County State's attorney, the Honorable Aileen Burke.

Good morning all.

Before we start, I wanted to give Chairman Daly a little gift from me that I think would be useful.

It's a little stress gavel for him.

Yeah.

And if somebody's talking too long, feel free to use it.

Thank you.

Good morning all.

Thank you, Chairman Daly.

Thank you all at commissioners.

And this year, I am really kind of excited to tell you all of the things that we have done with the funds that you gave us last year and what we're hoping to do next year.

So as the nation's second largest prosecutor's office, we are not only responsible for prosecuting everything from traffic cases to murders, but we are unique in a major city's prosecutor's office in that we have a very large bureau that represents Cook County, the Civil Bureau.

Throughout this office, we have dedicated personnel from assistant states attorneys, investigators, admins, and victim specialists.

I am so fortunate to be able to lead more than 1,300 people who are committed to our mission.

Our mission is to uphold the law.

Protect the people of Cook County, seek justice for victims, and safeguards the public's trust in our justice system.

Can we chief of staff, Don Black, Chief Assistant States Attorney for Policy and External Affairs of At Loisen, and the man who needs no introduction, the Chief Financial Officer John Hurrihan.

Many of our Bureau Chiefs are also in the gallery today.

Our office is comprised of nine different bureaus criminal, juvenile, special victims, multi-jurisdiction, legal resources, civil administration, and victim services.

When I appeared before this committee nine months ago, I shared my vision of rebuilding the Cook County State's Attorney's Office into the most effective and highly trained prosecutors' office in the country.

We have taken the resources which you allotted to us last year, and I would like to briefly walk you through where we are today.

To begin, the crux of our success during this fiscal year has started with staffing.

When I took office, every courtroom and every unit across the Cook County State's Attorney's Office was critically understaffed.

Those vacancies hampered our ability to do our job and created a backlog that reverberated across every part of the criminal justice system.

It meant that victims and families had to wait longer for justice, come to court more frequently, and relive their trauma with every delay.

It meant that communication between defense attorneys and prosecutors slowed, making it harder to resolve cases efficiently.

It meant defendants did not get resolution to their cases in a timely manner.

It meant that assistant states attorneys were forced to juggle unsustainable workloads, leading to an exodus of talented prosecutors from this office.

Our turnover rate exceeded 8%, and with every departure, we lost valuable courtroom experience and institutional knowledge.

But with support and investment from this board, we have reversed that trend.

Over the last year, we launched an aggressive hiring effort to rebuild the ranks of this office to a point where this office could perform its function.

We have focused on adequately staffing courtrooms, recruiting exceptional graduates from law schools across the country, and bringing experienced prosecutors back to public service.

Today, we are on the verge of reaching an important milestone.

For the first time in at least a decade, the Cook County State's Attorney's Office will have virtually zero attorney vacancies.

To put that in perspective, consider this.

More attorneys working here means we have more capacity to focus on our work, and we are already seeing tangible and positive impacts of this.

Just one example of this is over the last several years, our Civil Actions Bureau contracted with outside counsel for over 300 worker workers' compensation cases that it didn't have the bandwidth to handle.

Now we utilize outside counsel for two cases in workers' compensation.

And the only reason that those two cases have remained with outside counsel is because they are at the end stage of litigation.

This is a tremendous savings to the county.

In August, we will welcome a class of more than 90 new bar takers.

Nearly 40% of these brand spanking new lawyers come from communities of color, reflecting the residents that we serve.

That is significantly above the national average, where just 23% of the legal profession in 2024 were lawyers of color.

Because we are beginning to meet our most basic staffing needs, we are now able to do more than triage the caseload.

We are now able to launch some innovative programs that are alternatives to detention and expand deferred prosecution programs.

As prosecutors, we have a unique opportunity to identify individuals who can benefit from early intervention to help them get back on the right track.

I'm really proud of the work that we are doing in this space and the creative ways that we are finding funding and external partners to bring these programs to life.

Some of the programs are the juvenile detention alternative program.

It was partly funded by the Steens Family Foundation.

The targeted abuser call in domestic violence program, private funding from Arnold Ventures, public transit, including an internal training team and a public external task force to tackle transit crimes.

The gun accountability program, which was the result of legislation that we championed, we already have more than 90 participants enrolled.

Domestic violence homicide unit to address the uptick that we've seen in domestic violence in 2025 and 2026.

Last year we asked for more resources to create a training curriculum for every single level of the Cook County State's Attorney's Office.

The reason why we needed that is a third of our attorneys have been practicing three years or less.

That means they're very new at this.

So we've made good on that plan, and we've tripled our training budget compared to last year.

We are enhancing how our prosecutors and our staff are doing their job.

To formalize our professional development, we have a director of training, Cordelia Copelson, who came to us from the AG's office and is a former ASA who knows the programming our prosecutors need to be at the top of their game.

In the last six months alone, the training department has put on more than 200 trainings.

I refer to Cordelia as the Energizer Bunny because she is always so busy.

As you can see, we have a robust list of trainings.

We have created specializations in specific types of crime like cybercrime, crypto, animal cruelty, hate crimes.

We have created a leadership training program for all of our supervisors.

The reason why leadership training is so important is because that is one of the main drivers of whether someone stays or goes in this office.

We have all had bosses who may have been good at their job, but they were god awful at managing people.

We want our supervisors to be able to get the best out of people and to create an environment where people can succeed.

The next item that was allotted to us was the capital funding we received to launch a new digital evidence platform called Axon.

It streamlines how our attorneys review, share, and collect digital evidence.

Shifting to Axon brings us into alignment with most of our law enforcement partners who already use the platform.

It saves our prosecutors' time and provides additional tools to analyze video footage.

Prior to Axon, we had to send individual email links with each video file.

Now all of the files are stored on a secure cloud-based portal that is organized by case.

This is especially important because the amount of video evidence available in the average case is skyrocketing.

Video is an extremely reliable form of evidence.

Every courtroom in Cook County receives more than 6.5 terabytes of data per year.

And if you're anything like me, you have no idea what that means.

So it means that's the equivalent to 13 million ebooks, 550 million pages.

1.6 million photos, or as my chief of staff, Don Bell Act liked to point out, 15 copies of the IMAX movie The Odyssey.

Axon is going to make a huge difference helping us sort through all of it.

This was a massive $4 million project that we were able to institute on time and on budget, and it is already bearing fruit.

We now have the ability to do an entire trial without a human witness.

But in order to do that effectively, we need to have the know-how and the technology.

In order to present that evidence most effectively, we established a legal resources bureau that serves as a hub to support all of our digital and forensics related evidence, and it houses our legal experts in those areas.

We have ASAs who are specially trained to file motions involving DNA evidence, review the ballistics tests, and consult on complicated issues such as fitness to stand trial.

Alongside video cell data, cell phone data analysis is a growing source of evidence.

Everyone has a cell phone, and with a properly executed search warrant, we are able to bring valuable evidence into court.

In our Legal Resources Bureau requests for forensics analysis of phone data has searched last year, ASAs submitted 308 requests for forensics analysis on phone data.

So far, only half the year we've received 768 requests, putting us on a pace for a 399% increase.

This is not a luxury or a maybe if we have the resources issue.

Every one of us, as the stewards of the people money, have a moral obligation to put forward the best available evidence that there is.

But this is also sound fiscal policy.

DNA, ballistics, video evidence, cell phone data, all of this eliminates human error.

It minimizes any possibility down the road of a wrongful conviction.

Our next major technology priority is implementing a modern case management system.

With help from the Civic Committee, we performed a deep dive into each and every bureau to critically assess what our needs were with an expert.

We are now in a position to know exactly what is needed.

Securing that system will be a central component of our fiscal year 2027 budget request because it will improve case tracking, data collection, and operational efficiency across the organization.

I would be remiss if I didn't talk about our core focus of the office, standing up for the victims of crime.

This is a component of our work that people don't always know about, but it is deeply aligned with our values and integral to our ability to secure justice.

Every day, our wick our victim specialists work alongside survivors who have experienced tremendous trauma.

They guide victims through every stage of the criminal justice system.

They connect them with resources and they help ensure that they are supported throughout what is often one of the most difficult experiences of their lives.

Recognizing the importance of this work, we created a dedicated victim services bureau to better align our resources and expand the assistance we provide.

One of our new programs is working with Uber to provide victims of crime a safe ride to court if they face transportation barriers.

Before this, victims were walking in the cold, taking multiple buses to get to court.

Now those who have no transit options can get to court without cost when they are needed.

Since the program launched in January, we have provided more than 700 brides.

We have also secured 250,000 in grant funding to provide relocation services for victims in dangerous housing situations.

If people are facing threats for participating in our prosecutions, we can help them find temporary or permanent housing to keep them safe and offset some of the initial costs they are facing.

In addition to these initiatives, we have hired numerous additional victim services staff and now have 29 victim specialists.

Additionally, we partner with an outside provider to offer interpreter services in more than 300 languages for our meetings with prosecutors that occur in person or virtually.

Before I close, I want to address one of the most significant challenges our office has faced over the last nine months.

ICE.

The last time I spoke before this committee, I described the horrendous behavior of the ICE agents that we were all witnessing masked agents traumatizing neighborhoods, shoving people into unmarked cars and deploying tear gas on parades of children.

This unprecedented, unprecedented insurgence of federal agents into our communities was a shock to the system and a shock to anyone who cares about the democratic ideals of this country.

No one has felt this concern more gravely than the Latino and immigrant communities in Cook County.

The fear, trauma, and stress inflicted by midway blitz persists today, and the abhorrent tactics utilized by ICE have not abated.

No one, including federal immigration officers are above the law.

While I cannot comment on pending investigations or prosecutions, I do want to explain how our office has responded.

We had not seen this type of interaction with the federal government before.

No one in state governments across the nation, but more specifically in Illinois had ever considered prosecution of federal agents.

There was no roadmap on how to do this because we were in uncharted territory.

So we developed a roadmap.

We developed a protocol that lays the groundwork to bring charges against federal agents for unlawful use of forced conduct.

The protocol provides guidance to law enforcement agencies conducting these investigations and outlines how our office and the grand jury can support that process.

This protocol developed by this office has been adopted by every state's attorney's office in Illinois, as well as the Attorney General's office.

As I have said repeatedly, the Cook County State's Attorney's Office does not have the legal authority to conduct investigations.

And if we do, we expose Cook County to liability.

We lose our prosecutorial immunity.

But what the state's attorney's office can do is support law enforcement in their investigations by putting witnesses in a grand jury, securing search warrants, and sending two E letters, which are letters to the federal agencies with a subpoena attempting to get their reports and their evidence.

It is equally important to reaffirm that the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, excuse me, serves every victim of crime, regardless of immigration status.

We do not consider immigration status when making charging decisions, and every victim deserves equal access to justice.

Unfortunately, as immigration enforcement activity has increasingly targeted courthouses, we've seen victims and witnesses become fearful of participating in criminal cases.

Whenever possible, we reduce in-person meetings and conduct them virtually if there is a concern regarding ICE presence.

But many victims still appear in court, must still appear in court to testify, and no one should have to choose between seeking justice and fearing deportation.

That is why we continue to support victims seeking immigration relief through the U visa program.

The Cook County State's Attorney's Office is an official certifier for U visas, which provide temporary immigration relief to victims of crime who cooperate with the prosecution of a crime.

Demand for U visas has increased dramatic dramatically over the past year, and we are dedicating an additional full-time employee to meet that need.

As an additional step, we have explicitly limited APRAS, a vendor that provides victim notifications when a defendant is released from custody from selling any personal data to federal immigration enforcement agencies.

We're in the process of tightening those restrictions by negotiating a clause that would prevent APRAS from selling any data to third-party databases so that we can assure this data does not make it into the hands of ICE.

Beyond these challenges, we remain intensely focused on the priorities that have defined this administration, reducing gun violence, combating domestic violence, and improving safety on public transit.

As we look into the future, we are also preparing to defend Cook County's long-standing assault weapons ban before the United States Supreme Court, which is like the Super Bowl for lawyers.

I just want everybody to know that.

The outcome of that case will have profound implications not only for Cook County, but for communities across the country.

It is not a fight we will back down from, and I am proud to lead the charge defending this lawful and common sense ordinance that is saving lives.

There is so much important work ahead.

This office will continue operating with integrity and professionalism that the residents of Cook County deserve.

So I want to thank this committee for its time, and we are welcoming your questions.

I'm excited to talk about all the things we're doing.

Thank you for your presentation.

And I know the president and the board was happy to help you in your last budget and to see the implemented in the current in this budget.

With the dollars that this board committed was very informative.

