Safe-T Act Ruled Unconstitutional

[sirflyguy]

According to Darren Bailey, the Safe-T Act was ruled unconstitutional and will head to the IL Supreme Court! 

[Chitownshooterz]

Just saw it on the 10:00pm news on channel 5. All 20 seconds devoted to it. Hopefully the Illinois Supreme Court sides with the judge.

[Euler]

CBS News

CBS News said:

A judge in Kankakee County ruled parts of the controversial SAFE-T Act are unconstitutional, according to a prosecutor who was a plaintiff in the case.

 

The Kankakee County State's Attorney's office announced the ruling by 21st Judicial Circuit Chief Judge Thomas Cunnington late Wednesday, saying it had happened earlier in the day. We have yet to hear from a court official, the State of Illinois, or any of the other 64 Illinois state's attorneys who were plaintiffs in the case.

 

The new law, set to go into effect Sunday, Jan. 1, eliminates cash bail -- among other things. The Kankakee County State's Attorney's office Judge Cunnington ruled the pretrial release and bail reform provisions of the SAFE-T Act are unconstitutional.

 

The Kankakee County State's Attorney's news release said the immediate effect is that these provisions of the SAFE-T Act will not go into effect in the 65 counties that were party to the lawsuit. Cook County is not one of those counties.

 

Other provisions in the SAFE-T Act such as body cameras were upheld, the release said.

...

Kankakee County State's Attorney Jim Rowe argued that the act is unconstitutional for several reasons. He argued first, it's vague; second, it violates crime victims' rights; third, because its passage violated legislative rules and procedures; and fourth, because it infringes on the court's power.

...

 

The state is appealing, of course.

 

Edited December 29, 2022 at 04:32 AM by Euler

[Euler]

Previous discussion in The Back Room > Illinois SAFE-T Act coming soon.

[357]

It has nothing to do with safety and makes people more unsafe. Should be called keep criminals out of jail Act.

[Helpdesk9]

Only the no cash bail part was ruled unconstitutional 

[jim123]

Saw at 5am un ch5 cook and dupage county are not effected.

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 12/29/2022 at 7:24 AM, Helpdesk9 said:

Only the no cash bail part was ruled unconstitutional 

Well if they allow the constitution to be modified (as that does) it's time for pension reform. 

 

[ragsbo]

"The Kankakee County State's Attorney's news release said the immediate effect is that these provisions of the SAFE-T Act will not go into effect in the 65 counties that were party to the lawsuit. Cook County is not one of those counties. "

 

What is this CRAP!  It is only "Unconstitutional" in the 65 counties that filed the lawsuit but it is "Constitutional" in the rest. I call BS!!! Either it is unconstitutional EVERYWHERE or NO WHERE! I know this current bunch have claimed this on several rulings that has gone against them. Time to end this perversion of justice. Either a law is unconstitutional or it is not, and that covers everyone or no one.

[mikew]

On 12/29/2022 at 12:22 AM, 357 said:

It has nothing to do with safety and makes people more unsafe.

But does it make people feel  more safe?

 

[ragsbo]

On 12/29/2022 at 10:32 AM, mikew said:

But does it make people feel  more safe?

 

Only the idiots that listen to what the powers that wanna be say and believe it hook line and sinker. And they should know better but won't open their eyes to see the truth

[mab22]

On 12/29/2022 at 10:10 AM, ragsbo said:

"The Kankakee County State's Attorney's news release said the immediate effect is that these provisions of the SAFE-T Act will not go into effect in the 65 counties that were party to the lawsuit. Cook County is not one of those counties. "

 

What is this CRAP!  It is only "Unconstitutional" in the 65 counties that filed the lawsuit but it is "Constitutional" in the rest. I call BS!!! Either it is unconstitutional EVERYWHERE or NO WHERE! I know this current bunch have claimed this on several rulings that has gone against them. Time to end this perversion of justice. Either a law is unconstitutional or it is not, and that covers everyone or no one.

I would think if portions are found unconstitutional at the Supreme Court level, then it that would apply everywhere. 
 

[ragsbo]

On 12/29/2022 at 12:54 PM, mab22 said:

I would think if portions are found unconstitutional at the Supreme Court level, then it that would apply everywhere. 
 

