The meeting of the criminal justice committee will now come to order.

Madam Secretary, may we take the role.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Aguilar.

Commissioner Naya.

Commissioner Britton.

Here.

Commissioner Daly.

Is out of the room.

Commissioner Dugnan.

Commissioner Gaynor.

Commissioner Laurie.

Present.

Commissioner McCasco.

Commissioner Miller.

Miller here.

Commissioner Marita.

Commissioner Kevin Morrison.

Commissioner Sean Morrison is excused for today.

Commissioner Scott.

Present.

Commissioner Stamps.

President.

Commissioner Trevor.

Present.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Chairman Daly is present.

And Mr.

Chair is also present.

You do have a quorum.

One member, excuse Commissioner Sean Morrison.

There's a quorum.

Is there any need for a roll call?

No remote participation necessary, sir.

All right.

Do we have any public speakers?

Chairman, you have a number of public speakers.

Let me be let me remind you of the rules.

Persons authorized to provide public testimony shall not use vulgar abuse of discriminatory profane or otherwise inappropriate language when addressing the body.

Failure to act appropriately or failure to adhere to the time requirements may result in expulsion and or disqualify the person from providing future testimony.

In this order, I'll call three of you at a time.

And we will line up by the sheriff.

Catherine Crawford.

And state your name.

Catherine Crawford.

Excuse me.

Whoops.

Can I ask leave to pay the speed?

My name is Catherine Crawford, and I'm the policy advisor for the Illinois Network for Pretrial Justice, a statewide coalition of community faith base and policy organizations working to end money bond and money bail and to reduce pretrial jailing.

For the last decade, we have worked with county stakeholders to address pretrial policies.

We have worked with our court system to support and monitor implementation of the pretrial fairness act.

The results have been life-changing for tens of thousands of county residents.

People who would otherwise be locked up in jail because they could not buy afford to buy their freedom are now living, working, and parenting in community.

And crime rates continue to decline.

Pardon me, pretrial system, and urge you not to base policy decisions on isolated incidents, but instead look at the systems and data as a whole.

There are existing procedures for enforcement of court orders that are not being followed.

For example, Chief Judge Beech implemented protocols to improve electronic monitoring oversight and responses to violations.

While the county releases pretrial data, there are other service sources necessary to have a comprehensive picture of how our courts are working.

Closer to home, we urge you to press State's Attorney Burke to return to it to return to a release of usable case-level pretrial detention data, including demographical information on people her office is trying to detain.

This is especially important because State's Attorney Burke has instituted a policy allowing police officers to direct file felony gun possession charges without screening by felony review prosecutors.

At the same time, she is requiring her attorneys to request detention in many types of cases, regardless of the facts of the case or the person's history.

The best route to building safer communities is to invest in social services, mental health, and substance use treatment, supports for survivors of domestic violence and youth, job readiness and re-entry services.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With leave of the body, I'd like to uh take privilege to allow our guest, Senator Lakeisha Collins to address the body.

Leave it.

And we will go back to speakers after that, sir.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um good morning, everyone.

I am State, I am State Senator Lakeisha Collins.

I represent the Fifth Senate District.

And in my district, um, when we think about you know public safety, and we talk a lot about numbers, domestic violence is one of the highest numbers in the Fifth Senate district.

It's not armed robberies, it's not homicide, it's not carjackings, it is domestic violence.

And so I am carrying a bill with which will have electronic services, which is Senate Bill 2934.

Um, and it is a bill that was brought to me by Commissioner Bridget Gaynor, who I've done several bills with and the legislator to improve um the state of Illinois and the county.

And with electronic services, it puts us in a modern tech to perfect protect victims when abusers try to hide from the process servers.

And so often when someone is a victim of domestic violence, they'll put in a protection of uh order of protection, and the sheriff will have to then go to the um offender's house and serve them manually an order of protection.

Oftentimes, you know, they try to hide, they will they're not making themselves available to receive those order of protections.

That beginning phase is very critical because the victim is living, you know, in fear, they're suffering in silence, they don't feel that there's any protection out there for them.

And what we've seen as well is that oftentimes that perpetrator can go back and do something and even cause a life.

And so, what this bill would do, um, it will have it where we are putting ourselves in align with the new digital world.

You already can receive your bills electronically, you can pay your bills electronically, you get notifications through your email, text messages, things of that nature.

And so it's simply just aligned us in that way, and it's another form of communication, and it also speeds up the process, ensuring that the person is getting the order um sent to them in a timely manner, but it puts a faster track of that shield of protection in that first part of the order of protection.

So I highly support this.

I know it's gonna benefit people across the state, this county.

Um, but then also, do you want to go into the FOI part?

Also, there's another piece, um, which is the FOI.

And so for um, this section, we're talking about a non-renewal.

Now, when I think about the state driver's license, I am a big advocate for making sure that people have access to go to work and driver's license is something that um you know can be a barrier for a lot of people, especially in the Fifth Senate district on the West Side.

And so, what this would do is temporary, it's non um, it's a non-violent way to make sure that dangerous weapons are actually accounted for after a FOID is revoked.

Oftentimes, what we're seeing right now is that there are people who I think 45 percent who still have not complied with the law, and so what this would do is it would give us leverage with the Secretary of State with a 60-day notice that will say that hey, you have 60 days of written notice to turn in your weapons, which also is a public safety issue, especially if it's someone who um is you know in a situation with a domestic violence victim, but it will say, you know, you have 60 days to turn in your your weapons or your license would be uh revoked.

Um if they comply with that, which I'm pretty sure a lot of people would because you need your driver's license, especially if you have a uh job that requires you to have a driver's license, they are going to turn those in.

And so um that's something that I do support as well.

I think that this is a life or death situation, it is unique.

Um, but once they do that, it automatically lifts up right away with the Secretary of State.

And so this is something that um I found truly dear to me because I get a lot of phone calls from victims across the state outside of the Fifth Senate District, who are either looking for you know, shelter or they're you know, frustrated because they still have not gotten confirmation that they're you know, um that the per the offender is um following or the law is being implemented with these protective orders, and so I think this is a fast track way, a modern way to do it, and I will hope that we get the support in order to pass this in Springfield as well.

I am talking to a lot of my colleagues about this because we all feel that this is something that's been long overdue.

Um and all this doing is just putting that added uh teeth into the domestic violence act that we already have.

Thank you.

Let's return to uh public testimony.

Thank you.

Oh, hold on one second.

I'm gonna take questions from the body.

Uh Mr.

Stamps Thank you so much.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for your presentation, Senator.

I was just curious.

Um, whoever can answer, why was there a stipulation of the 60 days opposed to maybe 30 days?

I was just curious about them having a two-month window uh for this to be implemented.

I think it just gives you oh, I didn't respond.

Gives you added time.

I mean, we want to be realistic about this.

There are some barriers that some people face.

Um, and so you know, giving them the 60 days is just something that's kind of standard when we're writing up legislation, just putting that added time on there.

I see.

And for the first bullet point uh for orders of protection, just to be clear, you're saying that the order protections are will be delivered digitally, correct?

Uh to their cell phone or some other digital apparatus, correct?

Rather than being chased down to deliver these orders of protection, correct, Commissioner.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Daly.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh thank you, Senator, for your hard work, and I'm glad you I'm sure you're glad to be out of Springfield.

Margaret, and in a lot of ways.

What is the status of this bill?

The two bills.

Say that one more time.

I'm sorry, Commissioner.

The status of the two bill, Senate Bill 2934.

So, right now, um, due to a lot of the pressures that we had in Springfield, I carried about 36 bills this year.

Um, this is one of those bills that it does take a lot of negotiation and conversations, and so we're still in that phase right now.

So is it in rules or is it in rules?

Okay, and it was it a common the second part of it was that two two items in one bill.

Um this are two bills, two separate bills, and I also time just to talk about the last piece with the data.

Yeah, chairman, yes.

So there is another um piece as well that I did not I forgot to talk about, which is the um the data reporting, the read-only, um, to upgrade the system with that.

Only reason why I'm saying that is because um I'm so sorry, it's how read-only data benefits all of our operations across the agencies.

Um it can it instantly um will give more access to the agencies to read whether a person FOI card is revoked.

Um, and it's also protection too, because I know a lot of our different systems, at least for me and my operations, we're afraid of people tampering with our information or changing any information.

So if you have read-only status, um is secure, and that's something else that we're trying to push as well.

It's just a process with the the clerk of the circuit court that could take like three business days, and if we were to change it down to reading only stylists, it could take three seconds for you to get the information um when they're looking up, whether it's law enforcement, whether it's you know, any agency under the states, um, if we're looking up for information.

Um the Illinois State Police or local enforcement needs to know if a person has turned in their firearms when we're talking about the FOIA cars that's being revoked, um, they can automatically just read whatever the detailed information is and be able to act on that as quickly as possible, too.

So these are three bills.

Um, yes, and the other this bill in particular was by one of my colleagues, um Stadleman, Senator Sodoman, who passed this bill.

