Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: New union agreement means almost 2,000 state workers under vax mandate
Next Post: *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
Posted in:
* Press release…
llinois House Republican Leader Jim Durkin (R-Western Springs) and Illinois State Senator John Curran (R-Downers Grove) were joined by suburban police chiefs from Cook County Monday morning to introduce new legislation that will give law enforcement the ability to override the state’s attorney’s charging decisions, as well as bring transparency and accountability to this process.
“Today’s legislation is a major step towards accountability for the Cook County State’s Attorney with law enforcement and victims of crime,” Leader Durkin said. “This legislation demands transparency in the charging process and gives law enforcement a fair avenue to participate in the criminal court system.”
House Bill 4176 will allow local law enforcement the right to override a state’s attorney’s decision not to file felony charges when law enforcement believes clear and convincing evidence exists. Currently, law enforcement has no recourse when charges are declined on a case by an assistant state’s attorney. This bill will give law enforcement the ability to protect public safety and fight for victims and victims’ families when no one else will.
A 2020 Chicago Tribune analysis found that Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx “dropped all charges against 29.9% of felony defendants, a dramatic increase over her predecessor.” In one of the latest egregious cases, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office refused to file Felony charges in a deadly shootout, citing “mutual combat” because both groups were shooting at each other.
According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Cook County is on track to see the highest carjacking numbers in 20 years, with carjackings up 43.5 percent in Cook County this year as opposed to the same time period in 2020. In another tragic case where a seven-year-old was murdered, police officials filed their own charges against the suspect when the Cook County State’s Attorney refused to do so, only to see their charges dropped.
“This proposal brings transparency and accountability to criminal charging decisions made by the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office,” said State Senator John Curran. “There have been consistent complaints from law enforcement agencies within Cook County about the State’s Attorney’s charging decisions, oftentimes leaving the public with no information as to why criminal prosecutions are not being pursued while our communities are experiencing a rapid rise in violent crime.”
Leader Durkin held a meeting with over two dozen police chiefs from Cook County last week to discuss ways to empower law enforcement when the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office continues to reject charges for violent and felony cases, some of which have resulted in fatalities. Police chiefs from the villages of Riverside and Worth participated in the press conference today.
* Synopsis…
Provides that, in a criminal investigation in counties in excess of 3,000,000 involving a forcible felony where the State’s Attorney or an Assistant State’s Attorney rejects the filing of a felony charge or charges or the case is designated by the State’s Attorney or Assistant State’s Attorney as a continuing investigation: (1) a law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction where the alleged crime occurred may override the State’s Attorney or Assistant State’s Attorney’s rejection of the felony charge or charges or the case is designated by the State’s Attorney or Assistant State’s Attorney as a continuing investigation if the evidence supporting the charge is clear and convincing and the override is filed with the clerk of the circuit court and the State’s Attorney; and (2) the State’s Attorney or Assistant State’s Attorney may rescind the override within 7 days after the override by petitioning the Chief Judge of the Criminal Division of the circuit court. Provides for petition requirements. Provides that, if the court determines that law enforcement agency’s decision to override was based on clear and convincing evidence, the State’s Attorney must proceed with a preliminary examination or seek an indictment by grand jury within 30 days from the date he or she was taken into custody or, if he or she is not in custody, 60 days from the date he or she was arrested. Provides that the decision of the court on the law enforcement agency’s override is not appealable.
* The Question: Your thoughts on this bill?
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 2:37 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: New union agreement means almost 2,000 state workers under vax mandate
Next Post: *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Pretty dangerous precedent…
Comment by South of Springfield Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 2:45 pm
Durkin is traveling further into Qzone. I’d call him out for asymmetric hypocrisy, but that’s the mode of operation for the GOP.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 2:46 pm
Appears Problematic
Based on Synopsis it would appear to be an improper infringement and transfer of prosecutorial powers. Longstanding practice that Police should not control Prosecution.
Think this bill is mostly grandstaning.
Comment by Red Ketcher Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 2:48 pm
==Provides that, in a criminal investigation in counties in excess of 3,000,000==
Why not all counties? If it’s a good idea for Cook, why not DuPage or Woodford or Cass?
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 2:49 pm
Very dangerous. If you don’t like the State’s Attorney’s assessment of the evidence and/or policies, win the next election.
Comment by Keyrock Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 2:49 pm
Terrible idea. These functions are separated and there are multiple levels of review for a reason. The decision to charge should be made by the office that has to make the case in court. What’s next? The State’s Attorney sending investigators to solve all these shootings and carjackings that are going unresolved? I bet the police would scream about that.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 2:49 pm
So, who’s going to prosecute if the ADA decided not to, but a COP wants to?
