And Commissioner Degman, I know you're uh you're chairing this meeting, correct?

Yes.

Coming to order.

Uh as of right now, there's no public comment.

Okay.

Do we have everybody on the meeting who we need on the meeting?

I believe so.

So today um Katie Dunn is going to be doing a presentation.

Um, so it shouldn't be too long of a meeting.

And we'll just kind of go over next steps uh for the executive meeting, which is gonna be on May 6th.

And yeah, should be pretty self-explanatory today, which is good.

Great.

All right, they are having reached 10 a.m.

the domestic violence task force meeting will now come to order.

Amy, will you please call the role?

Yes, there is uh no role to be called, so we can just go right on it.

Go ahead.

All right, so then we start with speakers.

Hi, good morning, everybody.

Good morning.

Um so thank you all for joining.

Um we were hoping to have some pardon me.

Oh I think that was someone, yeah.

Go go ahead.

Okay, sorry.

Um we're hoping to have some uh novel data to present, but that's gonna be forthcoming.

Um, and so today um we're gonna quickly go over something that's been mentioned before, uh, which is this concept for uh a high priority order data center.

So um what we've uh discussed obviously in this working group and in separate conversations um is the need for more collaboration and coordination between all of the entities that have uh statutory obligations but also just obligations to the public um to improve uh the the current kind of setup with how these orders are uh are handled.

Um so this is a uh design that's been um discussed with some of the agencies.

Um there is a very long version and a short version.

I'm giving the short version today, but I'd love to have everybody's notes and input.

Um, and this will be one of the recommendations um in July when we uh present to the Kakani board and the uh city council.

So I'm just gonna share my screen.

Hopefully the right screen.

Okay.

So um uh to begin, all three levels of government, um, and also the federal government, if if you include them, have statutory responsibilities regarding high priority orders.

Um so what we're uh defining that as in this work group is protective orders, warrants, and firearm enforcement.

Um yeah, if there's limit limited data accessibility and the current laws and policies uh hinder coordination amongst some of the agencies.

So the cook county violence against women task force is recommending a public-private partnership to create a national model for an interagency data center focused on high priority court orders, similar to the HIDA model, which for those of you um who might not uh be uh up to date on HIDA.

Um that is a co-location model with members of different units of government that have access to certain systems that work together uh to triage issues and also work together to build cases.

Uh this team would collaborate to enhance the enforcement of high priority orders and improve the safety of all parties involved.

So the partners would really be everyone that's involved in this task force and the main data sources would be the Cook County Court system and the new Odyssey system, the City of Chicago and Cook County's 911 systems, the Illinois State Police, which I'm not sure if they've joined today, but they're uh there are different systems and uh lead systems and Foy-Curd system, uh, conceal carry and the NICS reporting that they do.

Um, the Secretary of State and the Cook County Clerk would help uh with missing information that is uh currently causing some issues, and the attorney general with his vine system, which is a victim notification system.

So just to reiterate, these are what we're considering the high priority court orders.

Um this is some preliminary data.

We're gonna have this data verified and um shared with this group soon.

Um, but with the five types of protective orders by legislation um in Illinois with the numbers from last year.

So these are 2024 numbers.

So these are just the emergency types of orders.

They don't include interim and plenary, but um there's just about 23,500 for emergency domestic violence orders of protection, uh, 6200 stocking no contact, about 300 civil no contact, 18 firearm restraining orders, and 154 workplace protection orders.

Um, so we're gonna dive into this data a little bit more.

Um, but in terms of the firearm restraining orders, uh, this syncs up with some other data that we have.

So we think this is pretty close to being accurate.

Um, so for protective orders, the first focus area.

The main goals of this of this collaboration would be to increase the number of orders filed, um, improve the service rates, and expedite the timeline for service.

Um we're also tracking alias summonses in this data request, which will show how many times a victim has to come to court and get a new court date before an order is served.

Um, so that timeline for service is really important as well.

Um we need to look at how to provide more information to civil of civil court records to local law enforcement.

We've heard from the Chicago Police Department and many other local jurisdictions that you know are interested in in receiving more information.

Um, and I know Mike Milstein did a great job of explaining how CPDs um working through the Karina's law with the sheriff's office of getting information, but obviously work this is a county-wide initiative, and there's a lot of law enforcement agencies in the county that don't have the capabilities that CPD has.

And so we need to look at how to provide more information to local law enforcement.

Um, identify new technological advancements for alternatives to in-person service.

Um, jurisdictions across the country are doing service over Zoom.

Um, there need to be some uh legislative changes in the state of Illinois, but um this effort would be able to identify what would work in Cook County and how we could improve the service rate and also expedite the service rate using new technological uh opportunities.

Uh coordination of pertinent information and systemic points of contact.

Um what this means really translates into we need to look at other points in the system of where service of orders of protection um can be done by the court system or by the court partners.

Um for example, um, say the Office of Probation or the Office of Pretrial Services.

Uh, we've been doing this kind of as one-offs, um, trying to help uh in different cases, but this needs to be more systemic.

Um, remedy the missing birth dates with the Secretary of State and Cook County Clerk.