The first two that you referenced, at least both are both in the grows.

Correct.

Okay.

Well, thank you for your presentation.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Miller.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um, so my question, thank you, Senator, for being here.

So my question was along uh Chairman Daly's as to where this is.

But Senator, how can we um make sure that these issues are so important?

And as you mentioned, the high data that actually affects your area specifically.

And we've been talking about domestic violence and seeing numbers say that um you know the incidents has gone down so far this year.

Right.

But um, how can we help you get support from your other senators?

I know you're in rules right now, and who and what do you see as anticipated opposition?

I mean, I think there's always opposition.

Um, as I explained when I was talking about the FOIA card and the driver's license, I think that opposition around that would be what about people with jobs?

It's a barrier.

How are they able to go to work?

I think this situation is just a little bit unique, only because a lot of the times these, you know, people who are dodging, getting these notices, or people who are simply not turning in their weapons when they're being revoked, um, still are a threat to public safety.

They can still, you know, go back to the location and do something or harm someone else, who knows?

But the law is what the law is, and this is just putting more enforcement behind it.

I think also when it's the unknown, people automatically put up a wall.

And so you all are helping me right now just by talking about these um three pieces of legislation.

I will also ask if you could please talk to your state reps and state senators to get them on board and why this is so important.

Um, because as I said before, you know, we have done a lot of work um around the domestic violence act, um, but there's still a lot to be done, and this would put more teeth into that to secure you know, victims and to make sure that um we are improving public safety when it comes to a lot of these measures.

So I thank you for that, because I know you've done a lot of work around this too.

Thank you.

And yeah, this entire board has been very supportive of uh domestic violence uh reduction and issues and all the different pieces.

So this is just another part of it.

So thank you for doing that on the state level.

And then, you know, we have so many vocal advocates who have participated, and I'm sure that there's a way they can be engaged in supporting your work too.

So we wanna make sure that that kind of gets tied into it too.

So we'll be making sure that happens.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Senator Collins, for being here.

I know our districts overlap a bit, and so I'm really um proud of the work that you've done in this area.

Our county board has worked on domestic violence, and it's something that we all consider um a lot, very specifically, and I think our constituents, our shared constituents would like to know that at the state and at the county that we're working together to bridge these gaps.

So my question was much akin to what Commissioner Miller had asked about how we can be supportive.

As somebody who worked on a state program for a long time, I think it's important to recognize and talk to our shared um state reps and state senators that your driver's license is a privilege, it is not a right.

And so, to the extent that somebody is dodging service or they're specifically avoiding something, there is the keys to get their driver's license back, and it is service.

So once that service is you know given, they've accepted it, they've gone through those legal proceedings, there is a way to get whatever back that they want.

But I think the state holds the keys to having a the driver's license, making sure that there's e-service in this case and triangulating between all of the privileges we get as citizens.

And I think it's fair to ask the question well, will that um inhibit you from getting to work?

Or is do we care about the domestic violence situation?

It's it's it's a scale, it's a balancing factor test.

Which one do we care about more?

And these are difficult decisions, but at the end of the day, you know, there are privileges, there are rights.

DARBA's license is a privilege, but somebody's right to the safety, making sure that they're not injured or killed is also a prevailing issue that I think that we all need to consider about what one is more important, and those are the decisions that we make when we make uh changes to the law like this.

So I'm in support for what you're doing.

I I will personally call and and coordinate on um SE 2934.

I think it's really important.

So thank you for your work in Springfield and in particular for your work on this.

Thank you, Commissioner.

You doctor Commissioner Collins.

Okay.

Tell them it's okay.

Thank you, Senator Collins, for being here, and thank you, Commissioner Gaynor, for aligning us with the state issue.

I had one um concern as we begin to negotiate as you continue negotiations.

Can you please make sure that there is a very purposeful effort to ensure that the victims and survivors are also included in that communication of the um of the uh the orders of protection, but not only when the order is uh implemented, but when it's actually received, and then for those that are coming off of that was one of the concerns in one of the groups that I attended last week, a DV group, um, they were explaining that so oftentimes when a person is released, they do receive the two week notice that they're being released, but there's no mental preparation time for them.

Thank you for that commissioner um whenever we're doing legislation especially around this we always like to include the survivors as well because their voices matter um and so I will definitely make sure that we continue those conversations and that they are at the center of this since this highly affect them.

Thank you.

Thank you Chair.

Thank you Senator Collins for all of the wonderful wonderful work that you are doing in Springfield um truly proud um of of that um I you know I've been working in the DV gender-based violence um advocacy world already for nearly 15 years um and we have seen a lot of movement positive movement um the last few years and I just want to commend um you for your advocacy and for the work um I I do believe wholeheartedly that it is gonna save lives that these small steps will make a huge huge difference um uh I often talk about my mom being a survivor and about how some of the most um horrible violence that I ever experienced was in my home um so I think um a lot of the work that we do we don't do it just you know obviously for the survivors but we do it for the next generation and we're trying to improve the world so I I truly uh I'm very grateful.

Um my my question is in regards also the notification component um if it's digital how are we verifying that they are seeing it um you can probably maybe um assume that some folks may say oh I didn't receive it I didn't get the email what is the the mechanism that's being utilized um to ensure that uh we can verify that the person has seen the the order of protection yes there will be a receipt um that will be given to them that they received it and as I stated before and then thank you for that too um commissioner but as I stated before it simply does put us in alignment with the new tech world absolutely I mean when we pay a bill online you get a receipt that comes back to show that thank you for you know your payment if you get a text message um confirmation if you order something offline or something like that you always get a notification this would be the same way that is being done so that that person so that we know that this person received this got it so they would have to go if they open it then they would get the receipt yes okay perfect oh thank you that clarifies um a lot um and that was my only question yeah I'll more than happy to uh help advocate for any uh the bills that you have um um specifically highlighted and again thank you for your time for for coming all the way down here thank you just the couple just a follow up thank you again senator yep she came all the way from the west side oh all the way down from the west side near north um little west side I was just curious um because you you've um alluded to just keeping in tune with technology do you know if this has been demonstrated anywhere else in the country as of yet this way of using technology in this way so that's that's question one and then question two is um and and I'm pretty sure uh commissioners uh Degnan and Miller were uh would probably be in on this but I know they had up the domestic abuse task force that just recently wrapped and would be curious how to to link that together so that we could provide additional support.

Say that one more time I'm sorry I was interrupting on the first part.

I believe we just the the the domestic violence task force um cook county has a domestic violence task force that I believe just wrapped and I was I'm just saying how can we fold in the task force in terms of support to this legislation that you're putting forward.

Okay.

All right I'm gonna hand that over to Commissioner Gaynor but the first part they're already doing this in Washington State Commissioner.

And then one real quick do you know do you know the success rate that they may have had or any of the data of the improved success rate as a result of being able to deliver these uh orders of protection or the notices digitally do you know that I don't have that number on me right now but I can make sure you get it.

Thank you.

I'll just make one comment that they have seen a dramatic increase in people appearing in court because now they know about it.

They've seen an in an improvement in people's perception of due process for two reasons.

One, um, just because you're not aware that a domestic uh an order of protection was issued doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Um there's also a preference uh articulated by many people after the fact that not only do they want to show up in court to make their own case, but the second thing is you may not want a sheriff deputy coming to your home or to your workplace, um, which has its own indications, regardless of what the facts are.

And so this is a way to engage.

And so they saw an increase in people showing up in court, because right now, as the clerk can tell you, the number of defaults, right, really low.

And so, and the second thing is that uh additionally, someone may know where how to reach someone on text and email, but may not know where they're staying or how to find them.

They may have a job that takes them in different hours, and so this is not shouldn't be seen as like some got you about it.

It should be seen as an increase in due process because now you have the ability to know rather than being pulled over for some you know a traffic violation, and then this pulls up as an order of protection.

So this is very different from something like asset seizure or forfeiture where some the government can engage in activity just because they've notified you.

This thing already exists, and you should know about it.

Yeah, I just want to say in light of uh so many of the deaths of women in April and just the skyrocketing numbers of uh women who have been killed this year alone all over this country, but particularly in Cook County and in our state.

Uh, I am in full support of any measure that we can put forward that can save a life or put some additional onus and responsibility to make sure that due process is being followed and people's lives are being protected.

So thank you for your advocacy.

But just to answer the task force question, this is a very tactic piece of a very comprehensive effort that's going on.

And so it was taking advantage of the legislative timing to execute because we have this example.

This is one tiny kind of piece.

Think of it as like the this last milepiece within a much broader reform conversation that the task force is executing.

Thank you.

Commissioner I law.

Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Senator Council, for being here.

And um, thank you for the work you're doing now in Springfield.

But you mentioned there's some uh still some negotiations that you still have to uh address.

What are some of the obstacles that that are you're facing and make you know to see if they make sure this bill makes it to the governor's desk?

Thank you for that question, Commissioner.

I think that um with any piece of legislation, especially one that's important, such as this, it does take time to have these conversations.