It should apply everywhere now!I have no hope that the state supreme court will do anything besides rubber stamp the powers that wanna be point of view

 

[CPD#127]

 I work for a department in one of the counties that filed suit. When the law was initially passed in 2021 we were already doing a majority of the things required by the new law. We already had body cameras and a policy for them. We were already doing the training required, but had to make adjustments to some curriculum to make things accredited or count towards the mandates issued. We weren't churching up the training just including more things in training so all mandates were covered for ever Officer. Has made training more complicated and while some of the mandates are good personally I think it has diluted the training we need while prioritizing special feel good initiatives. 

I have no idea what will happen when this goes to the IL Supreme Court. Being an Illinois resident for 43 years I have a feeling it wont end favorably. Sorry for being a negative Nancy and hopefully I am wrong. 

I don't work in a jurisdiction like Chicago, Springfield, Decatur, or Danville so we don't see the extreme violent crime they do. With that said I cant see how this law if fully implemented does anything for safety. Since Covid started we have reduced the number of people we jail. This was started in part because of all the state laws and local regulations but has continued after. In that time I have not seen crime reduce. I could go on and on, but I am just rambling. This whole statement is mine not reflective of my employer. 

[Flynn]

On 12/29/2022 at 10:10 AM, ragsbo said:

"The Kankakee County State's Attorney's news release said the immediate effect is that these provisions of the SAFE-T Act will not go into effect in the 65 counties that were party to the lawsuit. Cook County is not one of those counties. "

 

What is this CRAP!  It is only "Unconstitutional" in the 65 counties that filed the lawsuit but it is "Constitutional" in the rest. I call BS!!! Either it is unconstitutional EVERYWHERE or NO WHERE! I know this current bunch have claimed this on several rulings that has gone against them. Time to end this perversion of justice. Either a law is unconstitutional or it is not, and that covers everyone or no one.

 

Yep, it makes no sense that courts don't make their ruling applicable to all under thier jurisdiction when it's a constitutional question!  As you said it's a perversion of justice!

[Euler]

On 12/29/2022 at 8:24 AM, Helpdesk9 said:

Only the no cash bail part was ruled unconstitutional 

 

There's the part about not arresting people in the first place, too. (I haven't read the ruling yet, though.)

[ragsbo]

On 12/29/2022 at 7:35 PM, CPD#127 said:

 I work for a department in one of the counties that filed suit. When the law was initially passed in 2021 we were already doing a majority of the things required by the new law. We already had body cameras and a policy for them. We were already doing the training required, but had to make adjustments to some curriculum to make things accredited or count towards the mandates issued. We weren't churching up the training just including more things in training so all mandates were covered for ever Officer. Has made training more complicated and while some of the mandates are good personally I think it has diluted the training we need while prioritizing special feel good initiatives. 

I have no idea what will happen when this goes to the IL Supreme Court. Being an Illinois resident for 43 years I have a feeling it wont end favorably. Sorry for being a negative Nancy and hopefully I am wrong. 

I don't work in a jurisdiction like Chicago, Springfield, Decatur, or Danville so we don't see the extreme violent crime they do. With that said I cant see how this law if fully implemented does anything for safety. Since Covid started we have reduced the number of people we jail. This was started in part because of all the state laws and local regulations but has continued after. In that time I have not seen crime reduce. I could go on and on, but I am just rambling. This whole statement is mine not reflective of my employer. 

The only safety I can see is for the criminals and no one else

[jim123]

On 12/29/2022 at 8:41 PM, ragsbo said:

The only safety I can see is for the criminals and no one else

cwbchicago.com article from today says they're increasing the number of judges who handle the workload by 50%. 6 judges now upping it to 9. Wonder why they'd do that?

[357]

On 12/29/2022 at 10:32 AM, mikew said:

But does it make people feel  more safe?

 

Unfortunately it was designed to help the criminals.

[Euler]

The case was 2022-CH-16 Rowe v Raoul. The Kankakee County Court web site lists only cases that are open. Its dockets don't include filed documents.

 

Nevertheless, I found a copy of the decision online at a highly unofficial location.

 

Decision

Decision said:

...