Uh, there currently is an agreement with the Secretary of State for access to the ID system, but unfortunately, I most uh uh of the training has not been conducted in a few years.

And so we really want to do a systemic training across the board with uh for leads uh clerks and also anyone else that would need uh to be trained to enter uh these birth dates and enter the Secretary of State system.

If they're not the Secretary of State system, they should be in the Cook County clerks.

Um we're gonna set up those two pathways.

Um investigate the process to improve initiations of violations of orders of protection civil court, including domestic relations court.

Um we've heard um in a few cases um that the lack of court recording um has been an impediment to getting a violation of order protection in criminal court, um, and also increase the leads entry.

A lot of times right now, orders of protection in domestic relations court are served by private uh process servers, and that precludes them from being able to uh enter the order into leads, um, which is we've heard from a lot of survivors that that is an issue, and it also creates a misunderstanding between survivors and law enforcement when they come um respond to a scene and the order protection is not in their system.

I think you had a question.

Oh, I'm sorry, I think there was a question.

Is it easier to take it now or what's what's better?

You know what?

How about I'll do it after protective orders?

We'll just do it one by one.

And sorry, I can't see, so you're gonna have to let me uh know when the hands go up.

Okay, and then the final goals will be to improve data collection and accuracy.

Um evidence-based models, which means a lethality assessment, which I know there's been some discussion about criminal orders of protection um and criminal cases having a lethality assessment, but the bulk of protective orders are civil.

Um, and so um that is something that could county really needs to look at um in terms of just the data we have.

It's 100 to 125 a day.

Um, they're currently you know bundled and served by uh zip code or area and not what's actually in the petitions.

Um develop a court reminder and postcard process with new dates for victims.

Um most people that work in the criminal system are aware of the failure to appear postcard process um on the criminal side.

If some of us is a court date, the pretrial fairness act allowed for uh an alternative to a warrant being issued.

Uh Cook County developed a postcard process.

Um, but similarly, this needs to be implemented in the civil side for orders of protection because we've heard from some victims and survivors that if they get a few minutes late to court or there is a delay in getting through even the security lines, their entire cases vacated and dropped.

Um, or they just can't make the court date that was assigned to them due to child care or other issues.

Um, so we really need to look at at that process and replicate it on the civil side.

Um, and then really provide a centralized point of contact and develop necessary training for all the system partners.

Uh right now uh we're fielding a lot of calls asking who to ask um in different respective offices, or you know, trying to to direct city agencies, the county, and vice versa.

Uh be really helpful to have this centralized point of contact um for everyone involved and just to answer questions about training, um individual cases and and and how to work together.

Um so I'll just stop there for any questions.

Uh did you have a question?

Yeah, go ahead.

Uh good morning, everybody.

This is Vivek Ananda from the Clerk of the Circuit Court.

Um, I had uh couple of questions.

Um, and thank you for the summarization of protective orders.

Um what was the sources for this information?

Uh the reason why I bring that up is our understanding is all of our protective orders, and I I know I'm always on the call, is given uh to the sheriff to serve those order of protection.

So we are trying to understand is uh how did law enforcement agencies are is this the is the recommendation going to be is like we're going to give it to the law enforcement agencies and not the sheriff?

Um no, Vivek, um, and just just to answer first question, the source of the data is is was from your office last week, the preliminary report.

Um secondly, if there's different statutes.

So any uh protective order that uh that where the statute allows for leads entry is given to the sheriff for leads entry, and then the sheriff receives the line share to of orders to serve as well.

Um, but there are cases where say domestic relations, a private process server could be assigned to serve.

Um if it's not served by the sheriff and Chicago police finds an order in leads, they can short form it.

Um it's a little more complicated and it goes by each protective order and what the legislation requires.

So really the central repository for all the information has to remain the clerk's office.

Right.

And and we giving it to uh uh to the to the sheriff to be entered into leads or to be sold because until then nobody can see it in our system until we get confirmation from law enforcement, whoever, whether it's the sheriff or whoever has actually served the entity that there is an order of protection.

So it just want to be mindful of the process um and and statutes that everybody the the defendant is also has some some rights that we need to respect.

So I just want to be very mindful of that.

No and thank you that that's one of the things we've talked about um in the legislative efforts is to change um that access to orders before they're served um because that's actually hindering criminal investigations.

So that that's one of the things we're trying to remedy is local law enforcement getting more access to civil court records but also to orders of protection before they're served because right now Chicago police won't know that there's an order protection as you you know you your office can't share that with them unless it's served and or it's a leader which they're not all leads.

That's part of the thing that we're talking about correct so I I just want that to be recognized uh and be aware that that the the law requires us to wait for that to be served to the defendant.

So no absolutely and I think kind of the remedy until the legislation would be fixed would be it would just be this would focus on orders that are entered into lead.

And so and then once that legislation is fixed we'd be able to to do more around those that are not into in lead but this is something that's come up a little bit with Karina's law and I know Mike Milstein I'm not sure Karina's law is different.

So I and I just want to uh and and I want to recognize that is Corina's law works a little differently because everything is done in code a lot of these emergency orders process done kind of sometimes it's a 24 hour shop can call in a victim can call in an order protection can be issued so we need to separate those OPs how it's issued specifically with Corina's law and not because it kind of I I'm not trying to say no but we should identify what should follow Karina's law what should not follow because the laws are definitely different for Corina's law as well as a regular OP.

