State Must Argue Why Less Restrictive Conditions Do Not Mitigate Threat Posed by a Defendant Under the SAFE-T Act

The Fifth District held that a trial court must explain why less restrictive conditions would not adequately protect the alleged victim or community before ordering pretrial detention.

In People v. Odehnal, 2024 IL App (5th) 230877-U, the Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court reversed a trial court’s decision to detain a defendant before trial under Illinois’ pretrial release law.

Justin M. Odehnal was charged in St. Clair County with violating an order of protection. The State filed a verified petition seeking to deny him pretrial release, alleging that his release would pose a real and present threat to the safety of the victim or community.

The trial court found that the State had satisfied the requirements for detention and ordered Odehnal held without pretrial release. On appeal, however, the Fifth District concluded that the detention order did not sufficiently explain why less restrictive conditions, such as electronic monitoring, would not mitigate the alleged threat.

Quick Answer

The appellate court reversed and remanded the detention order because the trial court did not provide the specific reasons required by Illinois law for concluding that less restrictive conditions could not mitigate the alleged danger. The appellate court did not order Odehnal’s unconditional release; instead, it sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with the statute.

People v. Odehnal, 2024 IL App (5th) 230877-U was filed on January 12, 2024, as a Supreme Court Rule 23 order. It is therefore generally nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Rule 23.

Background of the Case

On September 27, 2023, Odehnal was charged with violating an order of protection under 720 ILCS 5/12-3.4(a) in St. Clair County.

On the same day, the State filed a verified petition to deny pretrial release under 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1.

The petition alleged that Odehnal’s pretrial release posed a real and present threat to the safety of the victim or members of the community and that no condition or combination of conditions could adequately mitigate that threat.

The trial court held a detention hearing on September 28, 2023. After hearing arguments from the State and defense, the court determined that the charged offense qualified for detention and found by clear and convincing evidence that the proof was evident or the presumption great that Odehnal committed the offense.

Factors Considered by the Trial Court

Current Offense

The nature and circumstances of the alleged violation.

Weight of Evidence

The evidence supporting the State’s allegations.

Defendant’s History

The history and characteristics of the defendant.

Threat to Safety

The nature and seriousness of the alleged threat posed by release.

The trial court ultimately found by clear and convincing evidence that Odehnal posed a real and present danger or threat to the safety of a person or the community. The court further found that there were no conditions or combination of conditions that could mitigate that danger and that less restrictive conditions would not ensure the safety of the community or Odehnal’s appearance in court.

The Alleged Violation of the Order of Protection

The underlying charge involved an alleged violation of an order of protection. The defense maintained that the encounter leading to the charge was accidental rather than intentional.

According to the defense, Odehnal encountered the protected person in a public place by coincidence. Counsel argued that Odehnal did not intentionally seek out the person or deliberately violate the order of protection.

The defense also argued that electronic monitoring or other restrictions could prevent any future contact and would therefore adequately address the State’s concerns without requiring detention.

Defense Position

The defense argued that the alleged encounter was accidental and that the State had not established why conditions such as electronic monitoring, geographic restrictions, or other release conditions could not protect the alleged victim.

What the SAFE-T Act Requires for Pretrial Detention

Illinois’ pretrial release system was substantially changed by the SAFE-T Act. Rather than relying on monetary bail as the primary mechanism for deciding whether a defendant should remain in custody, Illinois law now establishes circumstances in which a court may deny pretrial release based on specified findings concerning dangerousness or flight.

Under 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1, a court may deny pretrial release only when the statutory requirements are satisfied. For a violation of an order of protection, subsection 110-6.1(a)(3) permits detention when the State alleges that the defendant’s release poses a real and present threat to the safety of a person or the community, based on specific articulable facts.

The State must establish the required statutory findings by clear and convincing evidence. The court must also consider whether conditions of release could adequately mitigate the identified threat.

Detention Requires More Than a Finding of Danger

Qualifying Charge

The offense must fall within a category for which detention is authorized by statute.

Specific Threat

The State must establish a real and present threat based on specific articulable facts.

No Adequate Conditions

The court must determine why less restrictive conditions cannot mitigate the identified threat.

The statute also requires detention decisions to be individualized. No single factor may be used exclusively as the basis for detention.

Most importantly for People v. Odehnal, 2024 IL App (5th) 230877-U, the statute requires the detention order to contain a written finding summarizing the reasons for denying release, including why less restrictive conditions would not avoid the identified threat or prevent willful flight.

The Appellate Court Found the Trial Court’s Explanation Insufficient

The Fifth District agreed that the trial court had made the required general findings concerning dangerousness. The problem was that the court did not adequately explain why less restrictive conditions would not mitigate the alleged threat.

The detention order relied substantially on a preprinted form. Although the court checked the box stating that less restrictive conditions would not ensure safety, the record did not contain a sufficient factual explanation supporting that conclusion.

The appellate court emphasized that simply stating that no conditions could mitigate the threat was not enough. Section 110-6.1(h)(1) requires the court to summarize its reasons and connect those reasons to the specific facts of the case.

The Problem With the Detention Order

The court found that Odehnal posed a danger, but it did not sufficiently explain why alternatives such as electronic monitoring or other restrictions could not address the specific risk identified by the State. The lack of that explanation required reversal and remand.

An Alleged Unintentional Encounter Mattered to the Analysis

The defense argued that the alleged violation of the order of protection was not an intentional effort to contact or threaten the protected person. Instead, Odehnal allegedly encountered the person unexpectedly in a public setting.

The appellate court recognized that the circumstances of the alleged violation were relevant to determining whether the defendant actually presented the type of danger that could not be managed through conditions of release.

The court did not hold that an unintentional encounter automatically prevents detention under the SAFE-T Act. Rather, the circumstances reinforced the need for the trial court to explain why less restrictive conditions would not adequately protect the alleged victim.

The Fifth District therefore reversed the detention order and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with the requirements of section 110-6.1.

Appellate Result

Reversed

Detention Order

The appellate court found the order legally insufficient.

Remanded

Further Proceedings

The trial court was required to comply with section 110-6.1.

What People v. Odehnal Means for Illinois Criminal Cases

People v. Odehnal, 2024 IL App (5th) 230877-U illustrates that Illinois courts must do more than recite the statutory language when ordering a defendant detained before trial. A valid detention order must contain a meaningful explanation of why less restrictive conditions would not adequately address the identified risk.

The case is also important because it shows that alternatives to detention must be considered on an individualized basis. Depending on the facts, conditions can include electronic monitoring, geographic restrictions, no-contact orders, reporting requirements, or other measures designed to reduce risk while allowing a defendant to remain in the community.

The appellate court did not determine that Odehnal was entitled to remain free without restrictions. Instead, it required the trial court to follow the statutory process and explain its reasoning if it again concluded that detention was necessary.

Illinois’ current pretrial release statute continues to require individualized detention decisions and written findings explaining why less restrictive conditions would not adequately address a real and present threat or willful flight. The General Assembly has considered additional changes to the statute, but the proposed 2026 legislation identified in current legislative records has not itself changed the rule discussed in Odehnal.

Talk to a Decatur, IL Criminal Defense Attorney Today

Patel Law, P.C. represents criminal defendants in Champaign and throughout Illinois. If you are facing criminal charges or a pretrial detention hearing, call our Decatur criminal defense attorneys at 217-384-1111 to schedule a consultation and discuss your legal options.