Defendant Wins Appeal to Strike Pretrial Release Order Under SAFE-T Act

People v. Cline involved a defendant who had been released on a $5,000 recognizance bond before the new Illinois pretrial-release provisions took effect.

An Illinois criminal case involving the transition to the state’s new pretrial-release system raised questions about when prosecutors may seek to detain a defendant who was already released on bond. In People v. Cline, 2023 IL App (5th) 230849, the Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court addressed an attempted State appeal concerning a circuit court order that struck the State’s petition seeking detention.

The case arose during the September 2023 implementation of Illinois’ pretrial-release provisions, commonly referred to as the SAFE-T Act. The circuit court struck several State petitions concerning the defendant’s pretrial release. The appellate court ultimately dismissed the State’s appeal because the order the State attempted to appeal was not among the orders then authorized for a State appeal under the applicable Illinois Supreme Court rules. The appellate court nevertheless stated that, assuming it had jurisdiction, its recent decision in People v. Rios, 2023 IL App (5th) 230724, would have applied to the circumstances.

Quick Answer

People v. Cline, 2023 IL App (5th) 230849 did not establish a new appellate rule affirming the circuit court’s ruling on the timing of the State’s detention petition. The Fifth District dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court explained that, if it had jurisdiction to consider the merits, its prior decision in People v. Rios would have been applicable.

The Original Criminal Case

On August 6, 2021, Dustin Cline was arrested in Christian County and charged with unlawful possession of methamphetamine. He was released from detention on a $5,000 recognizance bond while the criminal case remained pending.

More than two years later, on August 25, 2023, Cline was stopped by police during a traffic stop. Officers determined that his driving privileges had been revoked. According to the appellate opinion, he was taken into custody and placed in the back seat of a police vehicle. While an officer was completing paperwork, Cline spit on the officer, with the contact reaching the officer’s face and person.

On August 28, 2023, Cline was charged with aggravated battery of a police officer, a Class 2 felony.

2021 Charge

Cline was charged with unlawful possession of methamphetamine and released on a $5,000 recognizance bond.

August 2023 Traffic Stop

Police stopped Cline and determined that his driving privileges were revoked.

New Felony Charge

Cline was charged with aggravated battery of a police officer after the alleged spitting incident.

The State Initially Sought to Revoke Pretrial Release

On September 7, 2023, the State filed a verified petition seeking to revoke Cline’s pretrial release under 725 ILCS 5/110-6. The petition was filed before September 18, 2023, the date on which the stay concerning Illinois’ new pretrial-release provisions was lifted.

Cline filed a motion to strike the State’s petition, arguing that the State was seeking a statutory remedy that was not yet effective. The circuit court granted his motion on September 18, 2023.

September 18, 2023

September 18, 2023 was significant in Illinois criminal procedure because the stay on the pretrial-release provisions enacted through Public Act 101-652 was lifted. The Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248, set that date for implementation of the provisions.

A Second Petition Was Also Struck

On September 18, 2023, Cline filed a motion seeking removal of the monetary condition attached to his pretrial release and requested a hearing under 725 ILCS 5/110-5(e).

The State also filed another verified petition seeking to revoke Cline’s pretrial release under section 110-6. A hearing was held on September 21, 2023. Cline again argued that the petition was untimely, and the circuit court granted his motion to strike.

The State then filed a verified petition seeking to deny Cline pretrial release under 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1.

The State’s Detention Argument

The State’s September 21 petition alleged that the evidence established a detainable offense and that Cline posed a real and present threat to the safety of a person or the community. At the September 22 hearing, the State was granted leave to amend its verified petition.

The State’s position was based on the statutory framework for denying pretrial release. Under 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1, the State may seek detention for specified offenses when the statutory requirements are met, including circumstances involving an alleged real and present threat to the safety of a person or the community.

Qualifying Charge

The State must establish that the charged offense falls within the statutory categories that permit a petition for detention.

Evidence

The detention statute contains requirements concerning probable cause and, where applicable, the proof supporting the charged offense.

Safety Concerns

For qualifying offenses, the State may allege that release would pose a real and present threat to a person or the community based on specific articulable facts.

Timely Filing

The statute also establishes timing requirements for when a petition to deny pretrial release may be filed.

Why the Circuit Court Struck the Detention Petition

The circuit court granted Cline’s motion to strike the amended petition on September 22, 2023. The court’s written docket entry stated that 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(c) required the State to file a detention petition at the defendant’s first appearance before a judge if the defendant had been detained, or within 21 calendar days after arrest and release if the defendant had not been detained.