So that we are just mindful of that.

No and I think the law was written Karina's law to allow local law enforcement to serve the orders but it never gave local law enforcement access to civil court records.

So that's kind of what we were talking about the Chicago police department has an investigative unit that can put together a case for with information that they do have but these local law enforcement agencies don't have that capability and they're not trained and equipped to to serve orders.

My understanding but my understanding is in Korean's law we do we do send that information to the local law enforcement agencies the orders I like orders yeah not the case file so a lot of information is not shared.

So they'll they'll get the order but they won't get a lot of a lot of the agencies and chiefs we've talked to don't get the petitions or the history or the entire packet because as you said it's not it's actually not public record until served.

Bernada I saw that you sent a chat did you want to comment on anything you're muted.

Thank you.

Yeah I just wanted to pop into the chat the actual language from the IDVA which creates an exception um to that record being sealed until service and so it is accessible to the court petitioner law enforcement domestic violence advocate or counselor counsel of record for either party and the state's attorney for the county until the order is served on the respondent so the statute itself is not an impediment to law enforcement um accessing the civil records um but I don't necessarily disagree that this legislation could be improved um the with respect to Karina's law the and to Vivek's point um Vivek the agency that is being directed to execute the search warrant gets a copy of everything because there's a presumption or hope that service is going to be concurrent with the execution of the search warrant um the sheriff's office obviously also has a copy of everything um and then they coordinate together and either serve it at the same time that the search warrant's being executed or in a different order but there should not be the statute itself should not be what's impeding access um to law enforcement so Vivek I don't know if there's anything there's nothing that prohibits your office I guess I should say from providing that information to the to the law enforcement agency that's requesting it.

So Vivek, I don't know if there's anything, there's nothing that prohibits your office, I guess I should say, from providing that information to the to the law enforcement agency that's requesting it.

That's correct.

So the state, we uh I know we have given a blanket access to the state and uh and and I can just confirm it and email you.

Uh I'm I believe Miriya is on this call and she can confirm.

I believe if you are registered as uh as a law enforcement agency onto a CC portal, you will see that information.

So it's not like you're not seeing the information.

So but I think so your point, they will not know that there is a they will not know what record to search on the civil side if they don't know that there is an order of protection.

Uh I guess uh to to Kate's point is you'll not know which you you can't blindly just go and search all domestic relation cases because technically the law enforcement is not going to do that because that's all kind of civil matter there, which is happening on domestic relations, unless there's an order of protection which is not yet being served.

That's the only thing they can do.

Technically, an order of protection is a civil order until it's violated.

That's the only time law enforcement can actually enforce that order of protection.

Otherwise, it's just an order of protection, which is there.

But you're right, the defendant has to be notified.

But if they have the defendant in custody, and if the defendant has an order of protection and he's not notified, having access to that, they can notify him there.

They can serve them saying that, hey, by the way, you have an disopie.

I I guess that's what we are trying to achieve, yeah.

Yeah, there's also like the the AI or the administrative office of the Illinois courts also has remote access policies um that hinder law enforcement from getting a lot of the access to civil court records.

So it's just something that needs to be um discussed and remedied likely with legislation.

If you talk to two different police chiefs are gonna tell you two different things right now, what's happening?

Mike Milteen did a beautiful job of explaining all of the stuff.

CPD is taking all the due diligence that they're doing.

I think Renato, you're um you were out of town in the last meeting.

So he kind of explained how they're trying to get more they have a new victim's cover sheet.

They're trying to get as much information as they can because they don't, they're not getting all the information that they need.

Um, and obviously CBD is a completely different capability, you know, than a local law enforcement agency who might have to call an extra people to to do this on a weekend, you know.

So um, so yeah, so it's just something that really getting, I think, all these system partners together and all the access, all these databases, doing some trainings and help remedy these these issues.

Um, is something that will hopefully, you know, be sustainable and uh I think help also you know create better legislation where it's coming from everybody's viewpoint.

We all we all know the legislation uh always doesn't understand operations, you know.

So I think it just kind of getting operations at the table and figuring out exactly how it should be worded and how to uh work through any of the current, you know, hindrances.

Any more questions on orders of protective or protective orders?

Yeah, the last part here is on this screen, which you have on the court reminders and postcards on the civil cases, we do do that.

And if the victim has given email accounts, they do get reminders today.

So at least we definitely know the attorneys on those cases or self-re self-repres represented litigants, they do give their information, uh their email address, and they do get uh so that is actually in place.

Uh I'm I'm surprised if somebody told you it's not in place.

So um Vic Vivic, just to be clear, I do I'm not talking about a court reminder system.

I'm talking about like basically a second chance where if you miss a court date on the civil side, your case wouldn't be automatically dropped.

That's a judicial thing.

I think so.

Renetta can take that.

It's I I have no say in that, but uh, I'm going to let that's a judicial decision, right?

It's not uh it's not a clerk's, but from a clerk's point of view, we do notify by postcard when we don't have, but now I I just want to be mindful because of postage and the cost of postage going up.