It takes time to build the support around the legislation, and just for people to understand the intent of the legislation.

Um, and so for us this session, it was really a lot of timing and then understanding how this would fit into our our laws here at the state.

And so um that's why we're starting right now in the summer to have a lot of these conversations and to get more of you know our partners involved um in understanding why this piece of legislation would benefit the state of Illinois.

So that those are some of the things.

So you'd be encouraging that other organizations be behind it.

I maybe some phone calls and making sure he gets support.

Organizations, survivors, lawmakers, um, community partners, you know, anyone who cares around about this issue and wanting to improve um the due process.

Yeah, I'm glad you mentioned it's a silent sudden crime, especially among immigrant women, uh immigrants because of the of the fear that surrounds their situation.

So I'm glad you were addressing it.

So uh good.

Glad to glad to see you here, and uh, thank you again for your work.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Mr.

Billow.

Thank you, Chair, and Senator Collins, thank you for being here.

Thank you for your presentation.

Commissioner Gaynor, thank you for bringing this resolution before the body, you know, as I look at it, uh, I'm not only in full favor.

Um I'm sure a lot of our colleagues would like to be co-sponsors uh at the appropriate time.

Relative to the overall issue, just wondering uh are we gonna be hearing something from uh the state's attorney and from the public defender uh as we go forward?

Yes, okay.

Thank you.

That was my question.

I just didn't see them listed.

Speakers, thank you.

Speakers that I called, if you can please return to the public speaking mic, Shakila Fro and uh Lena Crowley.

After that will be Dieter Cantor can't too, Dieter can too, and John McHugh.

And whatever order you are, tell us your name and please begin.

Uh good morning.

My name is Shakila Fro, and I am speaking on behalf of Apnagar in support of pretrial fairness act.

As an organization that serves uh uh survival of gender-based violence, we have seen firsthand how how the previous money bond system often failed to protect protect those most at risk.

Release decisions were frequently based on a person's ability to pay rather than the level of danger they pose to survivors and to the broader community.

The pretrial fairness act establishes a more thorough evidence-based process that allows judges to evaluate factors such as patterns of abuse, violations of orders of protection, stalking behavior, traits, and other indicators of escalating violence.

This approach enables courts to make decisions based on risk rather than financial resources, resulting in stronger protections for survivors and communities.

For example, Apnagir worked with a survivor who had obtained an order of protection, yet the person causing harm traveled from another state to continue threatening and endangering her.

Under the previous money bond system, an individual who posed a significant risk could often secure release simply by posting bond, regardless of the danger they presented.

Cases like this underscore the importance of giving courts the time and information needed fully access public safety concerns instead of relying on a system centered on wealth.

The law also provides survivors with important protections by ensuring that they receive timely um notifications and have opportunities to seek order of protections and develop safety plans before release decisions are made.

By focusing on risk rather than financial means, the pre-trial fairness act um advances both safety and fairness.

We support its continued implementation because it stressens protections for survivors, uphold due process, and promotes a more equitable justice system for all LI residents.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this law.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Was it in criminal division?

I always come here to speak on domestic uh domestic relations division.

And I been on criminal justice committee last summer, and I see no improvement.

Um the major maximum of the law that everyone is equal under the law, but that's not reality of cook county domestic relations court.

And um you create more legislature, but I don't see how people, how the victims of domestic violence will be protected in domestic relations division in family court, where in my case is not the only one.

I was granted order of protection.

However, Judge Maritza Martinez, who is still on the bench, she took away the order of protection by not letting me in Zoom.

And it happened twice.

And no one investigated her, no one prosecuted her.

Please show me the piece, the section in the legislature you are trying to create that would prevent that from happening.

It is in the Illinois rules of judicial conduct that judges shall follow the law.

I hear often that oh, judges have too much discretion.

It's actually not true.

There are mandatory, mandatory provisions in statute in rules that judges must follow.

It does not happen.

It does not happen.

There is a lot of fraud and deceit done by judges, by uh private attorneys.

And then what we heard a year ago approximately by Kugan State's attorney, she says she will not investigate and prosecute judges.

So where is the recourse?

Then chief judge's office, again, Illinois Supreme Court rule 21b gives wide authority to of Chief Judge office to combat those violations, to combat those crimes, fraud and deceit, to combat exploitation and terrorism of people by judges and private attorneys in domestic relations.

However, nothing is done.

Send by hat to somewhere else to judicial board of you to air to see to clerk.

And this continues.

It was a year ago, and it's now.

And I talked to a lot of people.

Again, it's not one individual case.

It's it's widespread part.

Crimes are happening in the Metric relations division.

And they must be stopped.

Dider Khan 2 is next, followed by who you will question Castro Nolly.

Deater disconnected, John.

Are you in a row?

John McHugh, thank you.

Hello.

Um, I'm here once again, and I I support everything Elena had just said.

Um the violations in my case are extreme, and I could be here all day discussing them, and I know them in and out, but um I have a lot to say.

But the most important thing I I wanted to come down here to say is that um my intuition and my gut about Donna Miller is right.

She is a good person.

She is actually taking action.

Um I would like to offer my uh heartfelt apology to you for anything I have said online or here that has caused you any type of pain or hurt your name in any way.

Um I I don't vote for parties, I vote for people, and I I will be voting for you.

Uh I do believe the action that you're taking is is meaningful, and that uh change does have to take place.

Um, the violations that are taken from Rule 21B.

Um I'm I'm accused of owning um firearms.

I I've never held one that I'm gonna murder my my offspring and myself and my ex.

Um this was done in a temporary order of protection in rolling meadows courthouse, 21 day mandatory hearing order of 217.

Um one knows where these guns are, including me, and there's no toe tags.

And I came in here.

Uh one of the first things I did was stick up for the law enforcement because we're in a pivotal time right now.

Uh, when we have uh a leadership, um changing legislation in order to sue or hold liable our law enforcement for going up against ice, it's just playing the laws of polarity.

The honest to God truth is we need our law enforcement, and we need to rebrand the safety and security and our first responders that that protect our communities.

Um I haven't harmed anybody.

I've I felt like it.

There's a lot of lawyers that I'd like to go after, most of them are women, so that wouldn't look good.

Um, but there's some men out there that I'd really it's not in my nature to to to unalive anybody, but I would definitely love to get my hands on some of these attorneys.

I filed the rule 21B.

One minute.

Chief Judge uh Evans was served a constitutional challenge by me.

Mary Jane Thiees, the former um chief justice of the Supreme Court was served a rule 19 constitutional challenge.

The governor was served a constitutional challenge, it's gone ignored.

Yet we have House Bill 3062, which constricts and limits your ability to challenge any applied statute to only two counties in Illinois.

So we're in a pivotal point where we have a warmongering president is being perceived, and then we have someone else limiting our constitutional rights.

The main thing that's being heard here is uh 30 seconds.

Elena's uh uh drives me crazy.

I'd love to get an order of protection against her, but she fights vigorously to see a child that she hasn't seen since she was eight months old.

I'm coming up on two thousand days of being homeless and living in libraries, learning the law on route.

Um Donna Miller, I apologize.

I I will retract everything online, and I thank you, um, which I never thought I'd say, but I do thank you for the work you're doing, and you do have my vote.

Thank you.

Sophia Van Pelt is next, followed by George Blake Moore.

Sophia, you're in the room.

Yes, please go to the mic.

I just have a quick point of order that I wish to raise if with your permission.

Yes, please.

So I've been sitting here, you know, for a number of years thinking whether I should say this or not, and I think it's time because I and again I'm not trying to discount anything that's been testified to, or the many speakers who speak to us about alleged judicial misconduct.

But I do think it's important for us to understand, including Supreme Court Rule 21, has no uh effect or authority within the Cook County Board.

We simply have no authority to supervise judges in the circuit court.

That isn't combined uh uh operation of the chief judge, and which is mandated by rule 21 and by the judicial inquiry board, which deals with judges who are doing things inappropriately, including illegally.

Attorney, the Attorney General.

This body does not have any authority over judges in the circuit court of Cook County.

They just don't.

And I understand their frustration, but I do think it's important for us to recognize there is limited authority within this body as to what we can and cannot do, and that is something we simply cannot do.

Thank you.

Good morning, commissioners.

My name is Sophia Van Paltz.

I'm a senior policy analyst at the Better Government Association.

We are a nonpartisan nonprofit news organization and civic advocate working for transparency, equity, and accountability in government in Chicago and across Illinois.

Jailing people pretrial does not make our community safer.

Doing so causes people to lose their jobs, housing, access to medical care, and in some instances, even the custody of their children.

Numerous studies have shown that incarcerating people who are legally innocent and awaiting their day in court increases the likelihood that they will be arrested again in the future.

Illinois put the pretrial fairness act in place to reduce these harms.

Prior to the law's implementation, judges made bond decisions in just a few minutes.

Whether or not someone returned to the community awaiting trial was decided not by the facts of their case, but by the size of their bank account.

Many people remained incarcerated, not because they posed the danger to others, but simply because they could not afford to pay for their freedom.

