The SAFE-T Act in Practice and the Case Study of the Libertyville GPS Tracker Van Theft

Libertyville Police arrested a man for allegedly stealing a work van on Wednesday, June 5th. Unfortunately for the supposed thief, this particular vehicle, a work van belonging to JM Irrigation based in Lake County’s Volo, was equipped with a GPS tracking device. It does not appear that the driver got very far as the call to the police about a stolen vehicle came in around 7:19 in the morning and was quickly followed by the man being apprehended and arrested by 7:30.  

The Illinois State Police Emergency Radio Network (ISPERN) alerted area police departments, which were able to track the van in real time as it drove along the highway. Once the driver decided to pull into a local Walgreens parking lot, the Libertyville Police Department moved to arrest him as he exited the van and headed towards a U.S. Auto Service Center on Route 45 in Grayslake.  

Charges against the driver were approved by the Lake County State’s Attorney’s Office. These include burglary without causing damage, theft of a motor vehicle, possession of a stolen vehicle, and driving on a revoked license. The driver was not held on pretrial conditions based on the Illinois SAFE-T Act and was allowed to leave the Lake County Jail. 

SAFE-T Act 

The Illinois SAFE-T Act was introduced in 2021 as part of a criminal justice omnibus bill known as the Safety, Accountability, Fairness, and Equity–Today Act, or SAFE-T Act. This Act sets new standards for pretrial procedures. According to the Civic Federation, new amendments were introduced, and “as of September 18, 2023, judges are no longer allowed to order someone charged with a crime to pay money as a condition of their pretrial release.”  

This means that there is no longer a cash bail requirement for defendants to be able to avoid pretrial detention. The Illinois Policy Institute explains that the purpose of cash bail is “not to detain dangerous suspects” but instead to “ensure they show up for court, even if holding people for bail will incidentally prevent defendants from committing additional crimes if they cannot afford to pay.” To reiterate this point further, according to the Institute, while “pretrial detention replaces bail to prevent the defendant from fleeing prosecution,” it also “serves to protect the public from the threat posed by dangerous defendants.” This has proven controversial because it can make it more difficult for prosecutors to petition to detain defendants who may pose a threat to the public.  

From a public policy perspective, according to some advocates, doing away with a cash bail requirement may also be viewed as being meant to reduce economic discrimination against defendants of various socioeconomic backgrounds. Many people view it as an unfair advantage that those who can afford to post bail are allowed to go free pending their court dates, while those who struggle financially are not only unfairly detained but also lose out on further potential earnings when they are unable to work during their detention.  

The Civic Federation goes on to explain that the Pretrial Fairness Act contemplates “procedural changes for the criminal case process,” which includes “procedures for law enforcement to cite and release someone arrested from police custody in certain misdemeanors and traffic offenses.”   

It further establishes newly added bond court hearing processes comprising an initial hearing during which judges set conditions of release, followed by a potential additional hearing in situations when the State’s Attorney files a petition to deny the person pretrial release. It also creates new standards for violations that are eligible for pretrial detention based on “risk to public safety or risk of willful flight.” The additional hearing typically comes into play when the contemplated charges are of a more severe nature than misdemeanors. These standards may be viewed as the Act’s answer to the concern about letting potentially dangerous defendants go free between arrest and trial.  

In this case, it is unclear whether the suspected vehicle thief posed a risk to public safety or a risk of willful flight. It appears that he was apprehended upon stopping and exiting the vehicle of his own volition, though not to comply with Police orders, but rather for other motives which are at this time unknown.  

Since he parked the car and proceeded to walk along the road, it is reasonable to conclude that this was not an attempt to flee or evade capture. He very likely was not even aware that he was being pursued. It is not clear from the police report how long the vehicle had been gone before the owners contacted the police about it being stolen, so given the short time frame between when the call was actually made and when the driver was approached by police, it seems to indicate that the driver may not have had time to carry out any potential plan.  

His intentions beyond driving the stolen vehicle and parking are unknown. He may have been abandoning the vehicle or in the midst of some other potentially legally dubious act when he was apprehended, but the risk he may have posed to public safety is undetermined. Whether he intended to flee is likewise unknown.  

However, given that the judge declined to schedule an initial hearing or set any further conditions of pretrial detention, and the State’s Attorney did not file a petition to prevent him from being released, it appears that it was determined, at least tentatively, that he did not pose a risk to the public safety nor a risk of willful flight. All of this may be reasonably deduced simply by a cursory analysis of the tenets of the newly introduced amendments to the SAFE-T Act and from the basic facts of the case at hand as reported.  

Burglary Without Causing Damage 

One of the offenses with which the driver is charged is called burglary without causing damage. According to the Illinois Compiled Statutes, a person commits burglary when “without authority he or she knowingly enters or without authority remains within” one of the following: 

• A building,  
• a house trailer,  
• a watercraft,  
• an aircraft,  
• a motor vehicle, 
• a railroad car,  
• a freight container,  

“or any part thereof, with intent to commit therein a felony or theft.” In this case, it is clear that the motor vehicle portion of the statute is implicated.  

When a burglary is “committed in, and without causing damage to,” one of the above-mentioned things, it is a Class 3 felony. If the driver had caused damage to the work van, he indeed would not be facing a charge of “burglary without causing damage.” The name of the charge alone is enough to understand this. No further analysis is required here. 

Theft of a Motor Vehicle and Possession of a Stolen Vehicle 

The charges of “theft of a motor vehicle” and “possession of a stolen vehicle” are likewise self-explanatory. The Illinois Compiled Statutes does elaborate on them, detailing that it is a violation for “a person not entitled to the possession of a vehicle or essential part of a vehicle to:  

• receive,  
• possess,  
• conceal,  
• sell,  
• dispose, or  
• transfer it,  

knowing it to have been stolen or converted.” The knowledge that a vehicle or essential part of it is stolen or converted may be inferred from the facts and circumstances surrounding it, which would lead a reasonable person to believe the same.  

Given that the driver is charged with both theft of a vehicle and possession of a stolen vehicle, the surrounding facts and circumstances make it pretty simple to deduce (if proven later on in court) that when he was apprehended, he was in possession of a stolen vehicle since it was not his, and that he was the one to steal it.  

Again, this will have to be proven in open court, but the charges speak for themselves so there is no need to continue this analysis further. It would indicate a measure of doubt as to whether he had been the one to steal the vehicle if he had been charged with just possession, but the facts do not indicate this to be the case. These are two separate counts and are both felonies. 

Driving on a Revoked License 

With “driving on a revoked license”, the name of the charge once again tells us everything we need to know to understand what the situation is here. When the driver was arrested, the police would have run his drivers license and discovered it to have been previously revoked, so this charge would apply.  

It is essential to differentiate between a “suspended” license, which is temporary, and a “revoked” license, which is more permanent. We don’t know why his license had been previously revoked, but he should not have been driving. If convicted, this is a Class A misdemeanor.  

This last charge may give us pause, considering the fact that he was already doing something he was previously legally prevented from doing. So, in terms of the SAFE-T Act, this would have provided the court with a more substantial reason to have detained him, considering he is in violation of a previous revocation. But given that the previous revocation only amounted to a misdemeanor, and the SAFE-T Act contemplates the procedures for law enforcement to “cite and release someone arrested from police custody in certain misdemeanors and traffic offenses,” it does make sense that they did not choose to exercise the option of pretrial detention. 

Source

https://www.lakemchenryscanner.com/2024/