If you have registered to get an email notification of your hearings, we do not send a postcard.

And usually a lot of postcards come back because we might have some some of those cases go on for so long that they might have an address on file, they never change it with us.

So we are always sending it to the wrong address and it always comes back.

So we we encourage you know at least on the civil side and DR uh and David, you can talk more about this.

We we have a lot of people who actually get a lot of electronic notification on the civil cases.

So to your point on the on whether the case gets closed or not, that's a judicial uh thing, but point taken there on that matter.

Yeah, no, so if you're articulated will yes, yeah.

And yeah, just to be clear, um, I'm uh fully aware of the court notification system.

Um so yeah, this would be more of a of a process that would mimic the criminal side of initiating another case instead of um and I'll get to that during warrants, but we we've heard from that quite frequently of someone not knowing of a court date, or if there was a uh initial virtual hearing, um, they had a hard time accessing the second hearing, and then their case would be dropped.

So they'd have to go wrong new order.

So we want to just figure out how to make it easier on the for those that are not um pro se and or they are pro se and they're not, you know, superstit with the court system, how we can make it a little easier and just forgot for uh allow a little bit of forgiveness.

Yeah, and the court notification system is completely separate, even though the court notifies that is that's an OCJ initiative on the pretrial services side.

We still on those cases also send out um postcard of the hearing.

So it's not that that's the only service there.

We do a lot of postcards which come back.

And um, if they have given us the information of their email, we do on the criminal cases also electronically notify them.

So it's not like that's not happening.

The automatic court reminder system, which is which is an initiative run on pretrial services, is run explicitly by OCJ and not from our system.

So we do not have those cell numbers which they get because they have uh an understanding with CPD and they get all the sell information from that.

Those sell informations do not make the court record or the email accounts which they give do not make the court record.

So we cannot notify those defendants or those victims um electronically, so we are still stuck to whatever postal address they provide, which comes on the arrest report, which might could which could potentially be wrong too, like to your point.

Um so we need to take what comes with the arrest report because statutorily uh we cannot override an arrest report because that's the law enforcement who has to verify that information.

So our information is what we take, what law enforcement gives us explicitly when it's coming from law enforcement.

Sure.

Renata, do you want to share?

Sorry, I saw I'm looking at uh a presenter screen, but I saw you in comments.

You want to sure I don't I I know you were probably on track.

I don't want to disrupt the meeting.

No, I just that's the discussion.

This is what it's for.

Yeah, no, I appreciate it.

No, no, no.

I was just um I'm just thinking through it all.

And so the first thing that I mentioned was that you know what I remembered was that law enforcement, even if they're seeing a copy, if a petitioner is saying to law enforcement, hey, I have an order of protection, here's a copy of it, they need to verify it in leads before they can act on it.

Um, either serving it or um enforcing it.

So I think to, you know, especially getting as we're talking about all the different ways in which we can improve this process.

I think getting it into leads um is a big priority from our perspective.

The sheriff's office does a really good job of that here at 555, especially.

And I think that's true for the suburban districts as well.

Um that was one comment.

And then the only other thing I wanted to mention um is you know, this is something that I think we all think about, and we certainly don't want people to be without protection or without an order.

Um, but without knowing why they didn't appear in court, I just would caution because there are circumstances, and we all know that it takes a survivor up to eight times to actually fully separate from their abuser.

And so all of those attempts look different.

Sometimes it's just getting to the front door of the courthouse, turning around and going home, other times it's making it through that first hearing and then not showing up at that next hearing.

So there's so many different reasons why somebody may not be here, and one of them could be that they no longer want the order.

And so what we don't want is for their behavior to be inconsistent with an act of order.

So, like let's say there's kids involved and they really want the uh respondent to have access to the children.

Um, and you know, again, currently we're living in a world where people are, you know, hyper-aware and concerned about immigration enforcement, things like that.

So there are lots of reasons why petitioner may be concerned about respondent um being arrested, may not want that.

And so um, you know, we've seen it happen before where petitioner wants the order dismissed, didn't realize that it was extended, they get pulled over driving together in a car.

The respondent gets arrested.

The petitioner is distraught, we've put her in a worse decision than she wanted to be in in the first place.

Um the last thing I noted was that you know, hopefully, what we can do is also inform people that if you do miss your court date for any reason, one, you can always contact the court.

So if you contact the court, you have an advocate or an attorney who can represent why you're not there.

That's ideal.

If you don't have that option, um, then within 30 days of that dismissal, you can come in and file a motion to vacate the dismissal, reinstate your case.

And those are granted very liberally.

So hoping that can just be part of the conversation.

Um, no, I think that 30-day window.

Um I'll be honest, nobody that we've talked to knew about that, you know, like so many people that to file three or four times because they didn't have child care that day, they knew it was gonna be dropped, so they would refile.

And really that just puts then another order to serve.

And you know, like it puts more um of a strain on the system.

So maybe we could come up, we can negotiate something there where it's like, you know, there could be a contact to see if they would like to it extended to a new court date.

Um, so I mean, great points.

I every case is different, obviously.

But um, yeah, we've talked to a lot of women who are one was saying just it took an hour to get through security.

