations since its historic passing eliminating cash bail across Illinois. In one appellate court’s recent ruling, that court ruled in People v. Ford that out-of-state criminal charges serve as the basis for revoking a defendant’s pretrial release in Illinois, reversing the trial court’s ruling and holding that nothing in the plain language of the statute limits revocation to charges arising under Illinois law. Under the relatively new SAFE-T Act, those criminally charged can only be held in pretrial detention if they commit one of a delineated number of felonies or serious misdemeanors, otherwise they are not eligible for detention. However, once released and before their original case is adjudicated, defendants on pretrial release can be detained if they are charged inside or outside of Illinois with an offense that otherwise is not initially eligible for detention, according to this Fourth District Appellate Court ruling.
Michael Andrew Ford was charged in Rock Island County with unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon in two separate cases filed in 2023. After an initial detention, the parties agreed to pretrial release in April 2024 under several conditions, including GPS electronic monitoring, a prohibition on leaving Illinois without court permission, and a requirement that Ford refrain from possessing firearms. He failed to show up to court and a warrant was issued for his arrest. After he was arrested, prosecutors discovered that he had also been charged in Scott County, Iowa, with a series of offenses including possession of a weapon by a felon, trafficking in stolen weapons, and multiple counts of unauthorized use of a credit card over $1,500, amongst other charges. When the State filed a petition to revoke Ford’s pretrial release based on those Iowa charges, the trial court denied their petition finding that the Pretrial Fairness Act only authorized revocation for felonies and Class A misdemeanors committed in Illinois. Justice Grischow, writing for a unanimous panel, reversed that ruling. The court’s analysis centered on specific language of the Act which provides that pretrial release “may be revoked” if a defendant “is charged with a felony or Class A misdemeanor” alleged to have occurred during pretrial release. The statute does not say “an Illinois felony” or “a felony under the laws of this State.” It simply says “a felony or Class A misdemeanor” and that the legislature could have written a limiting geographical instruction had it wished to do so, therefore in the absence of such an instruction, the Court interpreted the silence as purposeful.
This ruling means that there is precedent that defendants who commit new crimes while on pretrial release in Illinois are not necessarily insulated from revocation simply because the new charges arose in a different state. However, because this opinion arises from one Appellate District among the many in the State, there is an argument that it is merely persuasive authority and is not binding on other districts such as defendants in Chicago or other appellate districts, until the Illinois Supreme Court weighs in on the matter. Still, prosecutors will argue that the equivalent of any felony or Class A misdemeanor charge from any other jurisdiction can serve as the basis for a revocation petition, so long as the State can show the out-of-state offense is comparable to an Illinois felony or Class A misdemeanor. Given the Chicagoland’s proximity to Indiana and Wisconsin, this can be particularly worrisome for Chicagoland residents already on pretrial release as any misdemeanor or felony charge will likely jeopardize their continued pretrial release. If you or someone you know is facing pretrial release revocation proceedings, understanding how these issues apply to your specific case is critical. An experienced criminal defense attorney can evaluate the strength of the State’s petition and advocate for conditions that allow you to remain in the community while your case is pending.
