People v. Bray, 2024 IL App (1st) 240156

Robert Bray was arrested and charged with vehicular hijacking and robbery after allegedly assaulting another driver and stealing their vehicle while already on electronic monitoring for a prior offense.
The State requested pretrial detention based on the risk Bray posed to public safety, noting that electronic monitoring had not deterred his alleged violent conduct.
The defense suggested that home confinement with a 24-hour curfew (no movement allowed) would adequately mitigate any risk posed by Bray.
The trial court found Bray to be a serious danger and concluded no conditions, including electronic monitoring, would adequately mitigate the risk to the public, thus denying release.
On appeal, Bray challenged the denial, arguing that the State and the court failed to consider the adequacy of a 24-hour home curfew as a release condition.
The appellate court determined that Illinois law prohibits imposition of home confinement without at least two days of movement per week, and thus a 24-hour curfew could not legally be considered.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Whether home confinement with a 24-hour curfew is legal	Law requires public safety mitigation	24-hour confinement would suffice	24-hour curfew not legally authorized as a condition
Whether state must disprove adequacy of 24-hour curfew	Not required to consider illegal terms	State did not address adequacy of curfew	No requirement to consider/prove adequacy of illegal option
Adequacy of conditions to mitigate threat	Electronic monitoring ineffective	More restrictive monitoring adequate	No legal basis for 24-hour confinement; prior failure noted
Requirement to consider all possible release conditions	Not required if not authorized by law	Court erred by not considering curfew	Court not required to consider unauthorized conditions

Nowak v. City of Country Club Hills, 2011 IL 111838 (Illinois Supreme Court case establishing de novo review standard for statutory interpretation)