Since the law's implementation, judges are now receiving more information and spending more time on pretrial release decisions than ever before.

If we are going to evaluate how our pretrial system is working, we must look at what data is telling us.

If we're going to propose changes to our pretrial system, those changes should be premised on evidence-based practices and data, not isolated incidents.

Since the pretrial fairness act went into effect, more than 160,000 people have been released pretrial in Cook County, and 94% of those people have successfully returned to court and have not been charged with a new offense against a person.

And recently released data has shown that 99% of the people subjected to electronic monitoring are in compliance with the perimeters of that program.

Simultaneously, we've seen historic decreases in violence and property crime occurring in our county.

We all want more transparency in our court system.

Fortunately, the pretrial fairness act already requires the administrative office of the Illinois courts to collect, analyze, and publish county-level pretrial data on a quarterly basis.

This data is supposed to include information on rearrests, electronic monitoring, court filings, jail demographics, and more.

Unfortunately, more than two years into the implementation of this historic reform, the AOIC has not fulfilled its obligation.

In order to have a holistic conversation about improving our pretrial system, we need access to that data.

We implore the board to join us in calling on the AOIC to comply with their mandatory data transparency obligations under the pretrial fairness act.

Thank you all for your time.

George Blakemore, Jessica Jackson are next.

I can't believe what they've commissioned.

You have no authority over the judges.

Any time you see something that's injured, you don't have to be an elected official.

You are obligated as a human being to try to make it better.

And for you to pass the book, okay, we don't have anything to do with these uh uh no authority over these corrupt judges, yes, you do.

Because you are part of the system that they are part of the same system, this notorious democratic machine here.

And you're part of this machine, and your name is on the same ballot when they elect the judges.

So for you to make this statement, you're out of control.

You don't understand why the public servant duties.

My duty, if that I think somebody pick your pocket.

I can't say it's not my business.

I'm obligated as a human being to say I found pick this man's pocket.

As a human being.

And for you to pass the buck and say, we don't have a thing to do with these corrupt judges.

Your name on the same ballot when these elected uh uh corrupt judges, and this is a one-party system, and it's the all Democrat.

And then you uh these right over there, you're gonna move this way back here where the sheriff can can harass.

One minute.

You work for us.

We don't work for you.

So you're gonna put it back where that white sheriff over here can come and abuse someone.

So again, you you are out of all y'all are out of control.

You are responsible, you are your brother's keeper.

Because what title do you hold?

A public server.

A public server.

A public server.

And for you to make a statement.

30 seconds and then go have the sheriff to arrest people.

These white, uh you black ones, are you blind cripple or crazy?

Can't you see what I see?

Racism is racism is alive here.

Don't you know that?

Don't you know the blacks are at the bottom of a social economic inner caste system here?

No, I'm not talking about in your uh in the cash system.

I'm talking about right here.

And you're silent, and silent.

And time is expired for the speaker.

Jessica Jackson is next.

After Jessica will be Jackie Sample, Jennifer Barron, and Eddie Ingalls.

I will I want to.

I'll stand right here, George.

Okay, I'll see right here.

Jessica Jackson, please begin.

Leave me alone off the camera.

Leave me alone.

Okay.

I wanna uh coattail on what George Flakemore just said because Commissioner Scott Britton knew that was a lie when he opened up his mouth and said it.

And if he doesn't know that it's a lie, then he does he does not deserve to be in that seat as a commissioner over litigation.

Attorney, registration, discipline commission, ARDC rule 8.3, requires lawyers to report misconduct that clearly reflects on fitness or dishonesty committed by other attorneys.

That would be you, sir.

You don't get the right to sit in here and listen to people's complaints and uh uh issues of fraud and perjury against other attorneys, and you just sit there.

You are a liar, and the truth is not in you.

Number two, I'm sitting here right now, right now, with an email from Inspector General Dakova, where I put in a letter from Alderman Christopher Tallaferrell asking him to re-investigate all this fraud and perjury committed by Judge Terrence McGuire, Lewis G.

Apostle, Thomas Leon Weber, Leah Jubachowski, Tina Lostropolis, and she wrote me back and said that that investigation needs to go to the chief judge, and to the Illinois Attorney General.

I dare you sit here and say that you all have no jurisdiction over corrupt judges, and then when Chief Judge got the letter, he let it go flat and dead.

Why?

Because all of you are criminals.

That's why.

All the way up to and including JB Priester, who ignored the United States federal court ruling about those corrupt probate uh Cook County property sales.

It got deemed unconstitutional in 2023, and JP Prista, along with Joni Preckwickle, and every commissioner sitting in this room allowed it to go on until 2026, breaking the law.

You can't keep up, dark, can't keep up with your ankle bracelet criminals, but sheriffs can come and put fake documents on my building with padlocks.

I dare you!

Time is expired for that speaker.

Chairman, these are our final three.

Jackie Sample, Jennifer Barron, Eddie Ingalls.

Jackie Sample, Jennifer Barron, Eddie Ingalls.

Chairman, those are our last three.

Are you in a row?

Thank you.

Please begin.

Hello, my name is Jackie Sample.

I'm a victim of domestic violence.

I want to tell you how and why I became a victim of domestic violence.

I had a divorce case filed around February of 2023.

The four judges who were assigned to my case facilitated the domestic violence.

For example, all four judges knowingly accepted my spouse's fraudulent financial affidavits, where he lowered our estate by more than 75%.

And the reason I say knowingly is because I submitted truthful financial records, including Bank of America statements.

Another reason I say four judges of DuPage County facilitated domestic violence is because the judges refused to enforce their own financial protective orders when my spouse took took over control over all of our assets against a court order.

I submitted Bank of America financial records showing 700,000 of dissipation by my spouse while I was in court pleading for money to buy food and medicine.

All four judges disregarded death threats, financial abuse of a person with a disability and financial fraud and theft of millions of dollars of my assets.

In May of 2025, my divorce case in DuPage County was uh reassigned for the fifth time, and that judge dismissed the divorce against my wishes, forcing me to remain married to my abusive spouse.

Um, in the meantime, um, due to experience with domestic violence, I had to seek shelter at another location in Cook County.

During that time, I filed a divorce in Cook County.

I also have multiple foreclosure cases pending in f in Cook County due to the financial abuse that I'm experiencing.

Um, I have repeatedly requested ADA accommodations under the Americans with Disability Act.

My request for accommodations have been obstructed by the very person who was assigned to facilitate disability accommodations.

These obstructions in both DuPage County and now Cook County court have deprived me of my right to receive honest services from the judicial system.

Um, while you will say that you aren't responsible for judges, my question is would the elected officials be willing to report these victim statements and their reported criminal actions committed by judges to an oversight agency.

Would you be willing to report these crimes?

One minute.

Thank you.

Jennifer Brown, Eddie Ingalls.

Please begin.

Hello, commissioners.

My name is Jennifer Barron, and I am a domestic violence survivor and an Illinois protective parent who has been involved in family court proceedings since 2017.

I am asking this criminal justice committee to look closely at what is happening in domestic relations cases when abuse allegations, emergency orders of protection, child safety, and parental rights collide.

Illinois has laws meant to protect children and survivors, but those protections fail when court actors ignore evidence, delay hearings, rely on unsworn opinions, and allow professionals to influence custody outcomes without accountability.

In November of 2024, I previously obtained an emergency order of protection for both myself and my child.

Despite that, custody was switched within hours of this, and my fundamental parental rights were effectively suspended after I received only 49 minutes notice before this hearing.

That emergency order of protection was vacated without a hearing.

In July of 2025, this hearing was then pushed off for approximately eight months.

And these restrictions were then continued despite the absence of clear and convincing evidence that my child was at risk of harm in my care.

During that later proceeding, the court disregarded two emergency hospitalizations where professionals documented that my child was a danger to herself and others and required admission.

And I have that document right here.

As a result of these proceedings, I have not seen my daughter for more than a year and a half, and this is 19 months ongoing now.

Several professionals influenced this outcome.

A pediatrician submitted custody recommendations despite not being appointed by the court in unsworn letters and never testified.

A child therapist also never testified regarding disclosures of abuse that were detailed in her handwritten therapist client notes and were never properly reported.

There was a submission to DCFS, of course, but none of the evidence was included.

The guardian ed lightum did not speak with medical doctors, nurses, social workers, therapists, or witnesses who treated, evaluated, or had relevant information about my child.

He stated on the record that he only spoke with the witnesses he deemed relevant.

That raises serious concerns about selective investigation, impartiality, and whether child safety evidence is being reviewed before recommendations are made.

After eight years of litigation, the court denied a custody evaluation of all parties, yet demanded a psychological evaluation of me alone without any reason.

During this case, a prior therapist cleared me, a prior psychological evaluation has cleared me, and my current therapist attempted to relay both clearances to the GAL, but the GAL, of course, did not speak with him or address that information.

I have pursued overchight oversight channels to no avail.