The circuit court also considered 725 ILCS 5/110-7.5, which was enacted to address the transition for people who had been previously released or remained in custody when the new pretrial-release provisions took effect.

The circuit court concluded that the State’s detention petition was not timely because Cline had already appeared before a judge. It therefore granted Cline’s motion to strike the petition. The court subsequently removed the monetary condition of his bond and ordered him released from custody.

Important Appellate Qualification

The Illinois Appellate Court did not affirm this reasoning on the merits. Instead, the Fifth District concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the State’s appeal because the particular order the State attempted to appeal was not an order authorized for a State appeal under the applicable Illinois Supreme Court rules. The appellate court therefore dismissed the appeal.

What the Appellate Court Actually Decided

The Fifth District’s November 30, 2023 opinion is important in distinguishing the circuit court’s ruling from the appellate disposition. The appellate court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the circuit court’s order striking the amended detention petition and dismissed the appeal.

The court explained that Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604 permits certain pretrial-release orders to be appealed, including specified orders granting or denying petitions concerning pretrial detention or revocation. The order at issue in People v. Cline, 2023 IL App (5th) 230849 was the circuit court’s order granting Cline’s motion to strike the State’s amended petition.

Because that order was not among the orders identified as appealable by the State under the applicable rules, the appellate court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the State’s challenge.

The Court’s Conditional Observation

Although the Fifth District dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, it added that, assuming it had jurisdiction, its recent decision in People v. Rios would have applied to the facts of Cline’s case.

Illinois’ Pretrial Release System After the SAFE-T Act

Illinois law now provides that persons charged with an offense are generally eligible for pretrial release and presumes release on personal recognizance, subject to the statutory framework governing conditions and detention. 725 ILCS 5/110-2 provides the general framework for pretrial release.

Illinois also abolished the requirement of posting monetary bail. Under 725 ILCS 5/110-1.5, the requirement of posting monetary bail was abolished effective January 1, 2023, subject to specified statutory exceptions. The provisions were implemented following the Illinois Supreme Court’s September 2023 decision concerning the stay of those provisions.

The transition created procedural questions for defendants who had already been arrested, released, or placed on monetary bond before the new system became effective. Section 110-7.5 addresses previously deposited bail security and states that the provision does not limit the State’s ability to file certain petitions under sections 110-6.1 and 110-6.

Timing Rules for Pretrial Detention Petitions

Section 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(c) contains specific timing provisions for detention petitions. Under the current statutory framework, a petition may generally be filed without prior notice at the defendant’s first appearance before a judge, or within 21 calendar days after arrest and release, subject to the exceptions provided by section 110-6.

The statute also contains provisions addressing people who remain in pretrial detention and are eligible for detention under section 110-6.1. The applicable procedures can depend on whether the defendant was previously detained, released, or placed under other conditions of pretrial release.

First Appearance

A detention petition may be filed at the defendant’s first appearance before a judge.

Arrest and Release

The statute generally provides another timing window following arrest and release, subject to section 110-6 and other statutory provisions.

Prior Bond Cases

Special transition provisions address defendants who were already subject to monetary bail when the new system took effect.

Why People v. Cline Matters for Illinois Criminal Defense

People v. Cline, 2023 IL App (5th) 230849 illustrates the procedural complications that arose when Illinois moved from its former monetary-bail system to its current pretrial-release framework.

The case involved multiple State petitions filed within a short period surrounding September 18, 2023. The circuit court considered whether the petitions complied with the new statutory timing requirements. The appellate court then addressed a separate jurisdictional issue concerning whether the State could appeal the particular order that had been entered.

For defendants facing criminal charges, the circumstances surrounding a pretrial-release decision can matter as much as the underlying criminal allegation. The date of arrest, date of release, prior bond conditions, new charges, detention petitions, and the specific statutory basis asserted by the State may all affect the applicable procedure.

Case-Specific Legal Issue

Cline was not a decision holding that every previously released defendant must be released when the State files a detention petition after September 18, 2023. The appellate court dismissed the State’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction and only discussed the merits conditionally.

Talk to an Illinois Criminal Defense Attorney Today

Illinois pretrial-release law can involve detailed requirements concerning detention petitions, revocation, release conditions, statutory deadlines, and appellate review. The procedural history of a case can determine which provisions apply.

Patel Law, PC represents defendants facing criminal charges and defendants involved in criminal appeals. Our Decatur criminal defense attorneys can review the circumstances of your case and help you understand the pretrial-release procedures that may apply.

Contact Patel Law, PC to schedule a consultation regarding your Illinois criminal case.