Two current stories on CWBChicago that merit discussion by the bench and bar

The Saturday murder of a Chicago Police officer, and the grave wounding of his partner, at Swedish Covenant Hospital, is being covered everywhere at this point. The suspected murderer, now in custody, is a seven-time convicted felon "who is also an active parole absconder and electronic monitoring escapee with cases pending for armed carjacking and armed robbery," according to this April 27 article on CWBChicago. Other media outlets have also reported the suspect's lengthy criminal history.

Social media outlets are aflame with varying degrees of outrage, charges and countercharges of partisan hypocrisy, and judge shaming. Feel free to visit those if you are interested in the generation of more light than heat.

Today, though, I would like to ask FWIW readers to try to step back from the strong emotions of the moment and consider some questions raised by two additional stories on CWBChicago, "Judge pointed to SAFE-T Act, freed suspected cop killer on ankle monitor ‘over the state’s rigorous objection’" (posted early this morning), and "With cop killer case, Chief Judge’s electronic monitoring overhaul appears to have failed in spectacular fashion" (posted last evening).

As lawyers, we have a role in reminding the public that judges must follow the law.

Indeed, judges must follow the law, even if the law is stupid, unpopular, or even dangerous, just so long as the law is constitutional. ("The wisdom of the enactment of any law is vested in the discretion of the Legislature, and courts cannot declare the laws invalid because they are unwise or unreasonable." People ex rel. Shultz v. Russel, 294 Ill. 283, 286 (1920).)

The SAFE-T Act is constitutional. Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248.

But that is not the end of the discussion. It is merely the starting point: Since the SAFE-T Act is constitutional, our judges must follow it. Tim Hecke's article about the December 11, 2025 hearing before Judge John Fitzgerald Lyke, Jr., which concerned the possible pretrial detention, on other charges, of the individual now accused in the murder of a police officer, provides a useful example for our conversation: In light of what was before him at that time (and not in light of what has allegedly transpired since), did Judge Lyke correctly apply the SAFE-T Act in deciding against further detention of Alphonso Talley?

Judges, fellow lawyers, quirites, I think there must be three possible answers to this question: First, yes, Judge Lyke did correctly follow the SAFE-T Act, and, under the law, he could not have further detained Talley. Second, yes, Judge Lyke correctly followed the SAFE-T Act, but he also had discretion, still within the letter of the law, to keep Talley in pretrial detention. Or, third, no, Judge Lyke did not correctly follow the SAFE-T Act, pursuant to which Talley should have remained detained. (Perhaps there are other possibilities, and, if you think that this is the case, I would earnestly ask you to tell me what those might be.)

But... assuming these three possibilities... here is where I beg you to come forward and answer these follow up quesitons. Let's work backwards on these:

• Assuming the third option, that the judge incorrectly applied the SAFE-T Act, what specific provisions of the law did the court fail to sufficiently consider, or give sufficient weight, in coming to an incorrect conclusion?


• Assuming the second option, that, though the judge correctly followed the SAFE-T Act, he could have nevertheless reached the opposite conclusion, and maintained Talley in custody, what provisions of the Act should the court have cited and relied upon in order to keep Talley in jail?


• Assuming the first option, that the court had to release Talley in order to comply with the SAFE-T Act, are there specific, concrete amendments to the SAFE-T Act that you can suggest that would have given the court the tools to keep Talley in custody?

Some segments of the public insist repeal is the only remedy. I don't think repeal is politically viable in the foreseeable future, no matter what further tragedies occur. Too many prominent people would see any attempt at repeal as an attack on their good intentions. I prefer to assume that most of us -- nearly all of us -- have good intentions. But good intentions do not automatically translate to good policy. Since we are lawyers, we can formulate, and advance, specific, practical solutions that honor the good intentions of the original drafters while actually enhancing opportunities for public safety. What can you offer?

The recognition that most of us have only good intentions at heart brings me, briefly, to the second cited CWBChicago story about the apparent problems in monitoring criminal defendants who are not detained pretrial, problems also illustrated by the Talley case. I assume that the courts, prosecutors, public defenders (and private defense counsel, where applicable), and the employees of the Chief Judge's office all have the best intentions to make electronic monitoring work. But is it a sin and a shame to further assume that, perhaps, just perhaps, some persons accused of crimes, who are granted the privilege of electronic monitoring before their trials, might not share the same good intentions as these others?

What specific reforms or revisions can we advance to enhance the goal of keeping electronic monitoring available as an option without endangering the public? What options do we have under current law to restrict electronic monitoring in cases, such as appears to have happened in the Talley case, for accused persons who abuse the wholesome or appropriate opportunities that are supposed to be afforded by electionic monitoring? Are changes in the applicable laws necessary? Specifically, what changes need to be made?

I'd love to be able to offer a comprehensive reform program here, but, at this time, I do not think I can. I did not practice in the area of criminal law. Now -- of course -- this being the Internet -- ignorance or inexperience seems to provide no brake on persons shouting, with every indicia of certitude, exactly what must be done and how. I choose not to do this... although I reserve the right to develop and refine opinions in my own good time.

But, for now, I turn instead to you, FWIW readers. I know a lot of you deal with the SAFE-T Act every day. You are acquainted with, and even well-versed in, the growing body of case law that has arisen following pretrial detention hearings. I ask you to strongly consider sharing your expertise with us all. Let us help the public by helping each other to better apply a law that seems, despite the best of intentions, to be tragically flawed. If changes in the law are warranted, let us help the legislature make specific changes that will benefit the law-abiding public.

In other words, leave a comment here. Use your own name, too. Maybe you can become someone that serious journalists can turn to for explantions on these issues.