Announcement, Press Release |
The Office of the Chief Judge extends our deepest concern to the individual who was injured, and we take this matter extremely seriously. Any incident in which someone is harmed is unacceptable, and public safety remains our top priority.
Because the case involving Lawrence Reed is now pending in federal court, we are prohibited under the Illinois Supreme Court Code of Judicial Conduct from commenting on its specific facts. These rules protect judicial integrity and prevent any appearance of bias. We can, however, outline the legal standards and procedures that guide judicial decision-making in all pretrial matters.
Pretrial Release Standards
In Illinois, the threshold for denying pretrial release is intentionally high under the Pretrial Fairness Act. The State must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that no condition or combination of conditions can reasonably ensure a defendant’s appearance in court or protect the public. Allegations alone are not enough; the law requires evidence of a specific, unmanageable risk that cannot be addressed through available supervision or court-ordered conditions.
How Electronic Monitoring Works
Electronic Monitoring (EM) is one tool within a broader pretrial supervision system that includes pretrial officers, court-ordered conditions, and regular judicial review. It is designed to support accountability and provide location and compliance data. It is not a substitute for law enforcement and does not give pretrial officers arrest authority.
When the Sheriff’s Office discontinued its program earlier this year, EM shifted from a law-enforcement-operated home-detention model to a compliance-based model overseen by the Adult Probation Department. Under this system:
- The Monitoring Center reviews all alerts first.
- Pretrial officers address supervision and compliance issues.
- The Electronic Monitoring Unit handles major violations and device-related issues.
The Pretrial Services Division receives an average of 8,500 EM alerts each week. Major violations, such as tampering with or removing a device, are reported to the prosecutor and the court within 72 hours. Additional alerts that are considered lower level are addressed at the next court date. Pretrial officers may involve law enforcement only when a clear, articulable threat to public safety is present, such as cutting off a device or entering a prohibited area.
A review of data from the Adult Probation Department and the Circuit Court Clerk's docket between April 1, 2025 and Sept. 30, 2025 confirmed that about half of the violations that pretrial officers send to court for alleged infractions resulted in petitions for sanctions or revocation of release.
Review and Next Steps
We are reviewing all actions taken in this case to ensure procedures were followed and to identify opportunities for improvement. One immediate change under consideration is reinstating the practice of reporting escalated EM alerts to the State’s Attorney’s Office. That process was previously paused, following concerns raised by the State’s Attorney’s Office regarding the volume of alerts. In the interest of public safety, we believe it is necessary to re-evaluate this process.
We will continue to work closely with our justice-system partners to assess current procedures and determine whether additional safeguards or policy adjustments are warranted. The Office of the Chief Judge remains committed to fairness, accountability and the highest standards of public trust.
Media Contact: ocj.press@cookcountyil.gov
(312) 603-5414
Follow the court on X @CookCntyCourt