Comment by the Edge Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 2:49 pm
Who pray tell did Durkie suggest foot the bill for the police prosecutions? Not his beloved overburdened property tax payers we hope. BTW is this a statewide, unfunded mandate?
Comment by Annonin' Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 2:51 pm
Smells like red meat for the Conservative GOP base.
Comment by The Dude Abides Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 2:52 pm
Why not let cops be judge, jury and executioner while wer’re at it?
Oh yeah, we tried that, it didnt work, which is how we ended up here.
Durkin keeps going deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole of White Supremacy, its a sad thing to watch.
Comment by Thomas Paine Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 2:54 pm
Cops deciding that they understand the judicial system better than attorney? What could possibly go wrong?
As a former ADA Durkin knows this bill is DOA. But I guess this is what passes for governing in the ILGOP these days.
Comment by Pundent Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 2:55 pm
So when the law enforcement agency insists on an override on charges that turn out to be brought in bad faith, the chief judge has immunity, the prosecutor has immunity, but does the agency? Doubtful.
Comment by John Parker Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 2:59 pm
Someone should ask the Illinois State’s Attorneys Association if they support this bill, and if they think it withstands legal scrutiny. Surely all Illinois prosecutors would welcome this policy in their own counties, right?
Comment by charles in charge Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 3:00 pm
I think many can question if Ms. Fox made the right choice in a case or two. However, as a State’s Attorney myself, this is a terrible idea. The ballot box every four years should decide if we are doing our jobs. Not a potential angry mob.
Comment by lawdawg Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 3:02 pm
Agree with Lawdawg.
This is a terrible idea.
Comment by Back to the Future Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 3:05 pm
The Chicago Police Department already has “felony override” authority in murder cases and I think some other offenses. Apparently, this bill would extend it to suburban Cook police departments and allow it to be used on additional crimes. Here’s a story about the last time CPD did it:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/chicago.suntimes.com/platform/amp/crime/2021/9/27/22686850/aubrey-serenity-broughton-dead-states-attorney-kim-foxx-police-detectives-brendan-deenihan-winstrom
Comment by Roman Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 3:07 pm
I guess we are going further and further into Judge Dredge territory. Cool.
(((”I am the law”)))
Comment by Try-4-Truth Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 3:08 pm
aka “Empowering the people without law degrees to decide what violates the law.” Since Republicans do not have the votes to even call this pretend bill for a vote, this obviously is an attempt to get the TV news to run Kim Foxx’ photo in stories on this non-starter. And they can do direct-mail ads against Democrats “fighting to stop police from putting criminals in jail.*” (*in cases where police found no evidence or witnesses.) And it means this is their best idea for holding onto what few seats they have. Sad.
Comment by Strategy Geek Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 3:13 pm
Leaving it up to Catanzara…and other Police insurrectionists.
Comment by Dotnonymous Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 3:14 pm
It’s got a snow balls chance. More likely he wants to use it as election fodder.
Comment by ddp76 Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 3:20 pm
Maybe Mr Durkin or Mr Catanzara should run as Cook County State’s Attorney. Either that or the local police should be working harder to get more evidence and building trust in the community in order to get the convections they want.
Comment by Publius Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 3:24 pm
==Why not all counties? If it’s a good idea for Cook, why not DuPage or Woodford or Cass?==
For the same reason there are dozens of other examples of legislation with the disclaimer “county with 3 million or more inhabitants.”
Comment by City Zen Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 3:25 pm
= Who pray tell did Durkie suggest foot the bill for the police prosecutions? Not his beloved overburdened property tax payers we hope. BTW is this a statewide, unfunded mandate? =
Let the FOP pay (banned punctuation)
Comment by cover Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 3:25 pm
this is clearly aimed at the non-charging policies of the state’s attorney in Cook County.
bad idea, but not necessarily bad politics.
Comment by jim Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 3:28 pm
This would’ve also happened with a white male CCSA, too, right?
.
.
.
Right?
.
.
.
(tap, tap) Is this thing on?
Comment by Northsider Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 3:28 pm
If these cops want Kim Foxx’s job then run for her office and defeat her at the ballot box.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 3:30 pm
Isn’t Curran an Assistant State’s Attorney? He should know better.
Comment by Vincent Vega Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 3:31 pm
On the one hand (the biggest hand), this seems to violate due process and equal protection clauses. It would also introduce a formal mechanism for violating protections against double jeopardy.
To a lesser degree (and I may misunderstand), this would seem to allow law enforcement agencies to reject the legal system when the legal system does not do the will of law enforcement agencies. It would suggest they enforce the law until the legal system disagrees. If so, why should law enforcement agencies be above the law, and be granted the authority to judge the judicial system?
Comment by H-W Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 3:34 pm
==Isn’t Curran an Assistant State’s Attorney? He should know better.==
Durkin too. They should both be ashamed, but it doesn’t seem as though they have any shame.