And I know you have the have a copy of the report that was submitted last week, and I know a number of the commissioners will be addressing it.

Oh, Commissioner Lower followed.

Commissioner Gander.

Commissioner Lower.

Thank you, Chairman.

State's Attorney Burke, always good to see you.

Good morning.

How are you?

I hope my college friend is doing well.

If not, I still can give them a warning.

He's he's a soccer coach now.

Okay.

Very good.

Good, good, good.

Um very glad to hear about the uh last item you mentioned.

You know, we had conversations either late in 25 or early this year about uh ICE incidents and the role of the State's attorney's office.

So I was so excited uh mid-February when I heard about the office's implementation of charging protocol for use of forced incidents involving federal immigration agents.

Just for clarity, relative to the protocol uh in the specific uh forced incidents, obviously you cannot discuss those, but relative to the role of your office uh given the protocol, is the focus any incidents that would rise to a certain level after mid-February of this year, or might that include incidents which predated the press release talking about the protocol in the office.

So, first of all, the protocol is available on our website.

If anybody wants to take a look at it, you want to look up some constitutional law.

It is literally a roadmap with the guidelines, the case law, everything that's necessary for law enforcement.

So we will review any case that law enforcement comes to us on.

If law enforcement needs support on any of the investigations they have going on, like they want to lock witnesses into a grand jury, they need a search warrant, they need two E letters.

We are our active partners with them in those activities.

I think that's great.

Good.

Um let me shift uh gears for a second.

You know, last year we talked a lot about the forensic lab, and uh I found that very exciting.

Is that really kind of the manifestation of that, or step one would be the uh axon digital evidence platform?

Is that how that kind of works together?

So I'm gonna let Craig answer this one because he's so far when they start talking digital evidence to me, it's kind of like Charlie Brown's teacher.

So I want somebody who actually is issued.

Well, I've talked to Craig before, and I have that I have that same issue.

So as if I'm in third grade, please, Craig.

Uh it is a piece of it.

You're showing assistant states attorney Craig Ingebrett's and the first assistant here at Co-County State Attorney's Office.

Um there it is.

Thank you.

All right, one more time.

Craig Ingebrettz, I'm the first assistant here at the Cook County States attorney's office.

The um the use of the axon is a step.

Um there are so many steps that are currently going on, whether or not it's increasing our training around the software tools that allow us to analyze uh the data, um, incorporating it through Axxon.

The uh technology we use to present the evidence in court.

So it is absolutely a step, but there's quite a long way to go, especially with the amount of personnel that we have to bring on on board to just process and review the extremely large amount of data that's coming in.

So with the support of this budget, what should we be looking for in the coming year which will enhance um this entire effort?

Sorry.

That's for John.

Hold on.

I'm gonna get out of here.

We're waiting for our change.

Um there are so many exciting things happening in forensics, and we need to have the personnel who not only know how to do it and can go into court and do that, but we want them to be training other people on how to do it.

So DNA, ballistics, all of this data tracking.

Cell phones track wherever you are at any given point in time.

I mean, that's a an immense amount of information that we can now present as evidence.

So go ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you, John Horay and Chief Financial Officer.

Commissioner, the um budget request is sort of a builds upon what uh the state's attorney submitted for 2026.

And um we've taken a uh fresh look at how this digital evidence and other forensic evidence is coming in, how it's driving workloads, and have uh I'd say refined uh the position requests.

There's a a lot that's needed in order to support this work.

Um it's it's what it's the fastest growing component of evidence.

And uh, you know, the the sheer hours of video just in two years have grown on average from maybe 50 hours in a homicide case to 150 hours in uh in homicide cases alone.

And so that's reflective of the workload demand on staff, on investigators, on um attorneys.

And so we've taken that into account to try to reflect those needs for that component of the 2027 budget request that probably makes up um a third or more of the positions that we've asked for in the 2027 request.

And we're also building on some of the structural needs that um just the sheer number of courtrooms that need coverage uh still need to be addressed uh to deal with uh those uh structural issues.

Thank you.

Nothing further, Chairman.

Thank you, State's attorney.

Thank you.

Commissioner, I'm sorry, Commissioner Bailey's.

Thanks.

Um Thanks, States Attorney, and and good to speech.

Yeah.

Yes, it's I'm actually younger, but moving on.

The uh uh great to see you, and thanks for all the reports.

Um we worked with your office in the last couple of months on the issue of electronic notices for um for orders of protection, and they were very helpful, and I think we came up with a really uh good outcome, they actually came and testified here.

Um we're trying to actually uh look at what the world gives us now, how technology has evolved to your earlier points on you know, so much of the way you guys do your job has changed based on technology, and we want to take advantage of that for the victims as well as the the prosecution aspect.

So I do want to commend them for being helpful.

We're still working with the the people down in Springfield to see if that can be something that goes in veto session.

But I do um because I know initially you had some concerns but I feel like we found ways to to land the plane um and it only puts us kind of in a better spot than we were before and no worse off than we were so I think that's helpful.

And I also do appreciate your comments on trying to navigate something that is you know is a really huge political and moral concern and the societal concern versus what your obligations are under the law.

And so that's not an easy thing to navigate.

So I appreciate your being thoughtful and I appreciate you taking the extra time to help us understand what those lines are because everyone in the county has a different role to play when it comes to addressing some of these issues that we're dealing with with the federal government.

And very excited to hear about the 90 incoming um people are they mostly from Chicago are they mostly from all over or we are from all over and that's been one of the most gratifying things and I have to give Craig Angerbretz and all the credit on this when uh we are our last bar class I started taking bets the one that started last summer I said average bar passage rate is about 82% in Illinois.

Our bar passage rate previously had been about 60 or 70 percent um so first time you mean first time bar passage rate.

So last summer with our bar class I made a bold prediction that they were going to have a 95% bar passage rate and they did it.

And so this year that it's a hotter ticket this year on who's betting on what so we have a whole uh stream going up I'm at 92 percent so if anybody wants to get in on the pool you're more than welcome but we're at 92.

So we heard from the public defender yesterday who is also I think making strides um a because they're able to to hopefully take over more of their own hiring like you have the ability to do and so that will allow them to move faster which gives them access to better um candidates because those candidates have options and the faster we can move the better off we are um I would love to see and you may already have planned but the opportunity to to bring these classes of young people together many of whom might be new to the city but also are have chosen to go into public service law and have way more in common than they than they don't and so just to kind of build that trust and collegiality as they will work together over the course of time I think it could be a tremendous opportunity to you know whether it's joint trainings or social or whatever but um I'd love to see some connectivity there.

We do have bar taker boot camp starting and that could be a good activity for them.

So I like that idea thanks attorney how are you I'm good how are you commissioned just a couple questions.

First I want to congratulate you on uh managing the budget very well you know eighty million dollar budget and you you have a surplus of 4.4 million in surplus true operational savings that's excellent thank you um but secondly I I want to ask um I was looking over this notes and uh your office still approximately has about a hundred and sixty one vacant positions.

What specific bureaus are experiencing the greatest staffing shortages and and how are those vacancies affecting prosecution times victim services and backlogs commissioner John Horrihan chief financial officer the the numbers are a little um they belie the facts on the ground so about a hundred of the vacant assistant states attorney positions are actually have accepted offers and they are what the state's turning referred to as the 90 plus bar takers starting in August so that's one pool that is when those of that 161 as 90 that's a it's actually closer to 100 because there are some first year lawyers or uh already licensed lawyers who are joining with that class of uh new graduates so it's closer to a hundred uh in August uh will be starting of the other uh positions I believe right now we only have two investigator vacancies um and we may have accepted offers that gets us down to about 55 vacant positions and we I think we have accepted offers or offers pending for close to 20 I think it's close to 20 20 of those remaining positions.

So as we sit here we are driving that number down to as close to or below 30 by the end of August and we expect it'll be there through the end of the fiscal year.

And she said that the number had changed from about 60 some odd percent of uh people who were past the bar to now 90 percent congratulations that's huge.

But what happens if they don't pass the bar we there and go they we previously had a um position that they could retake it.

We had some people that were taking it on their second and third time we didn't have the luxury of that because once they graduate law school they can no longer be seven elevenths.

You can't put them in a courtroom.

So if someone doesn't pass the bar, their offer is contingent on passing the bar.

If they don't pass, they're invited to reapply when they do pass.

And I saw somewhere, I don't remember where I saw it in here, but some of those positions are grant funded.

What happens when that grant runs out?

Are you going to then look for general revenue funds too?

So we do have some grant positions all through the system.

Like there are some, it depends on and where they are in this system.

Um if the grant funding runs out, there's many times that we will try to absorb that into a corporate spot, or um sometimes it's just a terminus at the end of that grant period.

But we have not lost any grants to my knowledge uh this fiscal year.

Or one insignificant one.

There were there was one uh grant that was not renewed.

It was uh the the funding opportunity did not materialize those positions were transferred to the operating budget.

Um otherwise uh there are a couple, I think there were two states attorney positions that have pending renewals that we're uncertain about, so we've transitioned those to the operating budget.

But by and large, um most of the attorney positions that have alternative funding are in appeals and uh child support, and those agreements with uh the state of Illinois were renewed in the current state fiscal year.

Um they there's some nuance to it in terms of the the dollar value, but we've had to transition a couple positions to the operating budget, but otherwise we've been able to sustain the uh the positions through different budget mechanisms.

So most of these grants are state-funded grants or federal funded grants.

The two largest uh alternative funding sources are child support and appeals, those add up to about 17, 18 million dollars a year.

There are uh about 15 or 20 uh federal and state grants that fund uh a variety of positions or services.

Uh those are add up to maybe another seven or eight million dollars of our budget.

So uh we have a sizable pool in terms of number of grants, but the the bulk of the dollars are the appeals and uh child support grant.

Thank you.

What uh measurable public safety outcomes have resulted from the gun crime strategy unit beyond describing just this activities.

Can you provide like data showing changes in the firearm prosecutions, conviction rates or repeat offenders or reduction in violent crimes?

So the gun crime strategy unit um is part of our multi-jurisdiction unit.

So we created a bureau because crime has changed.

It no longer stays neatly confined to city or county borders.

So we need to have the ability to work with different federal agencies, we need to have the ability to work with different uh law enforcement agencies that are not necessarily within Cook County in order to build the cases.

Uh one of the most visible things that um gun crime strategy does is we are part of CGIC, which is the Chicago Gun Intelligence Center, where we are there with CPD, we are there from all law enforcement agencies, are part of the the team that's at CJIC.

They have some capabilities at CJIC, which are pretty remarkable.

They can take a shell casing from a scene and put it into a machine called a NIBAN machine.

That machine can then tell them where else that gun has been utilized, what other crimes.

We've been able to solve several crimes just based on our partnership over there with CJX.

So the gun strategy team is working on bigger gun cases.

If it's a trafficking case, they will probably take that.

But gun crime has been a focus of this office, and it's nuanced.

And the reason why I say that is because we took a very, very uh strong stance on machine gun conversion devices.

Since 2019, we have seen a proliferation of machine gun conversion devices in the city.

Switches, right?

They law enforcement gets upset when I call them switches, so I've trained myself to call them MCDs.

They're MCDs.

So yes.

And it's also part of the Cook County ordinance that is in front of the U.S.

Supreme Court.

So it if you'll indulge me for a minute, I'd like to talk about why this is so important.

Um the machine gun conversion devices enable a gun to be able to shoot off 30 rounds in a second, one second.

Once you see one of these guns fired, it is truly one of the most terrifying things I've ever seen in my life.

They can um pop one of these little plastic MCD devices in there and convert it from something that could shoot five bullets over the course of 10 seconds to this type of carnage machine.

We started seeing mass shootings on a scale that we hadn't seen before in Chicago starting in 2019.

Um I know you all remember that we were seeing every single weekend numbers that we hadn't seen before.

70 people shot, 40 people shot, and we were starting to become immune to seeing those kind of numbers and that type of carnage.

We were setting records every single year for the amount of people shot and the amount of people murdered in Chicago.

So first thing we did when we came in is we started enforcing the assault weapons ban.

These uh switches are banned.

It elevates the class of offense and it elevates the term of sentence.

It's not me saying we need to treat these more seriously.

The law treats them much more seriously.

14 years, right?

Yes, we've had this statute for 14 years.

So it's not just the AR-15s and the AK-47s, it's also these machine gun conversion devices.

Um when a gun is equipped with this type of device, it's very difficult to control.

It just sprays bullets.

It also will have that's when we started seeing people getting shot in their houses, people getting shot in a car.

People who had nothing to do with a dispute were getting swept up in the gunfire.

