Check this out: The Second District of the IL Appellate Court cut loose a guy initially held after an arrest on 25 offences including aggravated fleeing and eluding – a felony. He led cops on a high speed chase into Wisconsin from Spring Grove, IL.
State prosecutors argued that the perp should be held as a flight risk. After all, he did flee cops in a high speed chase. The trial court agreed. The appellate court did not.
And now, the McHenry County State’s Attorney is blowing the whistle on this lunacy.
APPELLATE COURT RULES THAT DEFENDANT WHO LED POLICE ON HIGH-SPEED CAR CHASE ACROSS STATE LINES IS NOT RISK OF “WILLFUL FLIGHT”
Post Date:04/05/2024 3:42 PM
Illinois appellate courts, where criminal cases go on appeal, are not immune from the regressive effects of the SAFE-T Act euphemistically styled as “reform.”
The Second District of the Illinois Appellate Court (which hears cases from Kane, Lake, McHenry, Dekalb, and Kendall Counties) published an opinion pending in McHenry County involving a defendant who was charged with twenty-five offenses, including aggravated identity theft, a class 3 felony, and aggravated fleeing and eluding a peace officer, a class 4 felony.
The aggravated fleeing and eluding charges arose after the defendant allegedly led officers on a high-speed car chase from Spring Grove, Illinois across state-lines into Wisconsin.
After he was arrested, the State sought to hold the defendant pretrial under the SAFE-T Act arguing the defendant was a risk of “willful flight” because he literally fled from the police in a car at high speeds in order to avoid arrest. The trial court agreed with the State’s argument and detained the defendant pending his trial.
On March 19, 2024, the appellate court reversed the trial court and ordered the defendant to be released. The court adopted the reasoning of another court making the finest of distinctions that though “evading arrest could be viewed as obstructing the criminal justice system, it did not reflect a ‘thwarting of the judicial process to avoid prosecution.’” In other words, fleeing from police to avoid arrest is not evidence of a defendant being a risk of “willful flight.”
In our opinion this ruling is out of step with the expectations the public has for the criminal justice system and an example of how legalism can be elevated over sound judgment.
We at the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office recognize that judges are not “wholly free to defend themselves” in the face of public criticism. As such, we encourage readers of this press release to bear that in mind. We also encourage everyone to read the opinion, which can be found on the Illinois Supreme Court website. Nothing in the foregoing should be interpreted as the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Office commenting on the qualifications or integrity of any judge involved. We acknowledge that all judges involved in this decision are men and women of integrity and qualified for the stations they hold.
That said, the criminal justice system continues to undergo drastic changes in many important areas that are rarely reported upon. We believe it is incumbent upon us to ensure the public is fully advised and point out those instances where reform efforts have put the justice system and reality on divergent paths.
Comments are closed.