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.
Well…where to begin here. I may not have a JD at the end of my name or a BAR number. I didn’t even attempt to or attend a Law school. But, I do have good common-sense, my critical-thinking was off the charts in various scores (military), and I have a pretty good grasp of how to research not only case law but pertinent laws, trials, and cases that can be applied to most cases I am interested in.
At face value, the initial court (surprisingly) got it right by holding a clearly dangerous person until his trial. Anyone that disregards the Publix, safety and conducts a high-speed chase along with all the other charges must be held until their trial. Not only because of the fact that they endangered citizens lives, but because of their clear contempt for the law, as well as the total disregard for public safety. Their intention to remain free from arrest is blatantly obvious, by their efforts to elude police and resisting arrest that guarantees a self belief of their own superiority over others, which will lead to further evasion and their attempt to escape prosecution. The appeals judges simply are mind-reading versus looking at facts of the case. Compassion and empathy are very much parts of the court but not to the detriment the public’s safety and well-being.
let thug-mofos run free, safe-t act uknow
One thing to flee, but crossing state lines during an active pursuit to evade arrest does not show a likely intent to hinder or obstruct police or courts? Legislation written in crayon should be prohibited.
Just more activist jurists acting in the best interests of criminals. Crimenois no longer the land of Lincoln. More like the land of free reign criminality.
I SAY WE LET THIS ASS CLOWN LOOSE AT THE APPELLATE JUDGES RESIDENCES. THESE ASS-WIPES CAN MONITOR HIM SEE HE DOES NOT WILLFULLY FLEE. REFORM THAT YOU OVER-EDUCATED MORONS IN BLACK ROBES.