Count II alleges that the Public Act 101–652 violates the single subject clause found in Article 4, Section 8(d) of the Illinois Constitution. A finding that the act and the amendment, (Public Act 102-1044) violates the single subject rule would mandate a ruling that the entire act is void. There is no severability of the Act when the legislature violates this rule, notwithstanding that the Act provides for severability.

...

The court finds that plaintiffs have not carried their "substantial burden" to show the Act's provisions lack a "natural or logical connection to" the criminal justice system. Therefore, the court grants Summary Judgment on Count II of plaintiffs' second amended complaint in favor of Defendants.

...

Pursuant to the versions of 725 ILCS 5/109-1(b)(4) and 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1, ... the State ... is the only entity permitted to petition the court to deny pretrial release and must abide by the requirements in those sections. The individual State's Attorneys who have brought these actions are regulated by these provisions and have a clear interest in their constitutionality, as well as a cognizable injury should they be tasked with enforcing an unconstitutional act.

 

Additionally, the government has a substantial and undeniable interest in ensuring criminal defendants are available for trial. ... [T]he pretrial release provisions ... restricts the ability of the court to detain a defendant where the court finds that the defendant will interfere with jurors or witnesses, fulfill threats, or not appear for trial. ...

 

... The court finds that had the Legislature wanted to change the provisions in the Constitution regarding eliminating monetary bail as a surety, they should have submitted the question on the ballot to the electorate at a general election and otherwise complied with the requirements of Art. XIV, Sec. 2. Therefore, the court finds that the Legislature unconstitutionally attempted to change the provisions of the Constitution and Summary Judgment on Count I is granted in favor of plaintiffs.

 

The court further finds with regard to Count IV involving the Crime Victims' Rights found in Article 1, Sec. 8.1(a)(9) that P.A. 101-652 and P.A. 102-1104 that the provision eliminating monetary bail in all situations in Illinois, prevents the court from effectuating the constitutionally mandated safety of the victims and their families. This section of the Illinois Constitution is intended to serve "as a shield to protect the rights of victims." ...

...

The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled further that courts have inherent authority derived from the Illinois Constitution to set monetary bail.

...

... Namely, P.A. 101-652 creates new classes of offenses exempt from bail which are not included in the Constitution; it utterly abolishes monetary bail as an option for a judge to utilize to ensure a criminal defendant's appearance in court; and contradicts the constitutional standard regulating when a defendant may be held without bail (when the court determines that "release of the offender would pose a real and present threat to the physical safety of any person").

...

The court finds that plaintiffs meet their burden because a legislative prohibition of monetary bail in all instances clearly violates the constitution's express mandate of separation of powers.

...

... This court finds that the undisputed facts of this case, and the history of how the safety act was passed in the legislature confirmed that this act was not read on three different days in each house as required by the Constitution. ... Although the court has made findings of fact, The Supreme Court has held that under the Enrolled Bill Doctrine, so long as the Speaker of the House, and the Senate President certified that the procedural requirements for passage have been met, that it is conclusively presumed that all procedural requirements for passage have been met. ... Judgment for defendants is entered on Count VI ...

...

The court finds that plaintiffs have not identified any portion of the statute that is impermissibly vague. ...

...

... The Court finds that the Act is not unconstitutional due to vagueness and defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Count VII.

 

... Plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction against defendants to prevent the enforcement of the bail provisions in Public Act, 101–652 and Public Act 102-1104 until all of the plaintiffs' claims in this case can be fully litigated.

 

The court finds that a preliminary injunction is not appropriate at this juncture of the case. ...

 

Because, as the Illinois Supreme Court has determined, the administration of the justice system is an inherent power of the courts upon which the legislature may not infringe and the setting of bail falls within that administrative power, the appropriateness of bail rests with the authority of the court and may not be determined by legislative fiat. Therefore, the court finds that Public Acts 101-652 and 102-1104 as they relate only to the pretrial release provisions do violate this separation of powers principle underlying our system of governance by depriving the courts of their inherent authority to administer and control their courtrooms and to set bail.

...

... P.A. 101-652 and P.A. 102-1104, as they relate only to the pretrial release provisions are facially unconstitutional and Declaratory Summary Judgment on the pleadings is entered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants ...

...

Plaintiffs are ordered to prepare an order consistent with this opinion.