I have filed complaints with the Illinois Attorney's General Civil Rights Division and have filed IDFPR complaints regarding licensed professionals.

Although these complaints were open, each case case has been closed without a proper or thorough investigations.

So therefore these all remain unresolved.

I asked this committee to support prompt evidentiary hearings before severe parenting restrictions, trauma informed qualifications for GALs, stronger investigative protocols, improved documentation, independent review, and meaningful consequences when professionals fail to protect children.

Immunity should never become a permission slip for ignoring child abuse, silencing protective parents, or placing children in further danger.

Thank you so much for your time and concerned.

Betty Angles is our last speaker, Chairman.

Thank you.

Please begin.

Can I hand out the You can leave it with the sheriff, please?

Um as I always tell everybody as my standard joke.

Um I have a great face for radio, so I apologize that you have to look at me.

So my name is Eddie Angles.

Um my daughter's name, um, I'm not gonna mention, but she's 13.

Um she spent her entire life pretty much in the system.

Um we're both being held hostage to the system for 12 years.

A coordinated enterprise has run this case.

Beerman LOP, attorneys Tom Field and Jonathan Steele, GAL Pamela Kuznier, Custody Evaluator Dr.

David Finn, and Judge Pamela Boza.

Um Beerman LOP is accused in the federal filing of um of being on the payroll of Judge Scenicchio for accused of bribing.

Um Judge Scenicchio.

Um custody evaluator Dr.

David Finn in a um deposition said that he's never ruled against Bierman LLP.

Um I've gone through everything.

I mean, nearly a million dollars in 12 years in the system.

My home's under foreclosure.

Um I was arrested for not being able to pay the GAL fees, even though I had no home, presented hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Um showing um debt uh and so forth.

Um, since Judge Voles' transfer to the third district under dubious circumstances, um my case has been transferred to five separate judges.

Uh Judge Fernandez recused herself twice, which is unheard of.

And Judge Sceniccio took the case.

Um since Beerman's um stepping down from this case after the um federal lawsuit was brought to the attention.

Um the mother has had three attorneys.

Um two of those attorneys um are trying to have tried to enroll my daughter in a European boarding school.

Okay, so after fighting for parenting time, um minute.

Now we're trying to send her off to boarding school.

Um Judge Sceniccio, absolutely against it, um, ruled against both these attorneys, both attorneys stepped down, and now the mother has a new attorney, Brendan Hammer.

Now everything has changed.

Um what I presented to you is what's being shoved down my throat tomorrow.

So two you tell me if this is due process.

Two weeks before the fall semester is to start, I have to go to trial over sending my daughter to boarding school in Europe.

30 seconds.

I'm currently under filing restrictions.

Judge Sceniciel removed all the witnesses from the uh courtroom on the 26th.

And tomorrow, um, who obviously have a close relationship, it's obvious now everything's changed, are shoving these timelines down my throat that are literally impossible.

So you please tell me, looking at these timelines.

How this is feasible in regards to um that's it.

Thank you.

And Chairman, those conclude our list of speakers for this meeting.

Thank you.

Commissioner Thank you, Chair.

Um, I'd like uh leave to call my uh 1130 workers' company.

Uh the hour having reached 1130 a.m.

I would like to call to order the Cook County Finance Subcommittee on Workers' Compensation.

Madam Secretary, will you please call the role?

Thank you, ma'am.

Commissioner McCaskill is present.

Thank you.

Commissioner Marita is present.

Thank you.

Um Commissioner Vasquez is present.

Uh Vice Chair Trevor is present.

Chairman Morrison is excused for today.

Ma'am, you do have a quorum.

Uh all members present with the exception of an excused absence for the chair.

Thank you.

Uh we will recess the meeting to the call of the chair.

All right.

Commissioner Stamps will move to approve the minutes 26.

1677.

On May 13th, 2026.

Seconded by Commissioner McCaskill.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Aye stab it.

Now, Commissioner Gainer will move to approve item 26, 1526.

This is a proposed resolution calling for a hearing on the approving the last mile of criminal justice, including the service of orders of protection, FOID revocation, enforcement, and electronic monitoring violations.

Seconded by Commissioner Daly.

Uh remarks by Commissioner.

Oh, approve as amended.

I apologize.

Thanks very much.

Um, thanks everyone for being here today.

We're here today to discuss the opportunity to introduce two new tools into the efforts to improve the service uh for domestic violence survivors and their families and the system in Cook County.

The first is electronic service for orders of protection, and the second is tying compliance with firearm retrievals after you've had your FOID card revoked to a driver's license.

I want to thank and acknowledge Commissioners Miller, Commissioner Degnan, and Commissioner Naya in creating and leading the domestic violence task force, which is a comprehensive effort to reform the system that governs domestic violence and domestic relations with a focus on DV survivors and their children.

The task force has been meeting since January 2026 and has been diligently leaning into the implementation of safeguards for the protection of gender-based violence survivors, domestic relations, mediations, and child representation.

The legislation that we are discussing today is currently in Springfield.

Our hope is to raise the awareness of the issues, to raise the awareness of potential solutions, and to help the body here understand the role of each of the criminal justice stakeholders and their view on the ability to improve this process.

This effort is in is a complement to the efforts of the domestic violence task force and looks at this tactical approach to improve the success rate for services of orders or protection, which is currently at 57%, and increase the retrieval of weapons after a FOID car revocation, which is currently only at 30%.

It will also encourage um separately elected officials to promote data sharing.

Um, as you know, this is a uh always a complicating issue in this area.

I want to thank Senator Lakeisha Collins, who appeared before us earlier, who is the chief sponsor of the two pieces of legislation.

Her willingness to raise awareness of the opportunities for electronic service and increase tools for FOID violation.

Weapons retrievals is much appreciated.

So our main goals are to bring up the rate again of successful service and to bring up firearm retrievals.

To that end, as we all know that the criminal justice stakeholders, like the property tech stakeholders, live in collaboration with one another.

Where one of their roles ends, the other begins, and their collaboration with each other is incredibly important.

But they each also do have a perspective on this issue that I think it would be really helpful for everyone here to understand and will be essential for us to get anything done, especially if we have hopes to do so in veto session, which doesn't allow for much kind of dissension in the ranks.

So I'd like to take the opportunity to invite um representatives from the sheriff's office, from the chief judge's office, and from the state's attorney's office and the public defender's office forward, and they're gonna make a statement in relation to this issue.

You can obviously questions, but I thought it would be helpful to kind of hear from the spectrum of how they're seeing it, and then we'll take it from there.

So, Gita, if you'd like to come up and then introduce yourselves and give a brief statement.

Good afternoon.

My name is Gunayek.

I serve as a direct live, please.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Gitunayek.

Um I serve as deputy chief of staff at the Cook County Sheriff's Office.

Um, I'm here today on behalf of Sheriff Dart and the Cook County Sheriff's Office.

First of all, I'd like to thank Commissioner Gaynor for inviting us to this conversation and letting us be part of this very important topic.

Um we're happy to be here.

We're happy to share our perspective, uh, what we have done in this space, what we have learned, and what we hope to do going forward in the future collectively with everyone.

Um so to start with um Sheriff Dart, um, as you are aware, has been a strong supporter of survivor safety uh for years now, um, including supporting Karina's law that passed last year and then the trailer bill for Karina's law that passed this year.

Um most recently, our office did support Senate Bill 2934, which is the electronic service bill, as well as Senate Bill 3367, which aims to um provide an additional compliance tool for FOID revocations.

Um in addition to that, uh we also supported Senate Bill 3304, which aims to close the gap between when an emergency order of protection ends and when a plenary order is served.

Um and our office's um operational input was instrumental in getting the final amendment to the finish line.

So, all that to say is that we are completely dedicated and committed to coming up with solutions to improve survivor safety, to talk about how we can improve on the service rates, but at the same time, um I'd like to also um inform the public and the board of all the um initiatives that we have implemented and why electronic service makes sense or why it makes sense to think of additional tools to build on the tools that we have implemented.

So, as far as providing the internal perspective from the Cook County Sheriff's Office, as you're aware, uh we are statutorily required to serve orders of protection.

And orders are issued all over the country.

We see a high, high volume of orders.

Few, if any agencies see the volume of orders that we see and we serve.

Uh and um agencies all over the country face the same barriers we do.

Service of orders of protection is not easy.

You have to find the respondent, you have to serve an order.

We all are aware that a judge's signature does not um does not, it doesn't end with the judge's signature on an order, right?

The order is enforceable as soon as the judge signs the order, but there's more work to do beyond that.

And that's why I think the title of this uh resolution, the last mile does resonate with our office as it does with all the stakeholders, I'm sure.

Um as soon as the judge enters the order, um, that's when the clock starts ticking, and we know that there's that critical time between the entry of the order to when the order gets in the hands of the person being served.

And that gap is what Sheriff Dart has aimed to close every single day.

We have these conversations every single day.

How do we close that gap?

How do we serve the order as soon as possible?

How do we make sure the order gets served?

But there are barriers to doing that.

We are not authorized to break down doors.