And with uh, I think she had her baby with her and it was with uh a stroller and this and going through the magnetometers and all of that stuff, and she missed it, and the judge just did not let her reinstate it.

No one, you know, it was a suburban courthouse, it wasn't five five five.

So I think just maybe more um awareness of that 30-day window would just help overall.

And then in terms of this project, maybe just figuring out how to leverage technology to get a notification out and if there would be an you know an extension, maybe make it more initiated by the victim instead of automatic.

So that's a great point.

So thank you, Renata.

Sorry.

Um, anyone else before I hop on.

Hey, Katie, it's Carmen.

Hello, everyone.

Um, just a few things that I I know that we're familiar with, but I want everyone to keep in mind.

Um, a lot of us are aware.

Um, and we know we've had conversations about what the um laws say and and what practice should be and the information, like all the great points, Renata, you put in the chat and uh you just talked about.

Um the the issue is that as we are discussing in this task force of keeping this um, you know, the victims' voices, like these these are things that the victims aren't aware of.

So sometimes when we say things and we're putting it in the slides, it is coming from what victims have said.

So we're trying to find a way um while we're going through all this, how do we educate and make sure they're getting the information at the time?

Like good point, like the the petitioners can reinstate if they don't want to continue with the order of protection, um, are they aware of that at the time the order is issued?

Some um courthouses, as we know are better.

Um, some advocates, depending on their caseload, may have the time to give victims this information, may have the time to tell them, hey, um, if you don't want to continue, you know, you have to let us know that you can come back on the follow-in court date and say that.

Or if you don't want to um, you know, even if the respondent hasn't been served, you must still come back to court to continue.

Um, so we've been hearing a lot of things.

So if we can also kind of think of ways on how we can give empower the victim with more information at the beginning of where they can get it from.

Like they may not be getting it from an advocate if they're not working from the advocate, and we overload them with paperwork.

Like we give them a lot of papers, read this, do this, but we know that they need the actual conversation.

So if we can start looking at like what points um we're missing and having those conversations and and who can have those conversations, that would be really helpful.

Because even um, and I'm sorry, like even uh I was reading in the chat, Renata, that's why I'm looking at your comments still.

Um, like in the statute where it's it says law enforcement can have access even before it's served, but how can they access it?

Because if they don't have a sign on to get into the clerk system, then they can't see it.

They would have to go to the courthouse and ask somebody to see it.

So legally they have access, but operationally, what is that access look like?

Um, so we really want to have um those conversations too, because I agree there are good um laws already in place, there are good rules and orders already in place.

It's just that we're missing um how to uh get the stakeholders' connections to be able to use all of that and getting the information to the victims.

So I I I do appreciate all of that.

Thank you, Renata.

Thanks, Katie.

Yeah, sure.

Okay, I'm gonna jump ahead.

Uh we're lessing.

Are we only talking about domestic relations when we're referring to civil?

Um because uh I know I heard Vivek a couple times talk about the postcards and notifications, but I I thought he was talking just about domestic relations, and I know that the civil OPs at 555.

I know postcards go out when they miss a court date, like letting them know.

Do those still go out, Vivek?

I have to check on the missing of it, but I do know that for every hearing put on, there is a notification which goes out because we do have tremendous postcards which are sent out.

Um and that I I have to just reconfirm if they missed it.

Again, uh, like I said, that's a good point you bring up is we need to encourage victims to where uh and Carmen, like you mentioned, right?

Where what is available, what happens if I miss, what happens I don't miss, how can I get notified other than something like Kate was mentioning about like the notifications?

Can they give an email address?

Can they go to the clerk's office and call in and say, can I give uh email address so that I can get also electronic?

Because sometimes victims do not want to get a postcard to their house because the postcard comes completely open.

So maybe that's not a good idea.

Maybe it's not even a good idea to put postcards in.

That's just me, right?

But uh, I'm just thinking, why why should my neighbor know that I have a domestic issue?

And why should I get this open postcard and make it a public matter?

Uh so now everybody knows why.

And I see Fatrice is on Yeah.

Oh, Patrice is a she can answer more about that, uh, whether we notify if a court date is missed.

Hi, so uh tip what normally happens is if a case is on the call, we'll also email the actual litigant petitioner respondent if we have the email address or the attorney.

So we do that daily.

After a case is heard, uh, the court clerks automatically will email bill into the email and send the actual orders, even the DWPs.

They're sending all of that information to them.

So either if they get the postcard or not, they're getting the email as well.

But typically, majority of the time, we may not receive the correct email.

They may have wrote it wrong.

We may not understand it.

Uh so we're we're doing our best to sending those emails out.

Thank you.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Right.

Katie, do you want to continue the?

I just want to make sure we're doing okay on time.

Absolutely.

If you want to know that everyone's talking about it.

No, that's no, that's good.

That's why we have this is to have discussions.

So okay, next uh next is criminal warrants.

So also in the preliminary data report, uh, it was reported.

There's 72,274 active warrants right now in Cook County.

Um, roughly 7500 were for domestic battery and violations of orders of protection.

Um, so obviously, as we know, um going through this system, getting an order protection, and then getting a warrant or for a violation of order protection is really a cumbersome process in itself.