That's why.

It was because of the use of these types of weapons.

So we had a policy that on day one, if you are caught with this type of weapon or an assault weapon, we will ask for detention and we will ask for jail time.

We do not plead these cases down.

And the reason is because of the the havoc that they wreak on a community.

They are not weapons for self-defense, these are weapons that are utilized to inflict the most amount of carnage possible in the least amount of time.

So that being said, we have treated gun crimes very seriously.

But we also saw a very large pool of people who during the pandemic, the crime rate skyrocketed, they got concerned, they were worried, they bought a gun and they didn't have a fire owner's identification card, a FOID card.

So what they if you do not have a FOID card and you're caught with a regular handgun, I'm not talking about MCDs or assault weapons now, a regular handgun.

Illinois law allows you to have a handgun if you are properly licensed.

If you do not have that license, it's a class four felony.

So, yeah, so which is the least serious class of felony, but it is a felony.

If you are then caught with a gun a second time and you still don't have a fire owner's identification card, it's now a higher class of felony.

And once you're caught with a gun with no FOID card, you could not get a gun.

You could not get a FOID card.

You couldn't get it.

So what we did is we put people in a catch-22.

We haven't solved the problem of why you needed to get a gun in the first place, but now we've put you on a path where you're going to continue to get felony convictions for a licensing regulation.

So what we had to do is we went to Springfield and we got the legislation changed.

That if you are in this program, you can now apply to get a FOID card.

And at the end of the program where we do gun safety training, gun um different types of education around guns, the necessity to keep a gun locked around children.

Once you complete this program, the charges against you are dismissed, and you now get a FOID card.

You are now in compliance with the law.

So what we have done is a very nuanced approach is if you are carrying guns that are going to cause carnage, we are going to ask for detention and jail time.

But if you are an otherwise law-abiding citizen who would have uh qualified for a FOID card, we want to get you in compliance with the law.

That was a really long answer.

That was a long answer, but it was good.

So just recently my colleagues and I were at NACO, and um there was an ATF agent there who uh wanted to show us uh something that's on the street, new, and he pulled out a DeWalt drill case.

I was like, it's just a DeWalt drill case.

But then he shook it and it turned into a machine gun.

I was I was blown away.

I'd never seen anything like that in my life.

It's completely made of plastic.

It can be made on a computer, and uh instantly turns into a machine gun.

I just couldn't imagine that.

And he offered to come to Chicago and wanted to uh speak about it and talk about it.

So I want to work with your office.

Um we have done several things, and and I'd like to offer this to any of the commissioners.

We have done at CPD's um firing range.

ATF has come in and they've done a demonstration of of these types of weapons and why it's so different, why they're so different.

And um, you see an MCD, it looks like a Lego.

It looks like a piece of plastic.

And they can put them on a 3D printer.

They can make as many of them as you want.

So let's say we had a magic wand and we could prevent all 3D printers from making these little Lego things.

Um, then we still have to deal with the issue of they're coming in from China.

So there is a box um that we saw that it looked like an erector set.

It looked like a little car that you make, and they were actually utilizing MCDs to make this little car.

And so it comes in as a box from China.

There's no way to stop these from coming in.

So the only lever we have left is make it uncomfortable for people to have these by treating them as seriously as the law demands.

That's why we I believe that's why we've seen a drop in the crime rates so precipitously, because we've taken the most violent people out of circulation.

That's pretty scary.

It's it is truly I mean, you're putting a lot of pressure on me on the Supreme Court case, but I feel so passionately that we need to get rid of these weapons in our communities.

And if we treat them as seriously as they can, I think we can change attitudes about it.

He told me that these things can be made on a 3D computer by kids, and uh no metal detector will pick them up as they go through a metal detector.

And he said not even the bullets get picked up because the metal detectors don't pick up certain amount of metal inside the the bullets.

So the consequences of this Supreme Court litigation are enormous.

If they strike down any states or counties' ability to regulate these weapons of war, I I I live in fear of the kind of world that we will be looking at.

So I'm I'm sorry to bring everybody down.

So uh just a couple more questions.

Your office has implemented several new victim-centered initiatives.

You talked about the uh Uber and uh uh relocation services and therapy animals and such a thing, transportation assistance.

But how many victims are actually benefiting from these programs and how are you uh measuring their effectiveness?

And that I'm gonna bring my policy wonk on on this one.

Good afternoon, Assistant States Attorney Vatt Loison.

Um we are keeping track of the amount of services that we are providing to our victims um and our witnesses in Cook County.

Uh I don't know if we have those numbers available at this moment for um example with respect to how many have used Uber.

However, um we we oh it is 700.

The state's attorney has the number.

Um, but we can provide that data to you.

Also, as the state's attorney noted, we have created uh a bureau that is specific to our victim witness services, and I think our bureau chief is present here today.

Um that is uh an incredible.

Wait, Kayla.

There you go.

That is um, I think a very important stride for us in the Cook County State's attorney's office because it demonstrates that we are taking our services to our victims and our witnesses so seriously that we've created an entire bureau to meet their needs.

Um lastly, you're requesting additional funding for new case management system.

What is the projected total cost of that uh implement and the implementation timeline for this uh operating system once it's fully deployed?

Uh thank you, Commissioner.

The uh projected total cost is uh in the neighborhood of four million dollars.

Um that's uh approximate amount of the capital request that was submitted for the 2027 budget.

The timeline for implementation uh we think can be comparable to the axon implementation this year, which uh launched June 1st of this year.

So we believe we can be roughly on par with uh the plan that uh was successful with the axon system in 2026.

And um I appreciate that the last question is uh who in your office would uh we speak to about coming out and speaking at different events.

Uh we have an entire community engagement team, and we would love to come out and speak to any group that you want to speak to.

Who is that led by?

Um Monique Shelton.

Monique Shelton.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Commissioner.

All right, Commissioner Deckman.

Oh, you took my over.

I finally got to do my job.

Thank you.

Um, Commissioner Gaynor.

Thank you for being here and for all of the work you do and being steadfast and victim services and in particular around the domestic violence uh work that we've been talking so much about in the past few months.

Um we'll start off with uh questions related to ICE.

So thank you so much for acknowledging the horrendous in your words, behavior by ICE and being vocal today about recognizing that it has created a stark um tension and adversity between the federal government and Cook County and the city of Chicago and our interests um in the justice area.

So we talked a bit about evidence related to ICE actions from the federal government.

Um can you run us through a little bit about the benefits and the challenges of asking for information related to alleged bad actions from the federal government and um how that might lead to either subpoenas, requests for information or lawsuits and the way evidence sharing happens between what your what you would see as a way to pursue legal action in the future and document those things.

Thank you for asking that because I think there's a lot of misinformation out there of exactly how a local prosecutor or a local prosecuting agency can actually uh prosecute a federal agent.

So let's walk through what happens.

Um, an ICE agent uh opens fire on a car.

I'm I'm just using hypothetical now.

I'm not talking about any specific case.

So ICE agent opens fire and kills somebody in a car.

What happens immediately is the federal agents uh wall off that crime scene.

All ballistics are taken by the federal agents, all and it could be a variety of different federal agencies.

It could be Homeland Security, it could be FBI, it could be ATF, it could be Secret Service.

There is a multitude of different agencies.

That entire crime scene is walled off, including the car, including any type of witness statements.

They they go and they take witness statements.

All of that information is held by the federal government.

So in order to do a criminal prosecution, you would need to know the name of the agent.

You would need to know the name of the other agents who are surrounding him, you would need to know uh where the ballistics information is, who fired the weapon, what gun it was.

You would need to know any of uh the witness statements that come forward that the federal government has taken.

The state has an obligation if we're bringing any prosecution at all to tender to the defense each and every report and document that has been generated by federal agents.

If we do not tender every single report, and it emerges 10 years from now that, oh, Homeland Security did uh several reports, and Homeland Security never gave it to the state.

Our charges, our prosecution would be subject to dismissal for failure to give that in discovery.

So what we do is we file TUE letters.

TUE letters are a letter accompanied by a subpoena saying we need all your documents when it goes to a federal agency.

So we would send it to ICE, we would send it to any agency that we thought might have generated reports.

Federal government is not subject to state court subpoenas.

It is solely within their discretion whether they comply with that subpoena or not.

So one, we have to make sure that we get all of that information and evidence before we can proceed.

Okay.

So that's one challenge on it.

Second challenge is uh we don't do investigations.

That is totally with law enforcement.

That is with uh CPD, that is with um the sheriff's office, the Illinois State Police.

So let's say they start doing an investigation.

Well, they want to come and lock down witnesses, people that were in there.

Well, the state's attorney's office can bring them into the grand jury and lock down the witness.

Um the state's attorney's office can generate search warrants for them.

Like you want this certain amount of information.

We can do that.

We can do these two e letters and these requests to federal agencies to comply with those discoveries.

They don't have to do it, but we can start that process.

Um, those are some of the challenges in bringing one.

I'm not saying, nor have I ever said that it is impossible to do.

It is very difficult, but there is a pathway for it.

And if and when law enforcement brings us a case to review for charges, we will not hesitate to bring charges against any federal agent as long as we can meet our burden of proof.

I will not bring charges for political theater.

I will bring charges when we can prove that case.

So that's our that's our position on where we're going with the ICE prosecutions.

But I can't tell you where we're at, but we are actively supporting investigations.

Okay.

Well, that's great to know.

You know, there are benefits, there are challenges.

Um, I think the idea of a two-way letter and really documenting whatever we can right now, at least making that request for posterity to the uh, you know, to the extent that you don't have a lot of information.

That's in another um, that's in another's hands, another organization's hands.

But at least you saying we'd like this information, we demand this information, you not getting that information isn't up to you.

But you know, there are limits to your authority, but within that authority, making sure that you feel like you have documented sufficiently the request for that information is really important as we move forward under a different federal administration that may be more amenable, amenable to those requests.

Um, at least they're not timed out for any statuting limitations or other issues.

So it's really important to me as an attorney to know that we as the county are at least documenting and moving forward to the extent that we can within the limits of our authority.

So two questions that I've asked every other uh separately elected that's come before us are when federal officials uh try to make civil arrests in and around courthouses, how has county coordination looked between your office and all the other offices that um manage these issues?

Again, we would need to have a case brought to us in order to evaluate it for charges.

No, no, no.

I'm just saying, like I'm not saying for charges.

I'm saying so when there is an issue, sometimes from emergency management, uh, our emergency management will send us a memo of what happened, what's going on.

Um, the chief judge will say, Oh, we've heard that these people are at the courthouse make it made an arrest.

The sheriff's office sometimes sends us information about it.

But so between all those different county departments and agencies, how is that cross collaboration going?

Do you feel like there needs to be more?

Could it be consolidated?

How does that happen?

You know, the stakeholders all are we're we're in communication with each other.

Anytime there is an issue in the courthouse or you know, anything from weather-related day delays to electric being down, so any of those types of things, we are sharing information.

So the other question I've asked everybody, and I think it's really important that again from a documentation perspective.

I understand that the federal administration is not going to be amenable to a request for reimbursement today.

But I do think that we need to document how much each of our offices have spent on responding to midway blitz and to these ongoing ICE confrontations.

So, for example, the sheriff's office at Broadview has had significant dollars spent in personnel and attention to that facility.

Um, and the chief judge's office, other offices have then spent a lot of money, the county spent a lot of money trying to protect ourselves, protect our citizens from uh that that conflict.

So I would like to ask your office, and you might not have this dollar amount right now, but I'd like you to kind of accumulate the dollars that you guys have spent on the midway blitz so that we can collate all of those and then eventually ask the federal government for that money back because I do think that we are owed that money back from the federal government, like you said, this is unprecedented.

You know, you should be able to rely on the DOJ.

You should be able to rely on your federal partners with intergovernmental agreements to support your work.

That's how it has always happened.

That's where federal and our state constitutions were established.

That's the way that the Justice Department across all states' attorneys, all district attorneys across the entire country was established.

And the fact that there is so much conflict there, it's just unprecedented.

So I believe that we're in the right.

I believe that we should ask for reimbursement, but I think that we need to make sure that we're documenting all these dollars, commensurate when the time this is happening to make that request, make it again and again until we get some of that money back.

I like the way you think we're gonna keep track.

Thank you.

Um your office has established a relationship with Uber to provide rides for D V D V victims from courthouses.

I was wondering how that program is going, and then if we know how many people have been able to take advantage of it.

We've given 700 rides since January alone, 700.

It's also sad because there's 700 people needing rides.