 

TL;DR:

• The Act as a whole isn't unconstitutional because it covers more than one subject. The criminal justice system may be a broad subject, but it's still a single subject.
• The Act as a whole should be unconstitutional for violating procedural requirements for the passage of bills into law. However, court precedent is to defer to the leaders of the General Assembly if they say that procedures were followed. Therefore reality is what the legislature says it is.
• The provisions of the Act which prevent courts from setting bail and pursuing those who flee prosecution are unconstitutional for several reasons.
• The court did not issue any orders against any part of the Act yet, but it will.

 

The parts of the Act which made Class B and below misdemeanors unarrestable offenses weren't challenged.

[cybermgk]

On 12/29/2022 at 11:43 PM, 357 said:

Unfortunately it was designed to help the criminals.

Only as an ancillary effect.  It was designed to make a crisis, so that the State could then take draconian measures (see also every single crisis ever, and Democrat/leftist actions).  NOW, Soros, on the other hand, who funds the groups that push laws like this in blue ran states, simply, and has always wanted a weak US, because a strong US keeps hos dream of a Globalist Utopia from happening.

Edited December 30, 2022 at 03:10 PM by cybermgk

[vito]

So where do we stand on the provision limiting magazines to 10 round capacity?

[davel501]

On 12/30/2022 at 10:41 AM, vito said:

So where do we stand on the provision limiting magazines to 10 round capacity?

That's HB-5855. The Safe-T act is most notably about bail and pretrial detention. 

[JTHunter]

On 12/29/2022 at 7:57 AM, jim123 said:

Saw at 5am un ch5 cook and dupage county are not effected.

 

Neither is St. Clair County down near St. Louis.  But Madison county, just north of there, IS a party to this class action lawsuit.  Only the counties that are part of the lawsuit will be affected by this ruling.

Edited December 30, 2022 at 09:47 PM by JTHunter

[Tip]

The “ins” (yellow) and the “outs” (pinks)…

 

 

[ragsbo]

I still can not fathom why it can be constitutional in one county but not in the other??? That does NOT make any sense at all. SO your constitutional rights only apply if you sue for them, and if you don't the government can shaft you all they want???? That is BS!

[springfield shooter]

I'm surprised Macoupin didn't join the lawsuit.

[cybermgk]

F*ckin Lake County

[Euler]

On 12/30/2022 at 8:25 PM, ragsbo said:

I still can not fathom why it can be constitutional in one county but not in the other??? ...

 

It's not that it's constitutional or not in the counties that didn't sue. It's that the counties that didn't sue didn't sue. The Kankakee county court's jurisdiction is limited to the parties before it. Typically the Kankakee County Court would only have jurisdiction over cases in Kankakee County, but this case is a consolidation (ordered by the IL Supreme Court) of cases brought by 65 counties, so the jurisdiction of the case (and thus the court) is expanded to those counties, but only those counties.

 

Presumably if the law is unconstitutional in 65 counties, it would be unconstitutional in all 102 of them. However, those other 37 counties could have joined the lawsuit, but they didn't. Even if no one appealed the decision, the unequal enforcement of the law between one set of counties and the other would be a reason for the state supreme court to make a single decision that applies to the whole state.

[Flynn]

On 12/30/2022 at 10:04 PM, Euler said:

Presumably if the law is unconstitutional in 65 counties, it would be unconstitutional in all 102 of them. However, those other 37 counties could have joined the lawsuit, but they didn't. Even if no one appealed the decision, the unequal enforcement of the law between one set of counties and the other would be a reason for the state supreme court to make a single decision that applies to the whole state.

 

Kane and DuPage have filed an emergency motion with the Illinois Supreme Court asking for them to chime in, fearing the potential for (14th US and Section 2 Illinois) equal protection claims.

 

Quote

Specifically, the Motion asks the Supreme Court to “exercise its supervisory authority to enter an order sufficient to maintain consistent pretrial procedures because without such an order, defendants in different jurisdictions will be subject to different treatment upon arrest and throughout pretrial proceedings, creating an equal protection problem for citizens across the State.”

 

https://www.dupagecounty.gov/States_Attorney/States_Attorney_News/2022/67446/

Edited December 31, 2022 at 04:20 AM by Flynn