We may not find respondents at the addresses that we have.

We do rely on petitioners giving us the information for locating the respondent.

We rely on the paperwork that we receive from the clerk's office to ascertain the address where our deputies can physically go.

And that is a challenge.

Sometimes orders are incomplete when it comes to the address to locate the respondent.

Sometimes the addresses are inaccurate.

Sometimes the respondent is just not behind that door.

And sometimes you have no contact with the respondent.

They may have relocated, they may be evading service because they've found out that we're attempting service, or they have notice from getting the emergency order.

So in order to close that gap, we have implemented in the last few years a lot of technology driven data driven strategies.

And that's why we are on board with getting up to speed with modern technology.

And one of the tools that we utilized to try to get these orders to the nearest deputy to serve an order is called the grid.

It's a dedicated system that makes it faster for the order to get served.

So when someone says, let's modernize or find modern solutions, that's music to our ears, right?

So we are fully in support of finding alternative methods or additional tools to get those orders in the hands of the person who the order is against.

One of the issues is also that respondents cannot be forced to give up their firearms.

When an order is issued and they don't turn their firearms in, compliance is necessary to safeguard not just a survivor, but also the community.

And so it makes sense that an additional compliance tool is implemented, specifically in terms of the prohibitor that's an uh order of protection when a FOID is revoked.

Lastly, I think we're on board with data sharing, and we do have commitment from the various stakeholders on data sharing.

Specifically, the clerk's office has committed to electronically transmitting paperwork that makes things faster.

We have conversations with the um with the chief judge all the time on what can we do to make this faster, make it more efficient.

Um the new chief judge, um Chief Judge Beach meets with us all the time.

He's listening.

We are doing the same.

We're listening, we're listening to survivors, we're listening to stakeholders, and trying to come up with solutions to make everything efficient to ensure survivor safety.

Um we're on board with the data sharing.

Our office is heavily data-driven.

Our office is heavily technology driven.

We have dedicated units uh working on all this stuff, so we're on board with that as well.

Thank you.

That's all thank you, everyone.

My name is Kate Nolan.

I am with the Office of the Chief Judge, and I'm here to represent Judge Beach and this hearing.

Thank you so much for including us in this.

Um we have been participating in the Cook County City Domestic Violence Task Force, and we also have commissioners that sit on the Chief Judges Task Force as well.

So we're very involved in this space and appreciate the collaboration from Gito's office and um all of the other county stakeholders.

I I do want to emphasize today that the judiciary sits in a unique role in this space in terms of taking a position one way or the other on uh methods of service.

We absolutely want to encourage the best possible service and that service uh numbers are increased.

Um, and so judges on the one end look when they're in court to see do we have good addresses, do we have verification?

And then when it comes back on an order protection, perhaps a violation, we would want to know that the respondent was properly served so that a violation could be issued.

And so judges are really just looking to make sure that due process if the ability to have notice and the ability to appear and respond.

And so those are the facts, those are what we want.

We we absolutely support policies that will get increased service.

So if this is a tool that can be used to increase service of orders of protection, then we would support it.

We just want to make sure that those protections, constitutional protections are in place.

I'm leave myself.

And so we welcome the opportunity to participate in the implementation of this.

We welcome the opportunity to give our um information that we can share about how this process works.

Um and that would be the role that we would play as a judiciary.

It's similar for the FOID issue.

We would ultimately um take the opinion that however that is a properly um whatever the process is that is decided upon, as long as due process concerns are addressed and um there is proper notice, then judges would implement the law as written.

And I just want to talk finally about the data piece.

We absolutely want to participate in sharing of data.

We work as Keetu said, constantly with our other county stakeholders to share information, share processes, and share data.

Um we have Judge Beeach's mission to be transparent has been evident in our our website and what we've shared about information about our processes, and we will continue to do that.

So we are absolutely on board with the data sharing piece, and thank you for allowing us to have a role in this.

Thank you.

Before I let you go out questions from some of the commissioners.

Commissioner Aguila.

Thank you, Chairman.

I want to address something that I've talked about this two years ago.

What's the status of electronic monitoring under the sheriff's office right now?

Uh is there someone here to answer that question?

Um Commissioner, what I can say is uh we're close to uh microscope or something.

My apologies.

Um what I can say is um uh until about a couple of weeks ago, we had less than 200 um folks still on an electronic monitoring, so the transition has been moving smoothly.

Transition what?

She said movement smoothly.

Okay, well, I have some concerns about it two years ago.

I know Commission uh Chairman Lee and I discussed about this, you know, um transferring the electronic monitoring completely to the judge, and um concerns about overseeing it, but then we can talk about this on a later date, but it's kind of frustrating, and I know you understand what I'm going through.

You know what we went through.

Um I met someone with law enforcement, it was dangerous with some results that we seen this year, but let's I like to can continue these conversations later on in the proper time.

Thank you.

Commissioner Daley.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

And uh let me begin by I'm really surprised if the this bit these bills don't move from the audience.

These bills have not moved in Springfield.

Uh we could pass things overnight.

Uh hopefully will be addressed in the veto session, but the fact that we have a supermajority and these bills have not passed is really disturbing.

Um the data sharing is we will be approaching the budget.

So if there's I and I know I think the task force will be coming out with the recommendations soon for the hard work that uh is Commissioner January said, Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Dagan, and uh Commissioner Naya, Commissioner Stamps, Commissioner Vasquez and Marito and McCasco.

But the question is as we approach this with the as well as the independently elected, how can we improve this system?

In reference to the um when the order is given by the judge, is it now being done electronically, or is it being done in the courtroom manual and they have to go back and issue it electronically?

A lot of orders are paper-based still and a lot of um the orders are transmitted to us by hand, but also by email.

There's definitely room for improvement.

So we do have the ability to issue from from I'm sorry, the clerk would to issue it uh electronically in the courtroom.

So if that's an issue, and that's what one thing that I would say we should, and I'm sure the maybe in the task for it addresses it.

If anything could be issued electronically, because the issue if it's issued manually, then say at the end of the day they have to go back and issue it electronically, whether or not it's after the after if the court adjourns, do they issue it the next next day?

And if there's a holiday, does it go to Tuesday?

So that that is one concern.

And then the other one, it it would be in reference to the um I'm sorry, in reference to the serving people.

You you indicated one of the biggest is uh f finding them.

And do we have any percentages that are served or percent we actually serve?

Sure.

Um so our most recent manual audit that was done by our um Office of Data Sciences.

Um it spans from the period of November 2025 to February of 2026.

When you look at that specific data, our service success rate has been 57.6 percent, and that includes service by our own civil process staff as well as um short form notification service and any any order served in court as well.

Um as far as the not served data, our office does take a very close look at what's going on with um when orders go unserved.

Um our goal is to attempt service the same day that the order is issued.

That's the goal.

That's always the goal.

That's the benchmark we're looking for.

You said 57%.

57.6% is the success rate, Commissioner.

Um, I have some more numbers that I think will shed light on uh the issue that you're trying to address.

Um so as I said, we we try same-day service the same day that the order is issued.

Orders trickle in during the day at all times of the day in the evening into the night.

We try to serve them the same day.

Our same day service rate has been around 72 to 73 percent.

We also aim to try attempt service um at least twice in uh 20 uh 24 hours from the time that the order is issued, and three times within 72 order uh hours of the order being issued.

Um so the 72, 73 percent service uh attempt rate is something that we're constantly looking at what's going on, how many attempts is it taking to serve an order?

On average, it takes about 2.55 times to attempt to serve a successful order.

When you look at the unserved orders, um, and when you look at not served orders between that time period that I just um said the recent audit was for, um, it took about 4.55 attempts before we come to the not served orders.

So when you closely look at the not served orders, we look at what reasons contributed to the orders not being served, and in 92.9 percent of the not served orders, the reason was no contact with the respondent.

And the attempts would be diff different day, I assume different days, a couple of days or period of time.

Right.

The first attempt would be the same day, uh, which includes deputies going and knocking on the door as well as short form notification.

Um within the 24 hours, we would try to do that twice.

And within 72 hours, we would try to do that three times at least.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other commissioners, any other questions?

Commissioner Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Alma and I was first.

Thank you, Mr.

Thank you, Chair.

Um so just to follow up, I'm very interested in the data component.

Um so first of all, can can you walk me through how many um sheriffs or personnel do you have as part of the orders of protection?

Um so our office does have a civil process unit.

Uh we have our executive director here, Joe Bellatier, who heads up that unit, um, and under courts.

Um in our civil process unit, currently we have um, I want to say approximately 82, 85 deputies.

Um the number kind of fluctuates depending on um active status of the deputies.

So that's our number right now.

Okay, and those deputies are the ones that do this the service, the in-person service, yes.

And then they're the ones that also handle the internal um uh mechanism technology that you've utilized that you talked about.

We do have office staff that helps with that.

We have lead staff that enter the orders into the law enforcement data systems database.

Okay.

Um and is that separate the civil process unit separate than um the deputies needed for implementing uh Karina's law?