It was uh really a tremendous program that I have to give Kayla Johnson uh credit on this one, and victim witness came to us and said we can't have people trying to take three buses to get to court to, or even to get to meet with a prosecutor to talk about their trial testimony before a trial.

We can't have that.

This is too hard on these people.

They want to give up and they don't want to continue in the court process.

So um it was such a valuable tool to use for our victims.

So we're we're we're so proud of you, Caleb, for coming up with that.

It was it was really a great program and it's a great service to our victims.

So thank you for implementing it.

Um I want to also thank you for the limiting, as you had mentioned earlier in your um your speech, limiting the Apris contract and that uh vendor from selling victim notification data uh to federal immigration enforcement.

And I was wondering if there was another update about how your office is continuing to work with that vendor on additional contract language that would further restrict data sharing.

I think this is all Don Black.

Don Black, Chief of Staff.

Could you repeat your question?

Sorry, thank you.

I'll skip all the thank you, thank you, thank you.

Thank you.

Um provide an update uh about how your uh office is working with Apris on uh additional or new contract language that would further restrict data sharing beyond what you already have with the victim notification data that you have restricted, they're sharing that with federal immigration enforcement.

Sure.

So State's attorney Burke last year prioritized amending the contract.

So the current contract is amended to prohibit data sharing with ICE explicitly.

We've reached agreement with APRIS in terms of the other federal immigration agencies like DHS and uh custom and border patrol.

Uh that's not gone through the amendment process.

We're working through a third uh agreement with um to limit data sharing entirely.

So that's in negotiations presently.

Okay.

And then how long do you think that would take to just ballpark?

We're hoping to have uh within the month with a resolution with them.

I mean, we're statutorily required to provide these services.

Uh so uh negotiations are on are ongoing with them.

Okay.

We can certainly have an update for you within a month of where we are.

Thank you, Don.

My last question is you know, I think this board knows that a number of us have been very focused on the JTDC and the kids in there and trying to improve their experience.

So I want to thank you for the work that you've done on juvenile pre-child detention in your alternative program.

So I was wondering just how the program is going, um, how you feel like the efficacy of that program is and working with those kids.

And then is that grant funded or will that be funded from the budget again in FY27?

So if I could talk a little bit about what the program is.

The juvenile detention alternative program is a program that we implemented for cases where we would normally be asking for detention on a juvenile.

Uh, the only two crimes that are not included in this program are murder and sexual assault, and that's because the service providers can't handle those types of issues that emerge from that.

But what we do is they go to school and they get checked in at school, we get a report from CPS on their school attendance.

The vast majority of juveniles get arrested between 3:30 and 10 o'clock at night.

That's when we're gonna keep them busy.

So at 3 30, they go to either New Life uh Christian Center on uh in Lawndale or Firehouse Arts Council in Little Village, and they have different programming, they have learning enrichment, job training, computers, uh they do cognitive behavioral therapy.

Um, and I think we can all acknowledge that a child who is sticking a gun in someone's face is probably having some mental issues, and we either address it now or we will be addressing it in the adult system.

So, what this program does is it tries to get them back on track by seeing what's going on with them and making sure that they have people in their lives that are keeping them on track.

So uh we've started with one courtroom, it's a pilot program.

Uh we now are hopeful that we can start expanding the program, but the expansion of the program requires us to find new service providers that are also willing to do it.

So um we were launching this program at the same time that uh private philanthropy funding was seeming dry was drying up uh everywhere because there was so much need because the federal grants were being cut.

But in spite of that, and I'm gonna give uh loisen some credit on this one.

She shook every single tree there was in the philanthropic world, and we got funding from the Stains Family Foundation to start this and see if it works.

Let's see if it works.

And so far it's been working great.

And how many kids have gone through?

We're up to 10 kids now.

So we're we're going to continue to expand.

So we're I'm really hopeful about this program.

I I really think this has the potential to change the way we approach juvenile detention.

And if we can intervene before a kid is is into the adult system, we're doing our job.

And they have done all kinds of studies about the impact of incarceration on youth.

It is horribly, horribly detrimental to the brain development to every type of development worker that they have.

So we got to figure out a way to do this better.

And we had other programs, but the other programs were all post-adjudication.

That could be two years down the road.

This is right when the crisis happens, we get them into this program and we get people with them from the jump.

So is there the foundation dollars that you were talking about?

Well, is that year by year?

Will that be extended?

Are there other ways that we can seek more money to get more kids into this program?

Like how it's so we wanted to we wanted to take a look at what the efficacy was first.

And it seems like it seems like I'm I'm cautiously very optimistic that this is a path forward.

So I'm sorry, and now chalk money.

Thank you.

Uh the uh program launched in the spring of this year.

So we're in the process of extending the contracts with the two providers to cover the entirety of the next school year to get us to uh 2627.

2627.

Um so those are in the works.

Um there's also efforts to uh see if there's additional uh funding uh from the Steens Family Foundation or other sources uh to help support the is it only during the school year or does it happen in the summer too?

Uh it happens year uh year round, but it is um primarily uh designed around the the schedule as I understand is designed around the school day during the school year.

Um the uh chapin hall is going to provide us with uh an evaluation and recommendations at the end of this calendar year regarding this initial phase that'll help inform where do we go next um as we see what works and what doesn't.

It's not a big amount.

It just seems like you know, such a good use of dollars, right?

And if the kids are not ending up in the adult system, then it obviously it's better for everybody financially, it's better because you know you don't want anybody in the system, but also like the the priority is keeping people crime free and the the hospital.

Don't get me started on detention for kids.

We could be here all day.

So and and for that same cost, we could get 30 to 40 kids in a program like this, which is much more likely to have a successful outcome than a detention would.

So all day long.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, uh, Chair Daly.

Those were all my questions.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, State Attorney uh and everyone here.

Um I like to start off by thanking them uh everybody that comes before us for their patience.

Sometimes we run uh late, so I appreciate um you all's patience and answering a lot of our questions.

Um just piggybacking off of the last question.

Was the uh is this program the the IGA um those done with the JC and your office?

No, I believe that we go ahead.

Yes.

Um thank you.

Uh it was uh the subject of that uh uh intergovernmental agreement was connected to the detention alternative program.

Okay.

Um the the cost of the program in these initial months has not been what we thought it would be.

Um in the In what sense?

It's been much less expensive.

There have been fewer uh youth coming into the program in these early months.

So we've had much more runway with the private foundation funding and with our is that why it was the IGA was terminated?

Yes, we we weren't gonna be able to use the money uh effectively and predictably.

We just don't see the costs ramping up to uh where we thought it might be, you know, six, seven months in.

So we worked with the JAC to say, you know what, you can if you can use your money better elsewhere, please do so.

We can absorb this in our budget right now, um, and that seems feasible.

Okay.

And then is there any um thoughts down the line if it does get bigger to your to your point, state attorney, um, of expanding these types of services?

Is that something that you all are hoping to initiate again on with the Justice Advisory Council?

I think we would look for their partnership or sort of the the future state might involve um the chief judge's office or the the more appropriate long-term sort of larger scale um project um probably doesn't fit within the state's attorney's office uh primary work, but we're here to pilot it and learn from it, and then we hope someone can see the efficacy of it and we'll all see that, and then we can uh see how it uh it evolves.

Okay, perfect.

Um back to the APRIS contract.

I also want to, you know, thank you, John, for working with us and also advocacy groups and figuring out what the solutions are moving forward, and of course, thanks, Don.

I can't really see it from over here, but thank you as well.

Um so I have a question.

I know that the contract was gonna be up, it was gonna uh be finished, and we were looking at an RFP process with already implementing the safe safeguardrails within the RFP process.

I just don't know if there's a status on that component.

Yes, so the RFP is in process, so it's in the queue with procurement, and we've been working with them on moving that um forward.

I don't think it's been published yet.

I I could be wrong about that.

Um and in the meantime uh what Don referred to in terms of the ongoing negotiations is uh an amendment to the existing to the current one agreement.

Would you remind me it ends at in October of this year?

I believe it's September 30th or maybe it's the end of October.

Um extend it long enough to allow the RFP plus process to play itself out so that we uh can maintain coverage because if you could just keep me updated on when it becomes public.

I just want to make sure that we're following along through the process.

You all have been great partners in communicating with us, um, also hearing um you know some of our concerns.

Um so I just want to make sure that we're moving along.

Um just because last year when it came up for um extension, we were told that we were gonna start that process.

So I I know that there's been a lot of work being done on at the front end to get the RFP in a place where folks feel comfortable that it it fulfills the the duty of what this uh uh contract is supposed to be doing in protecting um you know um uh survivors, but also ensuring that uh there's no unintended consequences with the contract.

So if you could keep us updated, that'd be great.

Um so a quick question regarding uh regarding the detention dashboard online.

Um so just wondering, you know, what ex the zip code component and whether that is uh the zip code of the residents or whether the that uh reflects the incident or the location of the incident.

We're all looking at each other right now.

Yeah, Don Black, Chief of Staff.

I don't know, but I'll get back to you.

Okay, sounds good.

Yeah, and then the second follow-up to that one is you know what additional information you all are gonna be putting in there.

Uh specifically um uh just given uh again a lot of the conversations we've had with the task force on um uh domestic violence, whether that is something that we're hoping all of the dashboards kind of work along with each other.

Um we talked to the clerk's office yesterday about orders of protection and in the their dashboard and and how to expand the information.

We uh truly believe that the more information that we get about some of these things, um it better helps us associate where the resources go as well in the support system.

So this specific uh detention um dashboard uh could be related to domestic violence, it's related to a lot of other things.

So being informed about that um can be extremely helpful through our lens.

And I'm very hopeful that once we get our case management system in, we will be able to see different types of things.

So for example, the office of the chief judge and the clerk's office, we will get a number of people charged with sex crimes.

Well, sex crimes has a lot of variation.

It could be aggravated predatory assault of a child, or it could be somebody grabbing somebody on the street.

Like there's you're going everything from class X to you know, uh uh class A misdemeanor.

So I would like to be able to see the nuances in charges and crimes and detentions and those types of things.

So perfect.

Um clarifying question regarding the vacancies in the presentation.

I think um it was mentioned that there's zero vacancies.

Um on this document, it says that there's a hundred and sixty point nine, but it could be just a timing thing since the reporting was in May.

So I just wanted to verify that that was the case.

That's the case, yes.

So the number of vacancies at the time the report was run was around 160.

But the uh ASA positions, all those vacancies have accepted offers.

Um our bar takings are about a hundred coming into that class in August.

So that's a hundred of those positions.

And those are the ones that you all are talking about in like August after so far.

Okay.

Um next question regarding um your bureau for victim witness.

Um so explain.

So I'm still trying to uh figure if the bureau and the unit are working together, are they separate?

Are they the same thing?

I just want to verify victim witness was always just kind of an adjunct to the trial division.

But we have really utilized a team approach that our investigators, our admins, and our victim witness are all part of the team with our attorneys.

And and the more we work as a team, the better it is for the victims, the better it is for our cases.

So in order to make sure that they are the same level as the rest of the team, we brought victim witness into a bureau of their own.

Okay.

So that allows them to have the equal time at the table for our exact meetings.

We all we collaborate on initiatives together.

Like, where are we going here?

And then we also have their voices at the table when we want to start something new, like the domestic violence homicide unit.

Are we going to need to dedicate a victim witness person to that?

Are we going to need to dedicate an admin to it?

Are we going to put an investigator in there?

Same way that we approached any time we revamp something.

Well, now we're all at the table and we're all figuring out how that team is going to plug in to that new initiative.

So it's it's really been an efficiency for us.

And it seems like an upgrade of sorts to the unit.

And I want them to know that you're an admin here, you're still a member of the team.

You're still part of our mission to uphold the law.

That's every single person who works in this office is part of that mission.

And so to send that message loud and clear, we made them a bureau.

Okay.

And can you walk us through the success of doing just what you just explained?

So uh the admin bureau and the victim services bureau are brand spanking new.

We're within the last two months.

And I have to say that um Angel, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it means something to the people who are in that bureau, and it sure means something to the people who are working with them.

So the Legal Resources Bureau is also new, and that's where all our science evidence is.

So that includes investigators, admin.

It includes a lot of different people that are in different teams, but they're all in that bureau.

So it helps us to make sure, like, okay, are we getting stuck on some uh admin thing?

Are we getting backed up on certain types of subpoenas?

Are we getting backed up on opening case files?

Well, then we can work together and figure out like, okay, we need to do two more admins in this unit, otherwise we're gonna continue to see this kind of thing.

So it's all about creating efficiencies throughout the office.

And I think that's what having them as a bureau and having them as part of the team, not only does it help morale, but I think it really helps us be better as a team.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Um so one of the things that has been brought up a few times is the Uber uh partnership.

