Cook County's top prosecutor questions safety of electronic monitoring under chief judge

Cook County’s top prosecutor says she does not believe the chief judge can safely administer electronic monitoring and she has instructed her lawyers to object every time it is imposed against their wishes.Judges can still order electronic monitoring despite the objections, but State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke said she believes “this is a serious threat to public safety and we must make that clear on the record.”Chief Cook County Judge Timothy Evans’ office had no immediate comment.Until last week, the program had been run by the sheriff’s office , under Evans, after Sheriff Tom Dart complained he could no longer safely oversee the program.Beginning April 1, anyone placed on electronic monitoring after being found to be a flight risk or a danger to the public was overseen by the probation department. The sheriff’s office continues to handle its current caseload of people on monitors.Questions remain over who arrests violators and how extra staff will be funded.Unlike members of the sheriff’s office, Evans’ probation officers are not sworn law enforcement and cannot make arrests. If a probation officer were to come across a violation, they would need to call local law enforcement to make the arrest, according to county officials. In Chicago, they would call the police, but in unincorporated Cook County they would call the sheriff’s office.O’Neill Burke cited this in her memo to prosecutors. "(Office of the Chief Judge) personnel are not law enforcement officers and cannot investigate, seek escape charges, or obtain an arrest warrant if a person absconds,” she noted.“Accordingly, in the event that a person absconds from electronic monitoring, OCJ’s pretrial/probation officers’ recourse is to call 911 or seek assistance from law enforcement and then advance the case to the court call to report that information to a judge,” she said.O’Neill Burke said that the probation department does not have “sufficient properly trained staff to monitor individuals ordered to electronic monitoring instead of detention.”Evans’ office has acknowledged it will need more than 150 new hires, new office space, additional training and more resources to run the expanded operation.The chief judge’s office plans to begin hiring more probation officers in phases, with the hope of being fully staffed by next spring, according to probation department officials who spoke before commissioners in March.Cook County’s 2025 budget includes $6.3 million in funding for the Adult Probation Department but Evans’ office told commissioners it will need closer to $10 million to make the necessary hires for this year.The sheriff launched the electronic monitoring program in 1989 to reduce overcrowding in the Cook County Jail.It was intended to monitor “low-level, nonviolent offenders” and ensure they appeared in court, according to a statement from Dart, who said in recent years people with more serious charges were placed under his supervision.Under the Pretrial Fairness Act, which took effect in 2023, all defendants placed on electronic monitoring were given two days of “essential movement” to go shopping, do laundry or take care of other personal needs.Dart fought strongly against the measure and argued it had rendered his program “largely ineffective.”O’Neill Burke, in her memo, claimed the pretrial act has led to more dangerous suspects being released on monitoring.“That population includes offenders charged with murder, attempted murder, predatory criminal sexual assault, as well as numerous other violent offenses such as aggravated battery, felony domestic battery, and various other sexual assault and abuse charges,” she wrote.She also claimed her office has approved 57 escape charges since Dec. 2, but gave no details.Evans’ office had no comment on O’Neill Burke’s claims. But the Illinois Network for Pretrial Justice, which supported the Pretrial Fairness Act, said O’Neill Burke “makes several misleading and problematic claims,” adding, “We expect better from someone who ran on a commitment to the Pretrial Fairness Act.“For decades, the chief judge has operated an electronic monitoring program,” the organization said in a statement. “The state’s attorney’s claim that without the sheriff’s involvement, dangerous people will run free is contrary to years of evidence, and such statements are merely designed to scare people as they have no basis in fact.”It cited a study requested by the Cook County Board that found electronic monitoring had “no substantial effect on failure to appear rates and rearrest rates, or on rearrest rates for violent crimes.”“Ignoring the available data and issuing blanket policies that ignore the facts of individual cases will make our communities less safe and our justice system less fair,” the organization said. “Quite simply, this policy is designed to bully judges into following prosecutors’ opposition to pretrial release, even when the prosecution fails to meet their burden of proof for detention.”The public defender’s office echoed the criticism, saying in a statement that “blanket policies to object to electronic monitoring undermines individual justice. ... The Cook County Public Defender’s Office looks forward to continuing to ensure our clients’ presumption of innocence isn’t erased or ignored solely by allegations alone.”