Is that separate?

No, so um there's two parts to it.

Um under Karina's law, a surrender order can be issued as a remedy to an order of protection, which is when you get to the door to serve an order, you can ask the you are required to ask the respondent to turn over their weapon at the time of service.

Those are our regular civil process deputies doing that job as well.

Um and then the second component to that is the Karina's law search warrant, which is handled by uh law enforcement patrol officers or our gun team.

Okay.

And if they do not surrender at that the initial order, it would be put into a system, and then that's when on the back end you would have all their law enforcement maybe attempt at another time.

So uh when an order is served, if contact with is made with the respondent, the respondent is required to turn over any firearms at the place of service at the time of service.

If they don't have the weapon with them at that time and they notify our deputy, our deputies will give a 24 hour notice, which is to say that the respondent under law is required to go to the nearest law enforcement agency and turn over their weapon within 24 hours.

But how do we track it internally?

Is it through the system or so there's a form that uh the um chief judge's office approved recently um that we use to uh mark on the form respondents stated firearm is not at this location or respondent did not have any firearms?

It's paper based.

Uh it is paper, yeah.

Um okay.

So may I don't know if there's uh any work being done to digital liza, digitize that, sorry.

Um so um I know that that's a big component of what we actually Senator Collins was talking about of orders of protection and figuring that out.

So I don't know if there's any components to that that can be talked about.

I know we won't have all the answers today, but just a thought there.

Um, and then you mentioned the the served data versus the not served.

Um so I just want to clarify when you say not served, is it within that 24 hour um time frame or is it through the 4.55 times, or how does how does that I'm just wondering like if an order is put into the system on Monday and you have deputies attempt Monday evening, and you have deputies attempt the next day?

Um how many days would it take before we say it's not served?

So when when the way when we do the audit for the three or four months, um we look at how many orders came in in that period of time out of the number of orders that came in, how many were successfully served, and how many remained unserved.

So the ones that remained unserved, we then go back and look at what were the reasons for that those orders not being served.

Okay, but how many days is that is that is that just all so over the period of three or four months?

So does that mean that if someone in the day one of the first month can essentially go without being served those whole three months?

Well, we're not attempting service every single day of the month.

We're attempting service as soon as we get the order, we attempt service um, we uh aim to attempt service the same day as much as possible, then we try two attempts within 24 hours, then three attempts within 72 hours.

We have orders we have attempted to serve seven, eight, nine times depending on what the information we have is for the respondent.

Okay.

Um I guess my last question is in regards to the data and um whether there's gonna be a possibility of um having a public facing dashboard of sorts.

Um I think um one of the great things that have come out of a lot of conversations regarding gender-based violence in the task force that we have the Chicago Cook uh task force, um, is how important data is number one for us to figure out what type of resources need to be put into the system to make it smoother, but also what type of support systems and where in the uh where we need additional a safeguards or additional push personnel, etc.

to protect people.

So I'm just wondering is that something that's being looked at, you know, by the sheriff's office, and if so, what is the time frame?

I think the data that you just um kind of highlighted is very important.

Um, and it would be really beneficial to have a public facing dashboard.

Absolutely.

Uh we're completely um in agreement with that.

Transparency is first and foremost our responsibility to the survivors.

We meet with survivors all the time.

We are transparent about our data with them, and we are actually working on making this data public.

We shared it at the task force meeting um a couple weeks ago.

Um, and this is definitely something that is actively being worked on.

Perfect, thank you.

Chairman, that was my final question.

All right, thank you.

Any other commission of Commissioner McKiss?

Just one quick question.

Thank you, Chair.

So is it reasonably can we reasonably assume that the number of uh outstanding or unserved uh orders of protection will go down with this new process that it's gonna help to eliminate that.

I know that one of the um items that um ASA Burke had spoken to, uh, she said that um there could be five or six outstanding just for one case where there are five outstanding uh orders of protection that were never served.

So is this bill by passing this very specific law it's going to reduce that number significantly?

So, Commissioner, I assume you're asking about the electronic service of orders of protection.

Um, that as an alternative tool to service of protection is definitely something that we see first and foremost serving the safety of the survivor because notifying the respondent or the person being served of the order is the first thing to getting the uh survivor, the legal protections that they've been granted in court.

Um so that would be the first and foremost, I think result of this would be notifying the person that there's an order that exists.

Um, as a side result of that, uh we think that the service rates will go up because if they're successfully served using other means that would get registered as a successful service.

Um we do believe that um could be possible.

The way that the bill is written, um, we still provide the due process protections to respondents by attempting personal service first, and when that does not work, electronic service can be attempted with the information that the petitioner gives us and lastly, with regard to um communication to the local bodies.

Is that going to is this law going to help speed that up so that local law enforcement are also now made aware faster of uh this person having an order of protection?

So, one of the um operational steps, Commissioner, when we um receive an order from the um clerk's office when they transmit orders to our civil process unit is we enter the order into the law enforcement data assistance database.

That automatically is available to all law enforcement agencies.

Additionally, there's an automated email that goes out to the local law enforcement agencies for deconfliction purposes, uh, meaning that we notify them that we're gonna be in their town trying to serve the order.

So law enforcement officers have different ways of becoming aware if they run into a person and they pull them their background up that there is an order of protection that exists.

As far as electronic service goes, um, that could be something that could be um an update to whether the order is served and it gets entered into the same system, notifying the law enforcement agency that the order has been served because that's important to know.

Thank you, and thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Any other questions for these young ladies?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Now we have the state's attorney public defender, state service.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for joining us.

Thank you.

Who would like to go first?

I'm not lucky, so I'll let it take on that list.

Hi, good afternoon, everyone.

Eva Loizan, assistant um state's attorney.

I'm the chief of policy and external affairs, and here to answer any questions you may have for us.

Sir, um, we have had an opportunity to have significant discussions about the depths of the legislation that's being proposed related to electronic notification on orders of protection.

It's the state's attorney's office's position that any mechanism that we can leverage that will assist us and assist the court system in ensuring that individuals who have an order of protection issued against them are notified to come to court is a good idea.

Um we would like to see individuals in court so that they can stand up and make sure that they are served for their orders of protection.

Giving people an electronic notification to appear would give us an opportunity to ensure that they are crystal clear on the parameters of the order of protection, and it's our hope that that will help keep survivors of domestic violence safe.

We do recognize that electronic service on an order of protection may not put us in a position where if a person violates their order of protection, we have sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they have been completely served and on in every set of circumstances, and that will change based on the facts and circumstances of every case.

That concern aside, um, the ability to ensure that people are notified that an order of protection has been issued by a court and the ability to get them into court, um, we think is a great advantage, and we would be supportive of that legislation.

Thank you.

Uh good afternoon, Sharon Mitchell Jr.

Uh work as the Cook County Public Defender.

Um I want to thank uh everybody for having us here today.

Uh especially Commissioner Gaynor, who's been working so hard on this really important issue.

I also want to acknowledge the presence of a couple of our staff who are going to be available for questions if we get into the weeds.

Um Deputy Chief of Staff, Sav Felix is here in person, Deputy Public Defender over Central Operations, Crystal Brown is here via uh teams as well as attorney supervisor Katie Pellick, who works in the attorney supervisor in our domestic advocacy space.

Um we absolutely have an interest in ensuring uh that our both future clients and current clients um are aware of issues of orders of protection.

Uh we think it's important for them to have notice.

Um we believe the lack of notice certainly harms both the petitioners and harms our clients.

Um, you know, the there are some concerns uh that uh the state's attorney talked about, but I have um a lot of faith that those are some of the concerns that we can work through.

Um Commissioner Gaynor has been great to uh work with trying to figure out uh some of these due process issues.

So really much of our issues really resolve around that, and in and we hope that there's a path forward to ensure that our clients are both notified and uh our clients are notified.

Um so you know, we stand here, we stand ready to answer any questions you might have about uh the current process or uh future plans.

Any questions?

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and thank you for your presentation.

So if someone is in criminal court, this might be pre one of you or the and the judge is uh I'm sorry, an individual is appearing in criminal court.

Does the judge have the ability to see if there's an order protection in civil because the individual standing, individual standing before the order has not been served?

Um that's a tricky question.

I'm gonna do my best to answer it.

So previously, in um in the past, before state's attorney Burke became the state's attorney, it was not always easy for court personnel to have access to information related to orders of protection that may have been issued outside the scope of a criminal case.

Um judges in theory should have access to that information, but it is a separate, it's a separate component if of the system, if you will, and so they would need to know how to access that particular component of the system to garner that information.

The judge um for the prosecutor's office, um, in the past, we did not have the ability to ascertain whether there were orders of protection that may have been issued outside the scope of a criminal proceeding.

Um, but when state's attorney Book Burke took office and learned that one of her primary priorities was to rectify that situation.

And we have successfully rectified it by working very closely and diligently with the Cook County Clerk's office to permit access to states' attorneys who should have access to be able to um ascertain that information.

One challenge that we have is not every state's attorney has that access.