Comment by charles in charge Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 3:37 pm
“In another tragic case where a seven-year-old was murdered, police officials filed their own charges against the suspect when the Cook County State’s Attorney refused to do so, only to see their charges dropped.”
Leader Durkin knows full well that murder charges were filed in this tragic case last week.
Comment by The Opinions Bureau Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 3:40 pm
No. That is not & should not be the job of any police force. Despite the issues with the Cook County State’s Attorneys office, this will make matters worse, not better
It’s an overreaction.
Comment by Lt Guv Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 3:50 pm
Judge Dredd anyone?
The solution is the ballot box - not making police prosecutors.
Comment by Nobody Sent Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 3:55 pm
Although they think they are “the law,” police are not lawyers, nor are they elected. Unlike prosecutors, they have no more than a basic understanding of the law and are not accountable to the people. To the contrary, we have seen that many police are bullies with little regard for the rights or lives of the people they are sworn to serve.
Comment by Sir Snarks-a-Lot Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 4:01 pm
Prosecutorial discretion is too broad. As a private citizen, I wish I could pursue criminal charges on my own as the victim if the SA was unwilling or unable to take on the case. That said, providing some recourse for an appeal of the decision of an SA to drop charges seems reasonable, especially when the police feel otherwise. The case could be sent to a special prosecutor using the same mechanisms already in place when the SA has a conflict of interest.
Comment by thechampaignlife Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 4:01 pm
A “For-Campaigns-Only” bill.
We have lots of those, unfortunately.
Comment by walker Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 4:07 pm
For arguments sake, how about the statewide grand jury and the appellate prosecutors office as an alternate avenue to justice? That would keep prosecutor oversite in place.
Otherwise I think this should be placed in the category of “It’s just a bill”. With Grandstand Font used.
Comment by Occasionally Moderated Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 4:12 pm
*oversight. Sorry.
Comment by Occasionally Moderated Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 4:14 pm
What a terrible idea. It’s dangerous. There would be little to no check or balance on the Police. Do these legislators even think for a minute about the possible effects of what they propose?
Comment by Manchester Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 4:14 pm
I think this bill goes further to show that the ILGOP should no longer be considered a serious political organization within this state. Advocating usurping power from duly elected officials because you disagree with them isn’t governing.
Comment by Fixer Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 4:17 pm
The net result of this bill would be judicial revue when there is disagreement between cops and prosecutors on what, if anything, to charge a defendant with. I don’t think that is a bad thing. Neither prosecutors nor cops always make the right call and there is not often time to wait till the next election to make the call.
Comment by Captain Obvious Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 4:22 pm
= On the one hand (the biggest hand), this seems to violate due process and equal protection clauses. It would also introduce a formal mechanism for violating protections against double jeopardy. =
It’s a ridiculous idea for a whole slew of reasons, but it doesn’t violate due process or equal protection, nor does it implicate double jeopardy.
Comment by JoanP Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 4:33 pm
=The net result of this bill would be judicial revue when there is disagreement between cops and prosecutors on what, if anything, to charge a defendant with. I don’t think that is a bad thing.=
No. If prosecutors aren’t provided with sufficient evidence to file charges the police would fair no better. Durkin and Curran know this. At best this is nothing more than attempt at division. At its worse it’s tapping into the racist undertones of Foxx’s detractors.
Comment by Pundent Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 4:34 pm
@Captain Obvious is right.
CPD already has this override authority and they rarely use it. At the end of the day, only the SA can actually prosecute case — they can drop the charges after the police department brings them.
There is often a tension between detectives and assistant states’ attorneys when it comes to approving felony charges, and that’s a good thing. The detectives think their case is air tight, but the prosecutor wants more evidence. This goes on behind closed doors almost everyday in Chicago police stations. When the cops override the SA it forces the battle into the courtroom, where a judge and the public get to watch. No harm in that.
Comment by Roman Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 4:41 pm
If the Dems had filed this press stunt over a suburban or downstate State’s Attorney, Durkin would be losing his mind over how horrible an idea it is.
Comment by Asteroid of Caution Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 4:42 pm
== Isn’t Curran an Assistant State’s Attorney? He should know better.==
Not any more…also, doesn’t apply in the county he represents. I suspect that he does know better.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 4:43 pm
Interestingly I’m working with a candidate about this same subject, but the Curran “fix” seems pretty bad. There are better avenues for County SA reform.