Um these numbers show that then those warrants are really just not being served.

They're 7500 is a lot.

Um uh it's something that we just want to flag.

Um the last time this was reported was in October of 2024.

And at the time there's 3800 criminal warrants.

Um, so it was it was bifurcated between criminal and um uh non-criminal uh or civil warrants.

Um, and at that time, over 7,000 were for domestic battery and violations of order orders of protection.

So the two data polls track pretty closely in terms of um around that 7,000 seventy, five hundred mark um that are domestic related.

This would not include all domestic related cases.

This is just if the lead charges domestic battery or violation of an order of protection.

So there'll be thousands and thousands, if not 10,000 more um that have domestic cases, it's just not the lead charge.

Um clashing efforts in recent years for most people know this, but just the case for the city and state people, the Cook County um court system and uh the reform efforts included uh warrant clashing efforts.

Uh thousands were uh taken off the rolls for nonviolent charges.

Therefore, it's going to be assumed that a lot of these that are a few years and older are violent crimes.

So the pretrial fairness act, as we described before, or shared before, allowed for alternatives to warrants for failure to appears.

Cook County implemented a process to send these failure to appear postcards to defendants with a missed court date.

So now we're basically seeing the number of warrants upticking as more missed states are probably going on on different people's court cases.

Court initiated warrants are given to the sheriff to be entered into leads.

With some exceptions, Karina's laws we discussed can go to local law enforcement in some specific cases, like law enforcement initiating a case in terms of a firearm restraining order.

And so this is something that really similar to orders of protection.

Once in Leeds, local law enforcement say if they pull someone over and a warrant pops in leads, then they initiate that arrest.

It's the number one cause for arrest by the Chicago police department with about 7,500 arrests in 2023 alone.

But these kind of initiations pose a danger to officers in the communities because you're walking up to a car in most instances, and the person knows they have a warrant, but the officer does not.

These arrests are mandated.

So if someone has a warrant in leads, an arrest must occur, which limits diversion, deflection, and crisis intervention effort.

Also causes staffing allocation issues for the Chicago police department because each arrest takes four to six hours and an officer's off the street.

So this is something that obviously warrants are more of a global issue for Cook County courts, but uh for these efforts, we really want to look at just really the training, the information that could be improved uh between offices and also really um how we can uh look at domestic related warrants and figure out an expedited service track.

Um so I believe there's an expedited service track for the GPS program right now.

Um, and so something similar would be recommended to be initiated for domestic cases when obviously, you know, a victim and potentially their children are at risk.

So some of the the goals here um would be to improve the process to acquire a warrant.

Um that's something we've heard from so many victims, Carmen's point.

Um, most people we've talked to didn't even realize that they could get a warrant for a violation of an order of protection.

Um, so improve the information in that process in itself that will increase the number of domestic related warrants that obviously their current is a back uh with the current backlog.

Um also analyze active warrants and develop a coordinated response to those issued for violent crimes and especially domestic related offenses for this um for this endeavor.

Um, and then really train and equipped all law enforcement, the data and case information to improve their safety and ability to enforce warrants.

Um, and then just really to reduce the number of active warrants in Cook County because they are dangerous.

Um for those that are unaware, the the officer who was killed last weekend was killed by someone with two active warrants.

Um, so it just shows these situations are for law enforcement.

Um and unfortunately, the line of duty deaths in the state of Illinois.

Um, if you take out the uh COVID-19 deaths, the majority are from somebody who had an active warrant.

So it's something that that's really hopefully uh a global initiative across all these the city, state, and county, everyone would benefit for for some kind of initiative that focused on this.

Is there any questions?

Okay.

Alfreda, I did see your question.

We can finish um this discussion and then we can we can talk about more about the dashboard after.

Sorry, Katie, go ahead.

Yes, no, no, you're great.

Okay, so then the third focus area is firearm apprehension.

So currently there's a city of Chicago and a Cook County ordinance that mandates different um reporting requirements for firearm transfer sales, um, lost firearms.

Um, so there's two separate repositories there.

Obviously, there's some confusion uh for people that live in the city and are also Cook County residents.

Um I from what I've been told over the years, the reporting is pretty limited.

Um, in addition, uh enforcement for state and federal laws uh at times are minimal.

Um in just Cook County alone, I believe it's think it was Cook County, not City Chicago.

Um, and so really um because really similarly to all of the discussion points so far.

This is something where there's different statutory requirements across the state, the city, and the county.

Um, and uh this endeavor hopefully would bring a level of coordination that's not occurring right now.

Um, for those that are not aware, there's five there's something called the next reporting, which is uh a federal system which would preclude people from buying guns across state lines.

Um that is supposed to come from Cook County uh court records for the most part, orders of protection would be included into that into that um reporting requirements, um, in addition to warrants.

Um, and so it's really important to really take an analysis of all the current laws and see where we can get everybody together in one space to start making sure that they're all enforced and also cohesive and look at legislation or change to those to the ordinance so there's more coordination of resources um and communication between the the departments.

Um obviously Corina's law is a big conversation piece.

It has been in in our efforts with this task force.

Um there's more legislation downstate around Karina's law.

Firearm restraining orders was really similar a few years ago.