So there are circumstances where it would be beneficial for someone to be able to see it, and they need to, you know, phone a colleague to make that happen.

But we are able to make a lot of people.

Well, could the judge ask if there's a order protection issued or outstanding war?

Could the judge ask us that?

Yes, and that happens very frequently, particularly in first appearance court, um, when we may or we may be seeking detention or he may be seeking specific pretrial conditions.

Um, that kind of questioning would be you know routine, and it would be our desire in that set of circumstances for our state's attorney to have that information ready and prepared to produce it.

Correct.

Commissioner Naya and then uh Commissioner Vasquez.

Thank you, Chairwoman.

Um, so I have a question regarding so what we're here to hear uh to hear about is the the quote unquote last smile of a lot of this these issues that we've talked about for for some time.

Um and I'm just curious under the state attorney's office.

We've done a lot of uh victim witness uh in that unit.

There's been um a lot of movement.

Um state attorney uh Burke has highlighted the fact that there was major interest in in ensuring that that unit specifically for gender-based um violence was fully staffed and had all the resources necessary.

I guess out of curiosity, are there any specific steps legislatively that you all are looking at at the state level or locally to better protect those folks?

And then are any of the ones that were highlighted?

I know you you mentioned that there's um you don't maybe have full uh full response for um whether you're in agreement all together, but what is um what are the next steps that you all are utilizing to ensure again um everything that is within your bounds are are taken care of at the state or any legislation is is pushed forward.

Uh we recently in the last legislative session, um, first of all, thank you for your question.

Nice to see you.

Um in the last legislative session, the Cook County State Attorney's Office was successful in getting legislation passed um which created a misdemeanor offense for individuals who are using um their cell phones or other um pieces of technology to video tape um victims and witnesses in and around court facilities, um, inside of court and around the court facility.

Um we are very excited and proud of that legislation.

Um I believe that that is a very significant step in making sure that our victims and witnesses are protected.

Um additionally, I think it's very important to provide levels of comfort for victims and witnesses, particularly in domestic violence court scenarios, um, that they will be protected if they choose to come to court and participate in the process.

Um that the impetus for that legislation actually came from our staff and our special victims bureau, and particularly our personnel that works at 555 West Harrison.

Um that was an issue that they identified as being a barrier to um comfortable participation in the court process.

And we are um we're very excited that we were able to get that legislation passed.

It passed um unanimo unanimously in both the House and the Senate.

Um, and we had you know, without opposition, and that was um that was very important step for us.

Um, in regards to notification um of both parties, are there any specific areas that you would um highlight as as areas of improvement?

In terms of notification regarding um whether or not orders of protection.

Um I think that you know the the proposed legislation that has come from Commissioner Gaynor Gainer and other commissioners on this board is a very strong step in that direction.

Um okay, my final uh question is in regards to um uh whether there is any other steps within the process.

So I know you all come in uh after the I wouldn't say after the fact, but after certain things are charges are potentially, you know, pressed against an individual and and through that whole process.

But is there anything within that process that you think should be looked at um as as a county body, but also I you know, I'm a member of the the Chicago Cook um domestic violence task force.

So we're always very curious of like again, what additional steps can be taken so that we could be supportive of any of those efforts.

Anything that um you would maybe say um would be important for this body to know.

I I think something that is important for this body to know is a step that we have already taken.

Um, the past year and a half when we're talking about the operations and domestic violence court is that um people who came into domestic violence court wanting an order of protection are sort of divided, if you will, based on whether they have a police report or whether they don't.

If they don't have a police report, they're generally sent to civil court to seek um an or a stalking no contact order, civil order of protection.

And when you go into civil court, there is no prosecutor present.

Um the state's attorney's office has no role in that process.

But what we learned is that there were people coming into court who were seeking orders of protection who really should have had a police report and did not, and were willing to take the steps necessary to file one.

There were barriers in place that made it very, very difficult.

We would have to ask that person who sometimes was coming in with children, um, you know, other supportive people to go to a police station to get that accomplished.

Um we worked very closely with the Chicago police department.

They were excellent partners in this process.

And um we have now created an opportunity for reports to actually be taken at 555 West Harrison.

That has been, you know, a game changer, if you will, for a lot of um individuals who come in and are seeking an order of protection, they want to take that step, but they are coming in without having previously obtained a police report.

The fact that they can now do that without having to be transported or go themselves to another location.

Um I think is a significant step in the right direction.

And we are very pleased that we were able to implement that process.

Um, how are you able to catch those?

Well, currently catch those individuals that is it through a questioning mechanism within the state attorney's office when they approach you all in 555, or um is there another way in in which you're able to filter out those that should be having criminal versus civil.

That's my first question.

And then my second question or follow-up, I should say, um, is uh 555 is extremely tight.

There's not a lot of um uh space.

So are they is CPD within which part of the courthouse?

Um CPD is utilizing a space, and I'm sorry, I can't articulate to you exactly where it is in the courthouse.

I can get you that information.

Um with respect to what the screening process looks like.

There is a screening process for people who come right in the door that is facilitated by the office of the chief judge of staff that works at 555 that are not employed by the Cook County State's attorney's office.

Um we do believe that there are opportunities to improve that screening process.

We've had preliminary um conversations on how we could do that.

Um right now we don't have a concrete solution, but it is something that we're working on.

Um, once a person has a police report, they are they then come to screening at the Cook County State's attorney's office, and that is a more in-depth process where we make assessments on what is the best next steps in a case.

Okay.

Yeah, if you can get back to me on the CPD component.

I know um it's been extremely sensitive recently just because of you know, presence of federal agents at domestic violence courthouses.

So that has been a barrier for a lot of survivors, um, you know, to in full faith um be able to trust in in the court system, just given again um uh some of their presence.

So just having additional law enforcement, although helpful through the process, you know, having them visible in a certain way can mean whether a person actually goes through with an order of protection or not.

So those are just areas of sensitivity that I would just kind of relay over to you and your team.

Um, and yeah, would um would love to have a follow-up on that.

Thank you.

Thanks, Chairman.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, so when we started our hearing, we had a number of public speakers specifically discussed the need for transparency when we're talking about some reforms that could be of use, systemic changes that we need.

Um, and these advocates specifically mentioned the AOIC, which would collect statewide data.

Uh, but I know that our state's attorney has a data dashboard.

And so I was wondering, Eva, if you could speak to any efforts to collect more case life case uh level data and the publishing of that data if you're expanding the data dashboard.

Um nice to see you.

Thanks for the question.

Um I'm at this moment, um, there are efforts in place for us to obtain a better case management system.

Um unfortunately, that process does not live underneath my purview, and I don't have an update as to where where we are in this in that process at this time.

Um I do know that the information that we are putting on our own state's attorney's office website and our own data dashboard is information that we are um obtaining through the Cook County Clerk's Odyssey system, um, and then using our our own staff to verify uh before it is posted.

And so we are confident that the information that is contained on our dashboards is accurate and verifiable information.

Right now, the primary source of our data comes from the Cook County Clerk's Office data system, and we have the ability to enter queries and you know crunch numbers through that system.

And um, you know, the clerk's office works closely with us to do that.

Um for more detailed information on that.

I'm sorry, I would have to turn to one of my colleagues, and I'm just not prepared for that today, but I'm happy to follow up with you and you know arrange an opportunity for you to get answers to those questions.

If you could, that would be fantastic.

Um I think that that data set or those that information would be, I think, critical.

Um and then there is some um data around detentions.

Uh I know is it possible to have those as a downloadable set?

I think that's something advocates have been requesting as well.

I'm gonna embarrass myself and tell you that I am like not technologically savvy enough to give you an answer to that.

Um, but I will certainly follow up and give you an answer.

Okay, thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

Any other questions from any other commissioners?

Seeing that there oh Sharon you're you spoke right.

Yeah, okay.

Okay.

Um seeing that there are no other questions from any other commissioners, Commissioner Gale will now move to approve as amended.

Item 26, 1526.

It is a proposed resolution calling for a hearing on approving the last mile of criminal justice, including the service supporters protection, forward revocation, enforcement, and electronic monitoring violations seconded by Commissioner Daly.

All those in favor, please say all right.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

May I make a one quick comment?

Commissioner, what is your pleasure?

Oh, thank you.

Chair, we added all members uh you want to leave leave to add all.

Any opposed?

Everyone is at it who is present.

Thank you.

I just cannot for close.

Thank you.

As you guys know enough through the process in Springfield, if something is to pass during veto, it it's more of a rifle shot than a big long collaborative effort.

And so the purpose of today again was to raise the profile of these issues, have the ability for this body um to answer questions, and because the county stakeholders are most relevant to the execution of the process, um, understand where any concerns were, get all those issues out there because the time to work on these things is now, and it would be great to have everyone's support when we get going back uh in session, Springfield.

So thank you very much, and thank you to the chair.

Thank you.

Uh seeing that there's no further business, Commissioner Stamps will now move to hearing moved to adjourn this meeting.

We're adjournment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for having.