Um, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it it essentially not only facilitates the individuals their access, but it creates a layer of safety, in my opinion.

Absolutely.

Um you're not having to, you know, travel um or put yourself in a position where you're putting yourself against maybe the other the defendant, whatever the case may be.

You're not standing there waiting for a bus to go testify against the and leaving court, you know, that that mechanism as well.

So I I have seen the unit um inside where it stands right now in uh 26 and Cal and the mechanism of individuals having to go to the courtrooms, et cetera.

Um have you looked at other uh components of safety within the courthouses for witnesses, for victims?

Um, and then is this something that you can kind of share?

I know some things may not you can't share uh completely because again, safety.

Um but uh I I I am a little concerned about uh a certain time that I saw something I could talk to you offline.

Um in regards to again making sure that folks feel safe when they're there so that they're not encountering people that maybe um will identify them later.

Um that's one of the reasons why you can't record inside the courthouses, right?

There's well, there's certain things like that.

Um so um that and then the second part to that question is um have you already initiated conversations with like the Bureau of Asset Management or any of that in regards to actual physical safety component to um to our um witnesses or victims.

So one of the um successes that we had this year was you are correct that you cannot record in a courthouse.

Um, but that was only by chief judge order.

It was not a statute, it was not so what was happening is especially in domestic violence.

This is where the the issue was rearing its head at 26th Street, you have to lock up your phones when you come into the building.

So it wasn't happening at 26th Street very much, but domestic violence, it was happening all the time.

Victims were getting videotaped, witnesses were getting videotaped by people, and it was only a court order saying you can't do that.

Well, court order doesn't have any teeth.

So the sheriff's office were reluctant to go up to people because then they were subjected to liability if it was you know, in if they resisted or whatever, there was no consequence to what they could do.

So we championed legislation which said this is a crime for you to come into a courthouse and to be taping a victim or a witness is a class A misdemeanor now.

So now the sheriff's office has the teeth that they need.

People can be arrested for doing this, their phones can be seized.

It that could not happen with just a court order.

What the ramification is on a court order is somebody violates a court order, you can go through a contempt proceeding.

I can tell you this every judge goes through like a two-hour class on how to do a contempt proceeding.

None of us know how to do it.

I mean, it is a very complicated proceeding.

Uh nine judges out of ten will never go through a contempt proceeding.

So having that as the consequence for it was a no consequence.

So now we have a tool.

Now we have something that we can say you cannot do this, and we can seize your phone because you did it.

So that's one thing for safety that we had to do with our victims.

Another thing for safety is we do make our investigators available for people who are particularly threatened that they can be escorted in by our investigators.

We're armed, and that is a benefit to them.

But that's all coordinated through our victim services people.

Getting this grant for victim relocation has been a significant uh uh win as well because people will not testify against somebody if they are living down the street to them, and you they they don't have the money to move and get a new security deposit and to do all those things that would take them out of harm's way.

This grant can help them do that.

Yeah.

Um, and the component, I think like the other um part of of that question, um, because I understand obviously I've done a lot of work with survivors of domestic violence um and gender-based violence.

Um the other uh I think um issue that has been brought up to my attention is what happens if somebody is trying to record you met you mentioned um in previous um responses about um how to document ice agents.

We've seen that they're coming into the courthouses potentially um, you know, knock on wood, nothing happens.

But what is that other side to the coin of you know accessing recordings and ensuring that people exercise their first uh amendment right?

So it seems like there is this line, and we're trying to, you know, also figure out how to guide um you know, uh some of rapid response, but also just to allow people to safely feel that they're they're going to the courthouses.

I often say I've said it to all the other stakeholders.

Um my priority, especially as a as a county commissioner is that we do everything in our power to work with our stakeholders to ensure safe safe access to our courthouses because of you know that they a lot of times they are victims uh or witnesses, and they're extremely crucial to to to the system.

So I think um for us, you know, finding that out.

I'm willing, you know, obviously to to chat with you about this because I think this is something that a lot of folks are trying to figure out, you know, the the um and I won't even say just like advocates, but internally we're trying to figure out how to manage that because we want to keep people safe.

We don't want to put them in harm's way.

Um, but also unfortunately, you have federal agents that are you know uh perpetrating the the harm as well.

And this is one of the biggest issues with ICE as far as our prosecutor's office.

When ICE began their initiative, we started to see victims and witnesses very reluctant to come to court.

If our victims cannot come to court or will not come to court, we have to dismiss the charges against people, sometimes very violent predators, and we don't have a choice.

We have to dismiss those charges.

So what we want to do is we have been one of the major sponsors of U visas.

U visas are if somebody is a victim or a witness in a crime, they can get a visa which allows them to stay here.

We're we're we had a 300% increase in those requests, and we will continue to make sure that we make those available.

So that's one thing.

One of the other things is that we will when someone is afraid to come if to ICE, we can do trial prep via Zoom.

We can do a status call via Zoom.

But there are certain points in a criminal prosecution where we need them in court.

So we will do everything we can to make sure that they feel safe to come to court and that they have the ability to get to court.

So yeah, and that that's important.

I think that's a been a part of discussion also with this body during mid-year um uh talking about like access to virtual appearance and what that really looks like.

And you know, we heard from you folks in your team that there may not be a like an overall kind of protocol that needs to be put in place, but taken into consideration, you know, each and every case.

Right.

Um, and I think that that's something again would love to kind of chat through a little bit more as well because of the fear and because of the fact that there are these instances in which people do not feel like they can access and they may try, you know, drop you all may have to drop charges on very serious things, and that's it's extremely concerning because if we want to continue to ensure that um there is safety all around the community, there needs to be also protection for the the folks that are seeking that justice.

Um really quickly, you mentioned that was going to be my follow-up question, the U visa's component.

So can you uh remind me what is the time lapse for the uh I uh 918 B certification letter that needs to come from your your office?

I know when somebody uh and and I'm talking particularly from when the uh they are um victims of a crime to when there might be a statute where that's the end uh that they can ask for those.

You know what?

That's a very specific question, and I want to make sure you get the absolute right answer on that.

So let me follow up with you on the Okay, okay.

I just want to do it.

Because if you're encouraging people, you can get this UV so well, what does that mean?

How long is that for the Yeah?

And I don't want to send folks over if it's been after a certain time and they don't qualify for it.

Right.

Um, okay.

Um you mentioned the two E letters.

Um how many of those TUI letters have been sent out by our pending investigation?

Sounds okay.

Um to my final set of questions.

This is in regards to um something that we were hearing regarding individuals being deported, um, but your office still requesting their appearance in court.

Um so there's obviously a complication with an individual being here if they're not physically in the area and whether that um further maybe uh criminalizes that individual for not showing up to court, although the circumstances are out of their control because again, they're not physically here.

So is there any um conversations happening regarding that?

What are the next steps?

And if people find themselves in those situations, what are the steps in order for them to be um in communication with you all and to be to be able to notify you guys?

So if somebody is on electronic monitoring or released um pending trial, and they are picked up by ICE and they are not in court when the court date comes, the normal process is a warrant issues.

So the reason for that is when someone is released from ICE custody or whoever, there needs to be a mechanism to bring them back in front of the court rather than just release out in the public.

We there's a criminal uh prosecution happening.

So all that does is it brings them back into court, they explain here's my paperwork.

ICE took me, and they can most of the time the judge would just put them right back on electronic monitoring.

It wasn't a violation of their pretrial conditions, it was they were removed and they couldn't make it to court.

So um it's what about in cases that they're in ICE custody and their monitor is taken off by it would be the same thing.

I mean, it would be a warrant would issue if they don't show up or if their violation is filed based on electronic monitoring, it would be the same thing as soon as they come in front of the court, they show the ICE paperwork and they're okay.

So um, in order um so I think that the thing that I would like to work with your offices on how to be able to kind of explain that um because I could see how their people may if they are they feel like they're getting double.

Yeah, but but even beyond that, um, I think it's not knowing that they have to do something or follow up because they're in this other circumstance that is so um uh life changing.

Yeah, right.

Like they if they if they are deported and if there is any way of them maybe, you know, ICE decides to let them go and then they end up being able to get some type of permit to come back to the country.

I'm worried about what that means afterwards, right?

Like and and whether there is a second layer to it.

Um, but if there is a process in which they were to explain and kind of clear the air of what is happening and whether they have an attorney or not, like finding what that process looks like is extremely helpful for us to be able to communicate with immigration advocates and other folks that are kind of involved on that other tail end.

Um so I think just like being able to be on the everybody on the same page of what that process looks like, so that there is not that second layer.

Um now they they again they may qualify for something else um in regarding their immigration status, but then because of this, they're not really sure if it will impact them.

So I think I would like to work with your office on on that uh component, because I think it's one thing I forgot victim services has generated a um one pager on know your rights for uh immigrants.

It has a bevy of resources and information in there, has a QR code that they can get more information on it.

It's in Spanish and English, and uh we can make that available for you.

Yeah, perfect.

Thank you.

Um two final questions.

So one um just given that your office relies on local and state police agencies to conduct the the investigations.

You talked about that briefly in regards to what that really looks like.

You laid out um a plan.

Um I uh and so that that's there.

Um I think uh I'm trying to figure out like what the involvement of your office is to be working with law enforcement to compel them to actually uh look into things, um, um, and whether that is something that you all are looking into to ensure that law enforcement has everything that they need from your end, and they don't necessarily feel like um they cannot bring charges your way.

Um, and that's kind of like a long question.

But essentially, what is the what is the way besides having that that laid out, what are what initial steps are are we taking as a county, particularly within your office to ensure the law enforcement has everything that they need to feel like they can move forward?

Uh once they begin an investigation, we're in constant communication.

Okay, so as soon as that is initiated, um when they're asking for assistance.

Okay, so they in the grand jury.

They have to be the one to initiate.

Yes.

Okay.

Um, so it's not like your office initiates any type of conversations, even if you are aware that there is an investigation.

Correct.

Okay.

Um and can we yes, whatever?

This is a this is a yes or no answer, hopefully.

Um, my final question is in regards to you mentioned in your presentation the impact on um the immigrant community, the Latino community of some of the actions under midway blitz and beyond.

Um are there um, you know, any um uh conversations regarding developing a meeting with stakeholders, Latino stakeholders, um, a working group of sorts that that can be created.

I think the important part of moving any solutions forward is to talk to folks um uh that are leaders that are understand, you know, uh the community uh potential frustration, et cetera.

And if there if there are talks in regards to that, you know, what what are those next steps as well?

So two things.

One is we did create an internal task force, and we have people on that task force in every single unit that could potentially touch any ICE prosecution, the multi-jurisdiction unit, the juvenile court, um domestic violence, uh, the felony trial division, felony review, and the law enforcement accountability uh law enforcement review unit.

Um they have all collaborated and sat down and gone through like okay, what is it that what are next steps if a prosecution comes our way?

How do we best address it?

So having all of those different units on that task force really helps us to be sure that we can respond in a timely fashion and be as helpful as possible when we're ready to go.

Um that was the first part, and then I had a second part and now I can't remember what it was.

And the second part was you're gonna tell me.

Um but I'll get back to it.

If there's any questions I didn't answer, please just reach out to oh um talking to stakeholders.

Yes, we are more than amenable to talking about um issues that impact whatever community we meet with community members all the time, and we'll continue to do that.

Thank you, Chairman, and thank you as well, madam states attorney.

Um most of my questions fortunately have already been answered.

Right.

Uh just uh uh couple uh I I still have uh when it comes, you know, you mentioned uh uh uh in regards to Commissioner Dugman's questions, um, you know, it's hard when prosecution might be warranted.

Um if the federal government is not being transparent and sharing information about you know, say the potential ICE agents' identity.

Um is there a process currently put in place at the state's attorney's office to track uh those situations where we're not receiving uh transparent information from the federal government so that when hopefully we have a federal government that is more communicative, uh uh that we could go back and potentially find out those individuals' identities and see if we can move those uh cases forward.

Yes, uh we document everything, everything that we do and every prosecution that we are looking at, we document everything.

Fantastic.

And so, you know, when when there are shifts at the federal level, hopefully uh um, you know justice might not be able to uh begin moving uh its path forward now, but maybe in the future.

So that's good to hear.

Uh uh, and then in terms of um the new the Ubers are are those only for uh victims?

Uh does that are victims?

Okay.

Victims of crimes.

Do we have anything similar for like witnesses or I I believe that it oh we do?

Yes, we do.

Oh, fantastic.

Okay, perfect, perfect.

Thank you so much.

No, those are my questions.