Um, but similarly to what we talked about before, just the limitations, the civil court information, um, and really the uh the training that probably is needed.

Um so uh we we heard from at the executive meeting um a few different experts from University of Michigan about FROs.

Um, there's another firearms training order expert that's uh going to be included um soon.

But uh we know that other states have 10 times the number of number uh numbers filed than state of Illinois.

So it's something really that Cook County could be a leader on for the state.

Um, and right now I think we just have a few dozen being initiative initiated mostly by law enforcement.

Um, but obviously we have a lot more people going through mental health crises.

Um and so uh the initiative is just really not um been implemented, or there's not enough training and understanding around the process in general.

And so we're hoping that this interagency um would be able to help share all of information that right now is lacking between the different agencies um and serve as a central repository.

Um, ensure reporting is timely and we're sure basically compliance with all of the different statutory obligations and different laws.

Um, and then develop a model for expedition enforcement for domestic related cases.

Um so they're they're the lion's share of cases right now.

Um, and so this would be really fitting to fall under this initiative.

Um, so with that, I just have some discussion.

We already talked about orders of protection, but if people have any other questions um or ideas or or suggestions, um now would be the time, or feel free to email us too.

Yeah, we have about 15 minutes left, about a little less, so we can have a discussion and then we'll wrap up at um 11.

I also just want to point out um if we if you ever want to have like a separate meeting with any of us, you can always do that.

Um if you ever want to talk with me and Katie or have like a separate meeting and to go over more stuff, we can definitely do that, but go ahead.

Sure.

No, so the on the firearm approach and enforcement.

Um I want to it actually includes more, including even search warrants, it's the same rule falls into place is at the courts or at the clerk's office or at the part of the record, it becomes very challenging uh to report anything if the officers don't report that to us.

They might report it to Secretary of State, they might be reporting it to state police, but if they don't report it onto the cases on our side, we will not know that there was a recovery done and what was recovered.

So our reporting numbers might show low because we don't have the information.

And unfortunately, and I and Renetta has heard this a lot in the Corina's laws meetings, is there is zero accountability on law enforcement to return appropriate paperwork back to the courts on post execution.

So that has to also be addressed to have proper protection so that people even know that um you know the records are accurate and records are complete.

We will not know until a judge asks an officer, and that's when we get a record like, oh, here's the paperwork and it comes in.

But so those are things also should be uh accounted as you guys are talking to law enforcement is their responsibility of reporting back.

I just wanted to put that suggestion right there.

Yeah, and actually, Vivek, we had that, we had that exact uh conversation.

Um, you can only record and put in the record what has been provided.

The clerk can't do any more than that.

So that conversation has been had um with law enforcement not doing the the proper returns.

So thank you for bringing that up.

And I see Amy Amar.

Yeah, Amar.

Okay, I see.

You you had a question.

Sorry, I I went over you there.

But if you want to go ahead and thank you.

Um I I just wanted to see if I could if we could get a uh copy of the 72K warrants.

Um we can compare them to our system because we obviously have less because I'm assuming this includes like Chicago warrants and local municipalities.

Um then just to just to verify that the 72k, like the 72,000 warrants does not include search warrants.

Those are just these are just real warrants, not not search warrants.

Um, but if we can get access to that raw data, we can do a quick analysis on our side and send it back to the group of what we're seeing.

Uh sure.

That came from um the circuit court.

Um and it's so it was uh like mentioned, it was all warrants.

Um, and then the last time it was pulled for criminal warrants, it was 42,000.

Um, and that was not did not include search warrants.

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, and so that make up the same thing.

I'm sorry, go ahead.

Sorry, this is the in from OCJ.

OCJ asked for the same uh list, I guess to the sheriff's office.

So we can look at it for internal purposes.

Sure.

Um Vivek, that's that's a question for Vivek, sorry.

Um, I'll send you an email, Vivek, with a request.

Yeah, that's not a problem.

Uh so and that that becomes another thing, right?

If a warrant is squashed, we won't know till the person gets picked up again, and then when the officer runs it, to your point, an officer wasted four hours knowing that this warrant was no longer needed, but the courts didn't know, so it was never removed from leads.

So there is a big responsibility of the officers, which I think so this task force should also recognize that we are not only we're pointing it out on the defendants, we also have to point out on our flaws too to correct ourselves.

We are willing to correct ourselves or whatever it is, but what about the other partners?

It's a it's um it's a big it's a big piece, which I'm going to advocate as long as I've been given the mic on this point of holding law enforcement accountable too, of doing their job.

So um being working with law enforcement for the last 25 years, I've stayed with that, and I'm going to stay on the same accountable but holding people accountable.

No, that that's a great point.

Cynthia, before we go to you, just really quick.

Um, Alfreda, I just wanted you were asking about the dashboard.

Um I believe the date the goal is that it would be public.

Um that so people could look up their individual, you know, cases, but that it would also be public for people to see to get data, so then people could use that, you know, for grant writing.

If is that do you see that in the chat, Katie?

I just I'm sorry, I'm I had presenters' views, so I'm just trying to get to the chat.

Um, the uh no, for whatever reason I don't have that in the chat.

Um just uh this is really the second deliverable out of the uh the the working groups for high priority and data and research.