Comment by Annoyed Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 4:50 pm
==There is often a tension between detectives and assistant states’ attorneys when it comes to approving felony charges, and that’s a good thing. The detectives think their case is air tight, but the prosecutor wants more evidence. This goes on behind closed doors almost everyday in Chicago police stations. When the cops override the SA it forces the battle into the courtroom, where a judge and the public get to watch. No harm in that.==
. . . except when rogue judges conduct secret “hearings” and even sign criminal complaints with the police present but no prosecutor.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2021/9/27/22686850/aubrey-serenity-broughton-dead-states-attorney-kim-foxx-police-detectives-brendan-deenihan-winstrom
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/3/3/21147225/secret-hearings-keep-suspects-custody-beyond-48-hour-limit
Comment by charles in charge Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 4:52 pm
What’s the point if the State’s Attorney still has the ability nolle the case. Maybe if it would require the Judge to appoint a Special Prosecutor this would work to solve the problem they perceive.
Comment by Unionman Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 4:56 pm
Aside from violating separation of powers, assuming the SAO does a prelim or goes to the Grand Jury, what’s to preclude the courtroom ASAs from, as Unionman points out, going ahead and just nolle the case. And, yes it is could happen with a white male State’s Attorney as well. There are other cities in the country where the Kim Foxx style prosecutors are white males and people are unhappy with prosecutorial charging decisions, but I can’t speak to whether they have the Felony Review type system in place.
Comment by West Side the Best Side Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 5:23 pm
===If prosecutors aren’t provided with sufficient evidence to file charges the police would fair no better.===
What if they are provided with sufficient evidence? There are a host of reasons they may not pursue charges: too busy, too expensive, misunderstanding the evidence, personal conflict with the officer, etc. This is not suggesting that the police would try the case, just that it would force a second look for the prosecutors to take on. We get second opinions on medical decisions and home repair quotes all the time. There may be reasons to allow it with prosecutions in limited circumstances.
Comment by thechampaignlife Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 5:26 pm
I’d be ok with this … if we have to require all police who want to speak up to have PhDs first so they have more than a trivial understanding of 4,5, 6th amendment.
Comment by Dissenting Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 6:48 pm
If Law and Order taught me anything it’s that the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups.
Those groups should remain separate
Comment by Sox Fan Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 7:22 pm
let there be a similar law for citizens and police infractions, eh?
Comment by tallone Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 8:00 pm
It’s a stunt, and not a very good one. If the voters are unhappy with Kim they’ll let her know.
Comment by SSL Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 8:12 pm
Certainly not something that will happen, but definitely something that they will run on.
Comment by granville Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 8:18 pm
This is just a big designed to make a point, which is the Cook County State’s Attorney isn’t prosecuting criminals. Let’s hear from Fox do some interviews and explain why people running around shooting other people shouldn’t be charged with crimes.
Comment by Just Me 2 Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 9:08 pm
lawdog can answer, is Cook County unique with Felony Review? what empowers the CCSAO to review felony crimes in this way? Police in Cook County have always had the ability to override a murder. how is that power granted? is all of the current practice just practice and not codified? this bill would extend the right to override to crimes other than murder. why do we need legislation for this?
Comment by Amalia Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 9:16 pm
do police currently have the ability to get charges for drug crimes no matter what? what allows them to do that?
Comment by Amalia Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 9:23 pm
where is the power codified for police to override a decision to not charge a murder case? police can override. where is the power for Felony Review created? do other counties have a different method for charging felonies?
Comment by Amalia Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 9:25 pm
Irrelevant Jim Durkin desperately grasping for relevance. Hashtag fail.
Comment by Sandra Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 9:36 pm
== do police currently have the ability to get charges for drug crimes no matter what? what allows them to do that?==
In Cook County yes, because of the longstanding policy of the State’s Attorney’s office to allow “direct filing” of drug charges by the police without review by a prosecutor. It’s a lousy policy, but at least the SAO still has the authority to dismiss those charges, which they often do.
Comment by charles in charge Monday, Oct 18, 21 @ 10:01 pm
== Let’s hear from Fox do some interviews and explain why people running around shooting other people shouldn’t be charged with crimes.==
This has been answered ad nauseam. There has to be evidence.
Comment by 17% Solution Tuesday, Oct 19, 21 @ 7:18 am
This is an opportunistic sound bite for a red meat audience. Its not a serious proposal, nor will it ever see a committee vote.
As always, if you don’t like the decisions of any elected official, use your vote to make a change.
Comment by Tommydanger Tuesday, Oct 19, 21 @ 7:34 am
It sounds like a great idea… until you think about it: Who would prosecute the case when the SAO’s initial refusal to prosecute is overridden? Oh, that’s right, the same SAO that refused to bring charges. If the prosecution fails, the SA can say “I told you so” — and no one would have to do an obvious lie-down — that might create ARDC problems — but just assigning the case to a green kid or the ASA with the worst trial record might bring the ‘desired’ result. There is a problem, but this won’t help.
Comment by Chicagoan in favor of the SAO doing its job Tuesday, Oct 19, 21 @ 8:06 am
Another dufus attempt at populism by the party of No. Stop electing people who hate government to government.
Comment by PublicServant Tuesday, Oct 19, 21 @ 8:42 am