Thank you, and glad to hear uh all the updates from your office.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman.

And thank you for the great presentation and all the things that you've implemented in a short period of time.

I also wanted to personally commend and thank your team for being such an integral part of the domestic violence task force always showing up and always providing input and looking for ways to even improve the things that you've already improved upon.

So I think these are good call out.

So thank you.

And I think some of them are here today.

I can't see everybody, but thank you for everybody who did that.

Yeah.

So she's been doing a tremendous job.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

Um for the victim services that you've just recreated or created to get more um programs for the relocation services.

Do we have or will you have any additional input as to where those services are put, like where the locations are going to be?

I know we have such a issue in the South Suburban area that I wanted to see if there was any specific emphasis put on geography, or right now you're just getting it established.

I'm gonna see if Ann can signal.

Do we have geography input on our relocation?

No.

Oh, we do.

Assistant states attorney that way is on.

Good afternoon, Commissioner.

Hi.

Yes.

Uh we have a policy that we have put together internally within our office.

We do not limit uh where people can be relocated geographically, except for um there's one condition that we place on it.

Our policy requires that we relocate people within um at least 10 miles from their current location, but there is a caveat for us to make an exception there.

Here's the rationale behind it.

A lot of times, if we have um a person who's coming in to testify, can you hear yes?

Um a lot of times if we have a person who's coming in to testify and they do want a a permanent relocation and there are serious concerns about their safety, we want to make sure that we are relocating them a sufficient distance away from where they currently live that we are actually protecting them.

However, we do recognize that in the domestic violence space in particular, a relocation of 10 miles could uproot a family.

It could require a change in schools, it could require a change in child care.

So when those circumstances are at play, there is um a caveat written into our policy that permits us to consider those special circumstances and make an exception to the policy if necessary with various levels of supervisory approval.

Another well thought out plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, and then with the uh other goal of your to promote the safe public trade.

I think many of my colleagues also asked about the Uber, which is fantastic.

But um, you have your own regional task force.

Will you be able to, and I don't know how this will work with the new NITA board?

This might be something that you can um take your task force to the Nita board and give them input on how this is something maybe they could implement across the entire system.

Have has have you had conversations like that yet?

So our TTF is the regional transit task force that we formed, and it has every single law enforcement agency, it has Metro PACE, CTA, um, CBD, all transit, anybody who touches transit in the law enforcement sphere is on this task force.

And the reason why we did that is because we kept seeing CTA crime increasing, and we were not seeing a decrease.

We saw decrease in every single category of violent crime except domestic violence and CTA crime.

So we formed the task force in order to be able to start right now.

I did not want to wait until Nina, they haven't even formed yet.

And we haven't heard anything about meetings.

I don't even know if the prosecutors are going to be included on their transit association or whatever it's called.

So this was something that we had to do immediately.

And I have to tell you that our first meeting, which brought everybody into the room together, it was outstanding.

Everybody started sharing information and sharing different technologies and sharing different things that they're seeing.

And if we can start to see trend lines, we can get ahead of it.

And so now we're tracking every single CTA crime.

I get every single morning, I get every felony that happened on the CTA.

And it's not just the passengers, it's the bus drivers and it's the train operators who are getting victimized on a daily basis.

So any attention that we get, I welcome as many task forces as possible because that means it's getting more attention.

And the more attention it gets, the better we're gonna make the system.

And we are seeing a downward trend line.

We're seeing a 30% drop in violent crime on public transit since January.

So but commissioner, I just want to add that we do have um representatives from the Cook County Sheriff's Department on our RTTF task force, which is an important connection to that NITA component that you mentioned.

Um, given that statutorily the sheriff's department is required to create that task force.

And then secondarily, we have had a um a meeting with a representative from NETA to let them know what the nature of our task force is and exactly the kind of work that we are um looking to accomplish there.

I think the big distinction that we made is that our task force is designed to number one get collaboration with prosecutors' offices, various law enforcement entities, and then the public transit um community, and then secondarily, it's to make sure that we are in position to strengthen any prosecutions that we bring forward and ensure that we can meet our discovery obligations appropriately, that we're gathering video, we're gathering technological evidence, our state's attorneys know what that evidence is and what they should be requesting, etc.

So the statutory um the statutory intent of that NITA task force is is a little bit different than ours, but the through line is with the participation in the Cook County Sheriff's Department in both of those task forces.

So that is definitely something that the sheriff will know to pull through into the NITA board.

I believe so because we do have um excellent sheriff representation at all of our meetings.

They come, they're present, and they participate.

Well, I just love to make sure.

I mean, you guys have already done the work that you hold them accountable to make sure that they are pulling that through into the NITA board.

I mean, like you said, they're information.

And if this is already something that's working and has a place in it already, that'd be great to pull that through, and not just for CTA only for the suburban components too.

I mean, it could be duplicated, whatever you've already started there, could be duplicated in the suburban areas on PACE and on Metra as well.

So I I think that sounds great.

Um, thank you.

And so this my last point.

I just want to thank you again because as someone who uh I had a family member have a state's attorney who was most excellent and has followed through on every level of the case so far.

And so I think your training program will really guide the work that goes forward, especially for victims of any sort of domestic violence.

So I just want to thank you for being very intentional on the training part of it and how that's gonna help people who are involved in the court system.

So thank you for that.

Especially in the domestic violence sphere, which you have been such a forerunner on that, and I do appreciate all your work in there.

Um, especially in that space, the training has become so invaluable because it's a different type of prosecution.

It's a trauma-informed prosecution that we need to make sure that we are not re-traumatizing our victims when we're bringing them through the court system.

Yes, and that that has been such a vital component of what we're trying to do in the special victims bureau.

So yeah, yeah.

Thank you.

Nothing further, Chairman.

Sure.

Thank you, Chairman.

And um sorry, oh Neil, thank you for being here.

Um I think most of my questions we ask you because I was going to ask you about the uh your public safety transit system and you uh obviously included the suburb, so thank you for that.

Uh what's the cost of that?

Of the regional transit task force, nothing.

Okay.

Oh, good, good.

And I just appreciate you working with the sheriffs and making sure our residents are safe.

Uh my next one is obviously what I you mentioned that you cannot I mean we should hold federal government accountable.

I think everybody agrees with that, especially the treatment of our residents.

Um but you cannot file a charges against I unless law enforcement charges them first.

You cannot investigate them.

It's it's law enforcement brings us a case.

It's called felony review.

This is how our process works.

So once they bring us a case, we then evaluate the case to determine.

So a prosecutor's burden is beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have to evaluate that case to see if we can meet our burden of proof.

So we might say to them, well, you need to go back and get these three statements, or you need to go back and get this video evidence or whatever it is that's going to make that case good enough that we can meet our burden of proof, or we believe we'll be able to meet our burden of proof.

So that it's a two-step process.

So law enforcement does the investigation, we can support that investigation, but we do not do the investigation, and we do not bring cases to ourselves to evaluate.

Then once that case is brought to us, then we evaluate it, and then we determine what charges are appropriate.

Okay.

Now, if if a resident files charges, is that what's the it would still go through law enforcement?

It would still go through their local police agency.

Okay.

All right, so it's clarification.

That's just the next thing you just want to appreciate your statement that you did, you know, regarding the incidence of vice.

So um thank you for that.

This is a dark period in our history.

And I think we all have to acknowledge that it is a dark period in our history, and we are all um going to do whatever we can in order to make sure we get through this period.

It's obvious we're a target.

I mean, it's you can't be blunt more blunt than that.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you.

Um uh for being here.

Uh and uh I just have a couple of follow-up questions, and actually one that just uh occurred to me uh from Commissioner Aguilar's comments, and that is you you talked about the barriers that you have in terms of getting you and I'm not a lawyer, so excuse me.

Um is law enforcement in their investigative activities if they're pursuing this, and I believe that in some of the cases that we've heard about there are now investigations going on.

They're running into the same barriers, correct?

Some of them, yes.

Um of them we have surprisingly gotten some cooperation.

Um, but the the question is is it exhaustive?

Because that's the standard we're held to.

So we are going to continue to push and make sure that we're getting everything we need to get to make sure the worst possible thing would be to bring a prosecution and have it dismissed.

That would be the worst possible thing that could happen.

We're gonna make sure that doesn't happen.

Um is there a statute of limitations that would apply for something like and again, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm really it's it's basically can the federal government drag its feet long enough to make this.

They will.

Um they will, but the statute of limitations is normally seven years.

We should have time.

Hopefully.

Um changing the subject.

Uh you also talked a little bit about this program with um people who are caught with with weapons for which they don't have a FOID card.

It's not the case where they've got the the extended magazine or the right.

Um and that they they can go through the training and then if they complete the training and get the FOIA card, the the case is dismissed.

When those cases are reported out, I know that when I when I occasionally look at some of the statistics that we have in terms of uh, you know, who is being put out on electronic monitoring, uh, who is being held in county jail.

Um I'm curious as to how the participants in this program are recorded or treated during the if you are a participant in this program, we have not asked for detention.

So it's it's a class four regulation issue.

You don't present a danger to the community.

The only time we ask for detention is if somebody presents a danger to the community.

In statistics, though, that are reported out, this is still recorded as a as a as a case involving a firearm, correct?

Correct, but it's a different class.

So you they I don't think they're reported in the same category, but if they are, you're right, that's a that's a flaw in the system.

And uh w what percentage of the I want to say just gun gun crimes or whatever that your your office deals with.

What percentage fall into this category?

You know what?

I want to make sure that's an accurate statistic.

So let me get back to you and we'll follow up with your office and make sure you get that.

Great, thank you.

Changing the subject again.

Um going back to your discussion about your hiring of the personnel and the tr uh the attorneys that you've added.

Um one of the things that I have heard from your predecessor and also from my former chief of staff is is about ancillary staff in the state's attorney's office, and that um it's a little bit top, it had been a little bit top heavy, and that in order to get the most productivity out of the staff that you've got um that there you know there's room for uh improvement in terms, or at least there used to be room for improvement for by hiring you know paralegals and and administrative staff.

I'm just wondering how all of that fits in with the hiring that your office has done in the past year.

I'm gonna turn it over to John.

But paralegals are a very hot commodity.

I will tell you that.

Every single bureau wants paralegals, and um we're we're responding as well as we can.

But having a fully staffed courtroom, uh paralegal cannot step up in front of the bench.

There is we cannot underestimate that we had to have in a felony courtroom three attorneys in that courtroom.

Um a paralegal can help them get through their caseload and make sure that we're getting all of the discovery that we need and get it tendered to the other side, but uh they cannot replace an attorney.

So um now that we are fully sta and now I'm gonna turn it over to you.

Uh thank you, John Horrihan, Chief Financial Officer.

Commissioner, the um when we presented the budget request uh last summer for 2026, uh we described what amounts to a three to four year um plan.

Um we estimated at that time the office could use as many as 380 new uh positions.

Uh we continued down that path and the 2027 request uh and within that 380 was about 50 paralegal positions.

Um the 2027 request includes 16 positions for paralegals.

Um it also includes um more specialized uh support staff positions that are non-attorney positions for uh the digital forensics and other types of work that uh requires specialized training.

Um so we're looking at those uh needs and making those specific requests while at the same time continuing to build the base to replenish the ranks of uh attorneys because we do see where there are continued gaps in our ability to uh to have enough trial attorneys to have enough attorneys for some of those um structural needs where we just have you know a certain number of courtrooms that need to be covered.

So we're making the next move in that process in terms of what we presented for the 2027 request.

Um and we hope to continue on that path uh so that we can show uh the results uh for example what the state's attorney referred to uh by bringing uh more attorneys to bear on workers' comp cases, we've lessened the reliance on outside counsel.

That had a net savings to the county, probably in excess of a half a million dollars a year, and that's ongoing.

That's something that uh doesn't uh evaporate with one year's activity.

Those are all the questions I have.

Thank you.

Oh, thank you, Chair, and thank you, States Attorney.

I know Commissioner Stamps had questions, but okay, perfect.

Um a couple of things.

You answered the majority of my questions specifically regarding um restorative justice centers.

Do you think we're going to begin to see an uptick in referrals or recommendations for that?

So uh we have created um multiple pathways into the RJCCs.

The gun program that I talked about, we are using the RJCCs for that gun program.

Um we uh it is not uh on our end of the house.

We can make the referrals, and if the defense doesn't accept that, then they will not go into an RJCC.

So they are definitely being underutilized at this point, but uh we're gonna continue to try to find other types of programs that are appropriate for the RJCCs, but we are making quite a few referrals into the RJCCs.

So thank you for that.