The first is the dashboard, just for people that are not aware of what we're talking about.

Um, a dashboard would have more aggregate information, um, a date like that would populate daily um on protective orders, high priority orders, and really just other system points um from a few different sources.

Um so we've had some really great conversations um about some partnerships on that front.

Um, this is more of to Vivek's point, more of uh how do we hold the system accountable and and have them work together?

Um so the the data dashboard would be um something that would provide first of its kind data um to the public, to everyone involved, and and also the providers and organizations that have um requesting uh this information for a long time.

So it'd be really helpful.

We'll obviously have um an initial dashboard and we'll we'll be working out um more kind of more complicated uh data points.

Um as as we get you know more and more as we kind of evolve it and get got different iterations up.

Um, but in terms of of this interagency data center, um, this would be more like the case information.

Um I'm not sure what the question was, but in terms of like could you look up an individual case?

Um, that would be up to the clerk's office.

We wouldn't be providing that through either of these initiatives.

Um so there is some there is some data you can search up on cases.

It's not like you can't search up, but you won't be able to see too much details.

And and obviously there is it's a public information, what can be divorced out, we can uh not knowing how that data is going to be used by individuals looking at it at the public point of view.

Uh, but to Kate's point is any dashboard which is going to be done uh we'll have is only aggregate.

So you can't get to uh I don't know what's the deal.

That's why hence I told Liz I can communicate with them offline so that we can better understand their requirement.

Oh, yeah, you said that.

Okay, great.

Um and then Madeline, I see um your I see your response in here.

Uh thank you.

Yeah, we can we can go over that as well.

I just want to make sure we have enough time.

Cynthia, did you have a question?

Um, I actually just have a comment.

Um, for sure.

I'm open and interested in having a conversation with the courts to see how we can rectify law enforcement, at least with CPD side, to get that information back to the court system.

I would just need a point person so I can contact and we can kind of get that process started.

Cynthia, it would be me.

Uh I'll I'll connect with you later on.

Uh just to just to bring up a big point.

Uh and CPD would be a big help.

Uh, but it's not going to be a not looking only for CPD.

I just want to be mindful.

Cook County has 102 law enforcement agencies.

So I just want to be very, I understand CPD is the biggest, but uh equally if I add the remaining hundred and one, they have an equal amount of cases.

So we're just hitting only half the pie.

We need to hit the whole pie.

So, but I'll definitely connect with you, Cynthia, on that.

Great.

I appreciate that.

And one other comment that I'd like to make too is like we talked about Odyssey earlier and how you said that law enforcement would have to search all of the civil cases, which is accurate.

Um, I don't know if someone can revise Odyssey just to have like a checkbox for those uh cases that actually have an order protection.

And so that way we can search maybe that way better, so we can get a better idea what orders of protections are in the civil um Odyssey.

Just a suggestion.

No, uh again, I can I'm open to those suggestions.

That's an excellent idea.

And uh because it's only only limited to people who have access to see unsealed um, I mean, sealed documents.

We can definitely look and see what's options available.

If not, if um we can definitely see what we can do best for CPD.

Great.

I look forward to connecting with you then.

Okay, great.

Um any other questions or comments.

Uh Madeline, are are you on?

Did you just want to go over what you said in the chat briefly?

Sure.

Great.

Hey everyone.

Um, this is Madeline Barron with the network advocating um against domestic violence.

Um, we were the drafters and champions of Karina's law.

So I just wanted to note that um the statute itself requires search warrant returns um to be filed with the court as well as receipts as part of a surrender order.

So there's two parts of the 14.5 remedy.

There's the search warrant, obviously, which I think has been a huge topic of discussion, but there's also those surrender orders, um, which is kind of the default as part of 14.5.

So just want to um note what Vivek was saying about um getting documentation back from law enforcement about what happened after firearm recovery.

Um that was just a huge part of the drafting of the statute to make sure that that doc those documents being filed as part of kind of the enforcement of 14.5 and and seeing what happened as a result of those search warrants or surrender orders.

And I also want to note it's just a really important part of not just accountability for law enforcement and completing the firearm recovery, but it's also an essential part of safety planning for the survivors who go through the order of protection process, which is grueling and difficult and involves a lot of paperwork and whatnot.

Um, they do a lot of work to get that 14.5 remedy.

They deserve to know what happened as a result of that and be communicated to um by the court so they can also uh decide if they need to pursue other options, if they need to engage in other kinds of safety planning um as part of that.

Great, thank you.

Um thank you.

Yeah, Rebecca, I see your comment.

Thank you for that.

Um, well, it's almost 11.

So I just want to be respectful of everybody's time.

But Katie, thank you so much for that presentation.

I think we had a good discussion from that.

Um who is on this meeting where the meeting got forwarded to you, I've taken your email and I put you on the list, so you'll get these uh meetings ahead of time to be a part of.

Um, if there's any other questions or anything you want to go over, please email me.

Uh, we can set up a meeting, uh, just to go over everything.

And um, yeah, is there any other questions or concerns or all set?

If that is the case, then Commissioner Duckman, you can adjourn the meeting.

Thank you, everybody.

Thanks, everybody.