REPORT OF THE
COMMITTEE ON LAW ENFORCEMENT
The Honorable,
The Board of Commissioners of
ATTENDANCE
|
Present: |
Chairman Maldonado, Vice Chairman Silvestri, Commissioners
Beavers, |
|
Absent: |
Commissioners Gorman and Quigley (2) |
|
Also
Present: |
Commissioners
Daley, Murphy, Schneider, Sims, Steele, Suffredin; Hon. Thomas J. Dart - Sheriff of Cook
County; Mr. Patrick Driscoll - Deputy
State’s Attorney, Chief, Civil Actions Bureau; Mr. Edwin A. Burnette - Cook County Public
Defender; Judge Robert P. Bastone
(retired) – representative, Office of the Chief Judge; Mr. Daniel Gallagher, Esq. - Querrey &
Harrow, Ltd.; Melinda Haag - Justice
& Public Safety Practice Leader, Crowe Chizek; John Weber - Cook County Sheriff’s Office |
Ladies and
Gentlemen:
Your Committee
on Law Enforcement of the Board of Commissioners of Cook County met pursuant to
notice on
Your Committee
has considered the following item and upon adoption of this report, the
recommendations are as follows:
|
286857 |
COOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, by Roberto Maldonado, I am submitting the attached communication from the
Sheriff’s Office as a New Item at the Transmitting a Communication from THOMAS J. DART, Sheriff of by ZELDA WHITTLER, Undersheriff requesting to have a Law Enforcement and Corrections
Committee Meeting at the earliest convenient date to discuss judicial
placement of Electronic Monitoring (E.M.) inmates. The discussion regarding
judicial placement would address some of the issues discussed at the Board
Meeting of April l8, 2007. Currently,
inmates are chosen for release into E.M. by records personnel at the
Department of Corrections. The
Sheriff is not comfortable with this system because it gives Correctional
Officers the power to decide whether a criminal offender should be free or
behind bars pending his trial. The
Sheriff believes that a Circuit Court Judge should be making these critical
decisions, not Cook County Department of Corrections personnel. Judicial placement will decrease the jail inmate
population, improve public safety by allowing Judges to choose candidates for
E.M., and it has the potential to generate revenue by charging a fee for
those placed on E.M. Given the constructive discussion and overall support
voiced by the Commissioners at the April l8, 2007 Board meeting, a Law
Enforcement and Corrections Committee meeting would provide an opportunity to
have a comprehensive discussion with representatives from the Office of the
Chief Judge, States Attorney, Public Defender and the Sheriff’s Office. * Referred to the Committee on Law Enforcement
and Corrections on |
Chairman Maldonado requested that the meeting notice be read
into the record by the Secretary to the Board.
Chairman Maldonado began by stating that the Committee would
first hear from Sheriff Dart and his staff, followed by a representative from
the Office of the State’s Attorney and then Public Defender Edwin
Burnette. He added that Judge Robert
Bastone was present, on behalf of the Office of the Chief Judge.
Sheriff Dart proceeded to present the introduction of the
item before the Committee. He began by
stating that this topic had been briefly discussed during Fiscal Year 2007
Budget presentations. His concern is
that the current process used to choose inmates eligible for electronic monitoring
is reckless. Currently, it is records
personnel at the Department of Corrections who are making the decisions as to which
inmates are eligible for release through electronic monitoring. Sheriff Dart’s concerns are that those
decisions are being made with limited information from antiquated computer
systems by personnel with limited criminal justice experience. He added that there is no judicial oversight
on electronic monitoring eligibility, and that
Sheriff Dart indicated that attempts to address this topic
in
Sheriff Dart outlined the benefits of judicial placement of
electronic monitoring of inmates. One
benefit is that fees can be charged to inmates who are placed in electronic monitoring
by a judge. The State’s Attorney opined
that the County cannot collect fees if the Sheriff places an inmate on electronic
monitoring, however the County can charge a fee if a judge places an inmate on electronic
monitoring. This potential source of
revenue can assuage personnel costs involved in the monitoring process.
Another benefit cited by Sheriff Dart was the potential
impact on the issue of overcrowding in the jail. He believed that the only way to get out from
under the Duran Consent Decree is to get the judiciary involved in this
process. In Marion County, Indiana, they
are under a similar consent decree, however the judges and Sheriff’s Office
exchange information on a regular basis about jail population; when the
population is up, the judges are aware and can act accordingly.
John Weber from the Sheriff’s Office gave a Power Point
presentation on the item before the Committee. (See Attachment #1, Judicial
Placement Proposal from the Cook County Sheriff’s Office, Department of
Community Supervision and Intervention.)