And then we and one idea that we had is to start utilizing them for misdemeanors.

And uh I think that would be a very good use of RJCCs, and I think it would be um perhaps more palatable for the defense if they're bringing them into the RJCC courtroom.

So we're gonna continue to push.

I would love to work with you on that.

Definitely.

And then with regard to um EM, are we seeing levels?

Is there more recidivism because of the EM?

Are we starting to see it taper off?

Will there be less?

What are you thinking?

Um, okay, so I can get into my whole harangue on electronic monitoring, but I don't think anybody wants that.

I'll give you the synopsis though.

The electronic monitoring system right now is completely broken.

There are um two free to roam days within electronic monitoring, which if somebody was not a danger to the public, I don't care if they're free to roam, but then it begs the question if they're not a danger to the public, they do not need to be monitored at all.

They should be able to go about their life and get ready for trial, go to work, go to do whatever you want.

The only time the state's attorney's office asks for detention is if someone presents a danger.

If they present a danger, we put in for in front of a judge all of the information that we have that indicates somebody is a danger, or what gives rise to the belief, either the nature of the offense they're charged with or their background, or whatever factors would go into somebody being a danger.

If somebody is released on electronic monitoring, who we believe is a danger, they have two free-to-roam days.

The electronic monitoring statute says at least two days.

So what judges have been doing is taking two eight-hour periods of time and chopping them up into nine to noon on this day, one to four on this day, seven to three, whatever it is.

I have a scheduler, and I can't keep track of some of these schedules.

So that is one of the problems is that there is no consistency.

Um that's that's the first problem.

The second problem is it is no longer monitored by law enforcement officers.

When it was under Sheriff DART, it was 175 law enforcement officers would monitor electronic monitoring.

If somebody cut off their band or was not where they were supposed to be, one of those sheriff's officers could go and get them, bring them into court, figure it out.

Um it is monitored by pretrial services under the office of the chief judge.

They are not law enforcement, they do not have the ability to go get somebody.

So one of the other problems we started to see was uh that there was inconsistency.

Some pretrial service officers would let multiple violations accumulate before they would bring it into court.

Others would bring it into court right away.

What is a major violation?

Some people would consider some things a major violation, other people wouldn't.

There was no consistency.

Um if a violation came in at Friday at four o'clock, what would happen is they would file the violation maybe Monday.

That's a whole lot of time that somebody is just AWOL and and not in the numbers from the chief judge's office.

There's 3200 people currently on electronic monitoring.

10 to 12 percent are in the wind.

They have no idea where they are.

We have a hundred and eighty-one people charged with murder or attempt murder on electronic monitoring.

I'm sorry, we have 87 people charged with murder or attempt murder.

We have 181 people charged with a sexual assault on electronic monitoring.

These are not appropriate offenses for electronic monitoring where somebody is free to roam every day of the week.

Electronic monitoring does not keep people safe.

It is not an alternative to detention.

So the electronic monitoring program as it currently stands, let's say a violation comes in.

Court says, okay, I may or may not give a warrant at that point, but let's say we get lucky and he gives a warrant.

Unless the warrant has the magic words of expedited on it, that warrant will go into a pile of warrants that is never acted upon.

The only time you would find out about that warrant is if somebody is arrested for another offense or if their vehicle is curbed or something like that where the warrant pops up.

Other than that, nobody is touching those warrants.

So let's say the judge makes the magic words of expedited warrant on there, only then will a sheriff's office go out and look for that person.

And now we're talking about over 300 people.

None of them have, well, I shouldn't say none.

The vast majority of them do not have expedited warrants.

Let me ask two follow-up questions on that.

We spoke previously when we've been speaking ongoingly about technology specifically around regarding warrants specifically from DB to domestic relations.

Has there been more conversation or any initiatives identified to how we're going to improve that because that's been an ongoing issue?

We are in meetings regularly with the judiciary, and we are hopeful that we can come to some resolution.

But this is something that I think a lot of people don't understand.

So there's very unique relationships.

The chief judge of the circuit court cannot order a judge to do anything.

A judge can do whatever they want to do.

There is no policy that the chief judge can implement that requires another judge who's duly elected to to make a decision.

In that same vein, the public defender cannot order public defenders to do something.

The only person that controls what happens in a criminal defense is the public defender and their client.

So I hesitate to say that, you know, this is a problem of the chief judge, where it's a problem of they they do not have the authority to order certain things.

So my view is I think there needs to be legislative changes.

And that was my next question.

So can we move start looking at some drafting some actual and I'm sure we're already we're way ahead of you on the love to see those drafts.

And the reason I ask is we have um various domestic violence organizations, and those are some of the major concerns.

The way that the um orders of protections, they're simply not um doing all the time what they are supposed to do or what they're intended to do.

Let me put it that way.

And then with the electronic monitoring, we've had some cases of uh where uh victims are seeing these people that they know should be somewhere else and they're in their presence.

And then thank you for identifying you mentioned earlier the in-contempt or the contempt law regarding specifically those people that come to court and they're filming the uh witnesses.

What exactly where is that language hailed so I can't.

So now it's a new statute.

I believe it's been signed, right?

Not yet.

Not yet.

Not yet.

It has not been signed yet, but it will be in effect for January 1st.

Correct.

What draft is it?

I we're gonna send you a copy of it.

Please send you the bill.

Um I'll send you a copy of the bill.

Um if you could send it to the entire bird.

I would yes, you just send it to the chair and we're just gonna do it.

Please do.

Those were all of my questions.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay.

The electronic monitoring, we heard from the sheriff that the uh the sheriff's program was unique to Cook County.

Is electronic monitoring in other counties in Illinois of a similar structure?

No.

Cook County is unique.

In fact, many counties outside of Cook County do not have electronic monitoring at all.

So the judges are it's in or out.

And um none of them are having the problems that we're having on electronic monitor.

And is the is the structure of it dictated by state law?

Um, partially.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Uh, just two quick questions.

How much money are you asking for?

That's the money.

Uh thank you.

The budget request uh from the uh general fund is 227 million dollars.

And second question, um so at a time when Cook County's jail um pretrial population is increasing.

Why isn't your office making greater use of the diversion of restorative justice?

Although I did hear quite a few things, uh programs for eligible nonviolent cases.

And so, what measurable goals have your office established to expand these alternatives while maintaining public safety.

Um, gonna let a vet take this one.

Hi, good afternoon, Commissioner Assistant State's attorney about Loison.

Uh we have numerous diversion programs that run through our office.

I believe at this time we have 28 different diversion programs that operate on a daily basis.

Um, and we have made strenuous efforts to try to expand those options.

So, as the state's attorney mentioned before, we have our gap court, which is the diversion programming that's tied directly to class four gun offenders.

The reason why that programming is very significant, and I would like to highlight it is that pursuant to statute, there is the first-time weapon offender program for first-time gun offenders.

That statute has been in play for quite some time.

However, that statute required gun offenders who were eligible as class four offenders with a licensing issue to plead guilty and be placed on probation before their cases could get dismissed.

When we implemented the GAAP program, we expanded that statute so that there is no need to plead guilty and be placed on probation if you are eligible for GAAP.

That is a straight diversion program where that person is then enrolled in a special court call at 26th in California.

And the GAAP program is really important in re in reducing recidivism because every person who is diverted into GAAP is receiving a significant amount of gun-related safety training.

The state's attorney touched on this before, but we have partnered with a specific organization that is now providing that training for free.

And that training includes education on federal gun laws, state gun laws, safe storage of weapons, dangers, machine gun conversion devices.

There's a whole myriad of training.

And every person who is assigned to the GAAP program is assigned to a specific court call with a judge at 26 in California.

So that those that court call is a staffing model where that judge gets to know each independent participants participant.

Very similar, we modeled it to what the RJCCs look like.

In addition to that, we are diverting cases back into the RJCC programs, including gun cases when people are eligible for that programming, and they too are receiving this significant amount of gun-related safety and education alongside wraparound services and all of those things.

Um free of cost right now at the state's attorney's office behest.

In addition to that, we have diversion programs that are related to mental health, we have diversion programs related to narcotics activity, we have there's there's we have veterans diversion programs.

There is a long list, and so we are working very diligently and very hard to make sure that we are expanding those programs and their availability across the county.

Thank you for that.

And you expounded upon um two programs, well, the same program twice.

Um, but given the fact that this has gone kind of long, and I know that we have one more um commissioner that may have questions.

I'm going to request uh that you send the list of your diversion programs to the chair so that I can take a gander or anyone else who might be interested.

And I would be curious to know of those who are eligible, what percentage actually gets to refer to those diversion programs.

And then lastly, what percentage of this 227 million dollars that you're requesting is actually geared toward uh restorative justice programs.

I got it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

State's attorney, thank you for being here.

I first want to compliment your staff, specifically John, Don and Yvette.

Been on many a long phone call, especially with Don and Yvette.

Um, so appreciate you both for being super responsive to myself and to my office.

Um you have mentioned that we are in dark times, and I could not agree with you more.

Um, I believe that the only accountability commission cited 314 separate violent incidents.

Um there were over 3,900 individuals who were detained during midway blitz, and that includes some citizens.

Um I think that you know, a lot of what we have focused on and what folks have talked about today are felony uh charges, but there have been a lot of misdemeanors potentially.

Um, and um I just wondered if you could speak to um what remedies exist for misdemeanors, especially since I do believe that they don't have the same seven-year length to file.

Oh, you mean like uh a misdemeanor charge against an ICH?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Craig, oh, did you answer it?

It's okay.

Okay, go ahead.

There everybody's fighting over who's gonna answer your question.

I'm so popular.

So most Craig Ingabrets and Cook County State Attorney's Office, first assistant.

Um misdemeanors can be direct filed by local law enforcement agency.

So in addition, though, we stand ready to provide all that same level of support.

Um so whether it be through issuing a grand jury subpoena, approving a search warrant, uh the same protocol mechanisms for them to be able to seek out assistance for us to support an investigation to a felony or a misdemeanor still exists.

So whether or not the subpoenas were able to gather the enough evidence to move forward, we will see, but we're gonna not let the fact that it's a misdemeanor be a barrier.

And the uh statute of limitations for misdemeanors, can you explain that?

Because my understanding is again felonies, it's seven years, but misdemeanors, it's less.

Yes, it's significantly less.

Um that being said, we are going to do everything we can to move forward with those cases if those investigations are referred to us.

When you say significantly less, can you please think it's closer to a year, but I I will get back to you on the exact some misdemeanors, depending on what exact type of misdemeanor, it moves a little bit, so I don't want to give you false information.

Thank you for that.

Um if it is less than a year, then we are coming up on the expiration of potentially lots of misdemeanors.

Um do you know if the plate swaps and sort of the tampering of plates, would that be considered a misdemeanor?

Depending on the facts, it can be a variety of different crimes, not necessarily just a misdemeanor.

Okay, thank you.

And then also, you know, now that I'm able to speak with so many attorneys, uh question about um police reports themselves.

So, you know, if we have an individual file um and this individual does not yet know the um ICE agent because they're also you know working on a civil case to uncover who this ICE agent is.

Uh, but let's say that a police report is filed and um it is closed because they officers in this case do not believe that they have enough um details, if we want to call them details to move forward.

What do you suggest is the remedy for that?

If the if there is a remedy, do you know?

The investigation does need to come to us from a law enforcement source.

So that individual needs to work with the law enforcement agency to have them provide that in information to us to move forward.

If they wanted to contest the closure of a police report, and I'm also not an attorney, and I'm just asking for um to be able to guide other individuals who might be in this situation.

Sure.

I I think I'd have to get back to you on that particular question because that involves a lot of the specific procedures that the law enforcement agency may have, so we can work to try to provide the information to you.

Okay, thank you.

Because I do believe that there are individuals who are very serious about seeking justice.

Um, you know, there is a lot of um there's a lot of un uncharted territory here.

And so your guidance would be very much appreciated.

I also have some questions about the internal task force um that you mentioned, state's attorney.

When was this task force established?

I signed off on it, you know.

I had a lot of things come over my desk, and I was like, Well, yeah, when did we do that?

I think it was two months ago.

Two months ago.

Okay.

Well, thank you for putting that together.

I had a conversation with your chief of staff several months ago, uh, requesting a task force specifically for uh the federal agent activity.

Apparently he heard you.

I'm glad he did.

I'm gonna bug him a lot more.

Um can you just kind of talk through so it sounds like when charges or not when charges, when a case is forwarded to your office, that's when this task force would sort of get triggered.

So first it would go to felony review, which and there is a member of the task force on felony review.

So that person would then notify the other people and they could look at the investigation, see what's been done, see what they would like to have done, and move forward from there.

