People v. Brown
243 N.E.3d 249
Ill. App. Ct.2023Background
- Richard Brown was arrested on June 22, 2023, and charged with aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, unlawful use or possession of a weapon by a felon, and possession of a stolen motor vehicle.
- He was granted pretrial release (with electronic monitoring) and his family posted a $5,000 bond, but he remained in jail due to lack of an available electronic monitoring host site.
- On September 18, 2023, the Pretrial Fairness Act (eliminating monetary bail) went into effect in Illinois.
- On September 26, 2023, Brown petitioned to modify his pretrial conditions, and the State, for the first time, sought pretrial detention under the new law.
- The trial court granted the State’s petition for pretrial detention, finding Brown a threat to public safety, leading to his continued detention.
- Brown appealed, contesting both the timeliness and statutory propriety of the State’s petition and challenging the trial court’s ruling on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the State’s September 26, 2023 pretrial detention petition timely under the Act? | Petition could still be filed upon first post-Act hearing. | Petition was untimely—must be filed at first appearance or within 21 days. | State’s petition was untimely; trial court lacked authority to grant it. |
| Should the hearing have been under section 110-5(e) due to Brown’s detention after being granted release? | Not explicitly addressed. | Court should have followed section 110-5(e) for a new hearing on continued detention, rather than pretrial detention under 110-6.1. | Trial court should have held a section 110-5(e) hearing to review the reasons for continued detention. |
| Can section 110-7.5(a) be used by the State to file a detention petition post-Act for detained individuals? | Yes—cites other district authority (Whitmore) permitting such petitions. | No—section 110-7.5(b), not (a), governs those still detained after pre-Act release orders. | Section 110-7.5(b) applies and does not permit untimely detention petitions; only a 110-5(e) review hearing is allowed. |
| Did the trial court render a substantive finding on public safety based on clear and convincing evidence? | State argued threat based on charges and prior record. | Defendant argued circumstances had not changed since original release order. | Substantive grounds not addressed due to procedural error; trial court order reversed on procedural grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Taylor, 2023 IL 128316 (interpreting statutory construction in criminal procedure)
- People v. Vingara, 2023 IL App (5th) 230698 (applying the Pretrial Fairness Act procedural requirements for pre-Act detainees)
- People v. Rios, 2023 IL App (5th) 230724 (construing the role of section 110-7.5 and 110-5(e) for detainees not released post bail order)
- People v. Swan, 2023 IL App (5th) 230766 (holding that untimely petitions under section 110-6.1 are not permitted for pre-Act detainees)
- People v. Whitmore, 2023 IL App (1st) 231807 (contradictory authority, allowing state petitions at first post-Act court date—court disagreed)