Chairman Maldonado introduced Mr. Patrick Driscoll,
Chairman Maldonado then introduced Cook County Public
Defender Edwin A. Burnette, who also agreed with Sheriff Dart. He stated that this would benefit his clients
and would reduce confusion in the courtroom.
Chairman Maldonado introduced Judge Robert Bastone, who is
retired from the bench but who currently works for Chief Judge Timothy
Evans. Judge Bastone briefly explained
that he was attending the meeting on behalf of Judge Evans, who was unable to
attend.
Commissioner Sims asked whether the Sheriff believed the
current system opens the County to the risk of a class action lawsuit filed on
behalf of inmates not chosen for electronic monitoring.
Sheriff Dart responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Sims questioned why the Sheriff’s Office does
not have access to the same information as the judges and prosecutors.
Sheriff Dart replied that some of this information is
impossible to physically obtain. Much of
the information necessary to make an informed decision is orally stated in
courtrooms by the defense attorney to the judge. There is no ability to get this type of
information through the computer system.
Sheriff Dart stated that he would have to have an experienced attorney
sitting in court for every case in order to get this type of information.
Commissioner Beavers asked about the bill in
Sheriff Dart responded that it was Senator Hunter, and added
that his representatives in
In response to a question from Commissioner Beavers
regarding statutory authority, Sheriff Dart stated that he believes that the
Board has the legal authority to act in a fashion that could assist the process
through the County’s home rule authority, in order to rectify the problem.
Commissioner Silvestri asked whether there would be an
overall reduction in personnel costs or whether the costs would simply transfer
to the Office of the Chief Judge.
Sheriff Dart replied that the Office of the Chief Judge has
an existing pre-trial services unit of over one hundred people that may be able
to assume additional responsibilities with little or no impact on
staffing. However, if this process is
changed and judicial placement is used for electronic monitoring, the state statute
is very clear: the State Supreme Court
must fund it. Because currently the
process under the Sheriff is extrajudicial, the Sheriff cannot get funding from
this source.
Commissioner Silvestri inquired as to the legality of the
current process used to determine eligibility for electronic monitoring.
Sheriff Dart stated that the process is contrary to existing
state statutes, yet the Duran Consent Decree allows for some latitude.
Sheriff Dart requested that Daniel Gallagher, the Sheriff’s
outside attorney for the Duran case, address Commissioner Silvestri’s question.
Mr. Gallagher stated that on March 22, 1983, Judge Milton Shader
entered a memorandum order that gave the Sheriff the authority to release
anybody in the County Jail to reduce overcrowding on what is known as a
Sheriff’s I-Bond, which is also known as the Administrative Mandatory Furlough
Program. It became a problem when the
inmates released under this program did not show up in court. It was determined in 1989 that some sort of
oversight was necessary, and as a result, electronic monitoring was implemented.
Commissioner Daley stated that all parties will have to come
together and agree. He also questioned
why the Sheriff did not use another legislative vehicle in
Sheriff Dart responded that new compromise language was
drafted and that Commissioner Suffredin had identified a vehicle bill to use,
but that those attempts were unsuccessful.
Commissioner Daley expressed concern over potential problems
associated with state funding of judicial placement of electronic monitoring of
inmates.
Commissioner Daley asked whether the Sheriff’s Office had prepared
revenue estimates.
Sheriff Dart responded that during budget sessions, the topic
of fees had been introduced, however after the opinion from the State’s
Attorney in which they found that the Sheriff could not charge fees, there was
less urgency for his staff to continue working on revenue estimates.
Commissioner Peraica expressed his opinion that this is a
topic to be discussed in conjunction with the Judicial Advisory Council.
Commissioner Peraica inquired whether this would require
state legislative intervention to modify existing state statutes.
Sheriff Dart directed the question to Melinda Haag, Justice
& Public Safety Practice Leader at Crowe Chizek.
Ms. Haag responded that she did not believe so.
Commissioner Peraica asked whether the Cook County Board
could, upon passage of an ordinance, implement the change to judicial
placement, pursuant to home rule authority.
Mr. Gallagher also responded that he would assist in efforts
to address Commissioner Peraica’s question.
Chairman Maldonado asked the Secretary to the Board to call
upon the registered public speaker.
1. George
Blakemore, Concerned Citizen
Vice Chairman
Silvestri moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Butler. The motion carried and the meeting was
adjourned.
YOUR COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING ACTION WITH REGARD TO THE MATTERS NAMED HEREIN:
Communication
Number 286857 No action taken
|
|
Respectfully
submitted, Committee
on Law Enforcement xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Roberto Maldonado,
Chairman |
Attest:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Matthew B.
DeLeon, Secretary