Um law enforcement may have to go back and do more investigation.

There may be other bits of of information that we need.

But it we would normally be apprised of the case before they present it to us from charges because they're gonna need grand jury subpoenas, they're gonna need two e-letters, they're gonna need all of those components that go into a case before it's presented for us for charges.

Um so it goes through felony review of which you have a member of this task force.

Um how many individuals are in this task force?

Did you say that already?

I can't remember.

I w I will point out that um kind of adjacent to felony review, we have our law enforcement uh review unit, which specializes in uh crimes committed by law enforcement officers.

So these federal law enforcement officers, it would fall under their purview.

So we have seven attorneys that specifically work within that unit, and they've developed expertise in dealing with law enforcement related crimes.

So in addition to them, we can pull on members from the felony review unit who deal with more general crimes.

In addition to them, we have members of the multi-jurisdiction bureau, which I don't have the number of how many attorneys are currently assigned to that bureau, but we have a number within that bureau that have prior um experience with the U.S.

attorney's office.

So there's there's a few of them that we would draw on for their experience in federal government.

In addition, we have our appellate unit, uh, which is kind of the brains behind the operation to do any legal research that we need uh to perform as well.

So, you know, we have a core group of about seven individuals, and then we have dozens that we can draw upon depending on the specifics of the investigation and where they need support.

Thank you for that.

Um of the things I um also would like to talk about is the um the databases, the digital databases that you have.

Um I have been in communication actually with Don from your office um about um the detention dashboard.

And so in an email that I think Don you've recently sent, you mentioned that um uh you are in the process of adding all public data to county open data platform and that that should be done by August.

I yeah, I was hoping to have it done today, so I could say it's done, but uh I was told end of next week is the goal.

Okay, thank you.

And uh with the detention dashboard, um, I do think it would be helpful if possible to add age, race, and gender to it to provide us with a little bit more detail in terms of who is going through our criminal justice system.

I believe it's on there.

It's already on there, okay.

I must not have seen it.

Thank you.

Um and then I also had emailed about uh details uh regarding um case level data post uh disposition, which I think I maybe one of my staffers or myself accidentally put prior.

Um, but are you also working on adding that level of detail?

The download, like downloading.

The downloading piece of case level, yeah.

Yeah, the case level data.

We're having those conversations internally in terms of what we can share publicly, but we're always looking for ways to expand the dashboard.

I think the demographics that I said that we had added came from a request from someone last year.

I think it was a commissioner.

The downloadable data set also came from a request.

So we had uh staff transition a couple months ago, recently posted for a chief data officer.

So certainly looking to continue to expand both dashboards.

So any feedback like that certainly wanna want to listen to.

Okay, thank you.

Um and for the uh gun crime strategy units.

Um, in the report, it's mentions that it's taking place in six police districts.

Can you just state for the record what community areas those are?

I don't think most of us operate off of police districts.

I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to ask you a clarifying question.

Our gun crime strategies unit is a unit that operates within our multi-jurisdiction bureau.

It's not related to any kind of diversion programming.

Is that what you're asking about?

So I'm asking about um there is a mention that the program is currently embedded in six of the most violent police districts in Chicago to combat the rise of violence and shootings within the city of Chicago while making societal improvements, including assisting the judicial process and building strong relationships with committees.

So I think that might be from materials that were circulated with respect to the previous administration.

Um we still have a gun crime strategies unit that is embedded in our multi-jurisdiction bureau.

Our gun crime strategies unit operates in a different way now.

Um and I'm happy to have a conversation with you so that we can get deeper into the weeds of what it looks like now, but that description is um a holdover from the prior administration.

Okay, thank you.

Um and then I also wanted to see um, you know, uh Commissioner Naya had mentioned um some stakeholders reaching out to meet with you.

Um they have also asked me to ask if you would meet with them.

And you know, your team has been really helpful in meeting with different stakeholders.

Um, but I just wanted to specifically say specific request that I received was to talk about the special prosecutor litigation.

I have ethical uh restrictions.

I cannot meet with litigants after their they have lost their litigation.

The my code of ethics prohibits that.

So we have made available uh to those groups uh that they can meet with the chief of staff, they can meet with that uh as chief of policy or even the first assistant, and they refused all of those.

So I'm not gonna violate the code of ethics.

Yeah, I guess I interpret and perhaps because that group is a large group, it consists of many individuals.

Um I'm under the understanding that they don't want to talk about the petition.

That's what I was told that that was what they wanted to talk about.

So we have plenty of people that are available to talk to them about it, but I will not meet with litigants.

Okay.

Uh, but if they are not a litigant and they do want to I meet with groups all the time.

I am happy to talk about policy.

I'm happy to talk about impact on your communities.

I'm happy to collaborate with you on things that could be helpful in your community, but I will not talk about litigation.

Uh I think that some folks will take you up on it because they're not litigants, but I'll let them know.

Um, and then I just wanted to see if also there was any move around there's some transparency measures.

Uh so for example, there used to be a list of police officers that were deemed unreliable by courts.

Um that list used to be on a website, is my understanding.

Um, and these are uh police officers who have histories of misconduct uh that would be helpful to require so that defense counsel knows who they are.

Is there any attempt to add that list once more?

Um, sir.

So we have a policy, which is um our Brady Giglio disclosure policy.

It was implemented very early on in the state's attorney's administration.

I believe we implemented it in March of 2025.

It is a very, very comprehensive policy that gives our state's attorneys as well as the defense bar a clear pathway as to how information will be conveyed when uh a police officer has either been deemed unreliable or there has been some other issue in their background that we are required to disclose pursuant to case law.

Um, the case law that we're talking about when we're when we refer to Brady and Giglio, those are United States Supreme Court cases that have been in effect since 1965.

So this is not a new thing.

Um, the prior administration kept a list that was publicly available of police officers that the administration had determined they would not call as witnesses.

That was their list.

We do not have a list like that.

Here is the reason why.

Brady and Giglio does not require that we prohibit police officers from testifying.

What it requires is that we provide discovery materials regarding issues related to bias and credibility.

There are some other factors to the defense, so that the defense is aware of it.

And if we do choose to call that person as a witness, the defense then has all of the information that they need to effectively cross-examine that witness and essentially poke holes in their credibility.

Every single time a police officer is going to testify substantively in a case either at trial or in a substantive motion, pursuant to our policy.

Our state's attorneys are required to ask them some very specific questions to get information on their background.

Um, our questions align with the questions that are asked by U.S.

attorneys' offices all across the country.

Um, and they also align with questions that are asked in other prosecutors' offices.

If the answers to those questions provide us with information that leads us to believe that there may be a disclosure necessary, that information goes to our ethics officer pursuant to the policy.

The ethics officer will then do what is required of them to collect that discoverable material, and then we will make a determination as to how that discoverable material will be tendered to the defense.

I use the word how because there are different mechanisms for doing that.

Sometimes we will tender it with a protective order, sometimes we will tender it with um for attorney's eyes only.

There's all different mechanisms there.

Once we've done all that, and then the defense has that information, then we have to make a determination as to how we're gonna proceed on our in our case, but the defense has the information that they need to effectively prepare their defense and cross-examine that witness.

That is exactly what the law calls for.

If you read 20,000 cases related to Brady Giglio disclosures, none of them would say that a prosecutor's office is required to unilaterally make decisions and keep a list on witnesses or officers or experts that they will not call.

What we're required to do is to disclose the information and then make decisions from there.

And that's exactly what our policy has us do.

And it also ensures that we are questioning our witnesses, our law enforcement witnesses every time they're going to testify in a substantive proceeding.

So our ASAs are not relying on a list that may or may not be updated, may or may not be correct.

They're relying on a specific series of questions and then the work of our of our ethics officer to make sure that all discoverable material is being tendered, if and when that's appropriate in a case.

Thank you, but you're always really thorough.

I appreciate it.

Um another question that I have is about the transit task force.

Um, what types of charges and what specifically is involved with these stay away zones, or so I've heard the call.

So what we do in first appearance court when somebody is charged with a violent crime on the CTA could be a bus, could be the train station, is if a court uh refuses to detain that person, we ask for a specific stay away order because people get habituated.

So if our defendant continues to go back to the same train station where he victimized people, you're likely to see the same people again, and you're likely to have re-traumatize the same victim, the same bus driver, the same.

So we ask for a very specific order of uh we're asking that they're precluded from going to the 47th Street Red Line Station or the 36th Street bus, whatever it is.

Um, but the judiciary has been um doing sometimes they will give us the stay away order, sometimes they will say you are ordered not to have unlawful contact with the CTA.

Well, that doesn't do us a heck of a lot.

If that worked, they wouldn't have gotten in this situation in the first place.

So the reason why we ask for very specific stayways is because our victims are likely to be there.

Our witnesses are likely to be there again.

Uh thank you for that.

So you mentioned felonies, um, and there's also I would assume misdemeanor charges as well.

Uh misdemeanor charges, we do not ask for stayways.

Okay.

Thank you for that clarification.

Um, and what sort of tools or how are you evaluating um this new task force?

So well, this is a vet's baby, so I'm going to let her talk about it.

Um the internal CTA task force uh or the external.

Are you talking about the RTTF, the regional transit or internal task force?

Um, the um RTTA, yeah.

So um at this point in time, we aren't conducting an evaluation because the true purpose of the task force is to ensure that we're bringing our law enforcement partners and then our transit partners, CTA Pace Matra, into a room together so that we are sharing information.

And uh it's not just sharing information regarding the specific crime that occurred at the 47th Street Red Line Station.

That's not the nature of what our conversations are about.

It's sharing information related to various technological tools, sharing information related to um contacts that people could have.

If, for example, if you are CTA and you need to ensure that you have a witness to a crime appear in court, who is it that they are going to contact if they receive a subpoena and they have a question about that subpoena?

Who who is it that they contact in our office?

So a lot of the work that we're doing there is really making connections so that when we're building prosecutions and we're partnering with each other, um, we know each other, we know the depths of every organization's technological support, we know which organizations can support and what ways, which organizations can cross county lines.

There it really is intended to be a central location or hub for information sharing.

So evaluating the efficacy of that, I think would be incredibly difficult because we're not talking about successes in specific cases.

We're talking about overall collaboration and partnership.

And one of the things that we found out, which was fascinating was all the technological uh instruments that each agency had.

So, you know, now we we had to address the fact that CBD has it's uh gunshot detection.

Everybody calls it shot spotter, it's not shot spotter, it's another company, but they have that.

They have facial recognition technology, they have video technology, which is pretty unparalleled.

Every single train car, every single bus has video technology.

So part of the task force for us was knowing what technology is out there and making sure that we are ready to present that into court and making sure that we get that technology as quickly as possible.

We're going into first appearance court within 48 hours.

That means we need to have personal connections with people over there, like, hey, I need this right now.

And that's what this task force is allowing us to do.

It's allowing a different level of collaboration.

Yeah, I actually heard from a friend that those um cameras on the train can read your text messages if they can zoom in that close.

Yeah, so it's pretty amazing.

And facial recognition, we haven't dealt with yet.

That hasn't been a technology, so we need to make sure that we're ready to go on fry hearings and that we're ready to go any time that technology has been used.

We need to be able to go into court and establish that it's reliable enough for to be used as evidence.

So thank you.

Um, we've been here for a very long time, so I will follow up with the chair with additional questions.

Um, but before I let you go, um, you know, I just want to say that I feel like we are again in such an unprecedented moment and in truly dark times.

Um I feel like I I owe it to my community to fight as hard as I can for solutions.

Um, and I really do I I really do want to be a partner with your office, and I'm I'm excited to hear that there is an internal task force.

I'm glad that this Apris contract conversation is continuing so that there is stronger protections for immigrants that are, you know, their information could potentially be sold.

I'm glad that it's being protected.

Um, if there are opportunities, you know, as we move forward to continue this work because we are seeing federal agents still active in our area, just 36 people were taking this year alone in and around our core houses.

I want to be a partner in that work because I think a lot of folks in our community, you know, um, they're seeing they're seeing crime on their streets, they're seeing their family members being torn apart.

Um, you know, two weeks ago on the floor here, I was almost brought to tears when I remembered a Columbia National was shot and killed by an ICE agent, and this person was here legally.

Um, and so it's incredibly important to work together, and I'm hopeful that perhaps when there are more individuals who are willing to come forward to file a police report, go through your protocol, that we're able to communicate with our community so that they know the work is being done.

Because I think that's another frustration that I'm hearing a lot is people don't know what is being done to hold these ice agents accountable.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much and um for the presentation.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

I see they're already losing your your structure.