I’m a former police chief. Here’s what’s wrong with the SAFE-T Act.

Tyler Pasciak LaRiviere/Sun-Times

Undoubtedly, the public is now well aware that many of the provisions of the SAFE-T Act (Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity Today Act) will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2023.  

The SAFE-T Act was passed in the wee hours of the morning on Jan. 13, 2021, at 5 A.M. to be exact. There was little, if any, input from law enforcement, and concerns expressed to legislators through the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, an organization in which I am still active, widely went unanswered. When I was police chief in Riverside, I served on the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police Legislative Committee.

Remember, the SAFE-T Legislation was over 700 pages long. No one really had a chance to thoroughly read it before it was signed into law, with much fanfare. Several photos were released showing proponents on the floor of the Legislature, “fist pumping” the passage of the legislation.  

There are many good provisions in the bill. But there are also some really bad ones — such as those on pre-trial release and bail reform.

I want to set the record straight in regard to public safety and law enforcement concerns about the ability to detain accused violent offenders under this legislation.  

I am in full support of not holding suspects in custody who are accused of low-level offenses. In most cases, those accused of misdemeanors and low-level drug crimes should not be held in custody — they should be eligible for reasonable bond or electronic monitoring. 

What I am specifically concerned about are violent criminal suspects. Some of the legislation’s procedural changes will make it difficult for judges to hold violent individuals either without bond or on extremely high bond. 

Giving violent suspects a free pass

One major reform is that all defendants shall be presumed eligible for pre-trial release. This puts the burden on the state to prove, by “clear and convincing” evidence, that the defendant has committed an offense and poses a real and present threat to public safety.

A second provision requires that suspects must show evidence of willful flight – which means planning or attempting to evade prosecution by concealing oneself — to be considered a flight risk. 

In the past, failure to show up for a court appearance was evidence of evasion. But now, judges will not be allowed to take into consideration whether a suspect jumped bail, how many times the suspect failed to show in court, and if there is an active warrant for their arrest.  

Third, defendants who are out on electronic monitoring are not considered as having “escaped” until they have been missing for more than 48 hours! This rule is just nothing short of ludicrous and in no way, shape or form enhances public safety.  

If an offender cuts off their monitoring bracelet and does not respond to the electronic signal that is sent to them, or is not on the premises when an in-person status check is made by a county sheriff’s officer, the suspect should be considered as “escaped”. 

But offenders now get a 48-hour free pass before a judge may issue a warrant for their arrest.

This law also puts a tremendous administrative burden on the average police officer during the arrest and booking process. There are now four additional forms for this process and the flow charts are complicated, time-consuming and do not serve public safety (see them at Pretrial Implementation Task Force.

Fewer street patrols, more apathy

So, what does this really mean? The average police officer on a felony arrest responds to the scene, arrests the individual, transports them to the police facility, contacts the state’s attorney’s felony review unit for charges, books the prisoner and gets them to felony bond court. Now, an officer will be required to be in the station doing paperwork, making sure to follow these flow charts and meeting every single aspect of this burdensome requirement.

The police officer who should be patrolling your community will be on the street less — in most cases, far less. You could have officers doing paperwork for six to eight hours on a single arrest, which is unacceptable.

The law will also create apathy and low morale. Officers may think, why bother charging someone with this felony and going through felony review when they are just going to be released without bond anyway? In many cases, this will be true. 

I am not saying it is right, nor am I advocating for it. I am only telling the public what will happen: Officers simply will not file felony charges when they believe offenders will not be held accountable or have bond assigned to them in court. One can debate the merits on that, but it will happen unless there is some modification in the SAFE-T Act.

There was a need for change in law enforcement and there still is. Change is happening. But when it comes to pre-trial release and bail reform, the SAFE-T Act is not a positive for public safety in Illinois.

Tom Weitzel was police chief for the Village of Riverside for 13 years before his retirement. He spent 37 years in law enforcement.

The Sun-Times welcomes letters to the editor and op-eds. See our guidelines.