Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart is phasing out his electronic monitoring (EM) program for pretrial detainees, citing safety concerns stemming from recent legal changes. He will stop accepting new detainees after April 1st, but will continue monitoring current participants until their cases are resolved. Dart is negotiating with Chief Judge Timothy Evans to transfer responsibility to the Cook County court system’s existing GPS program. However, Evans states he lacks the budget, personnel, and legal authority to fully absorb Dart’s program, which currently monitors approximately 1,530 individuals. Evans emphasizes the court’s inability to arrest or detain individuals, limiting their capacity to manage a significantly expanded program.
Dart’s EM program, established in 1989 to alleviate jail overcrowding, has seen a 20% decrease in participants since the implementation of the Pretrial Fairness Act, which eliminated cash bail. This contrasts with a 5% decrease in the jail population. Dart criticizes a provision of the Act granting defendants at least two days of “free movement” per week, hindering effective monitoring, particularly for the over 100 individuals charged with murder or attempted murder in his program. The public defender’s office, however, supports the shift, noting that Evans’ program allows for greater movement, enabling defendants to maintain employment and family connections.
While studies cited by Evans suggest bail reform did not increase violent crime, Dart argues the increased freedom afforded by the reform, coupled with the large number of serious offenders on EM, makes the program unmanageable. He maintains a public list of EM participants and their charges, justifying transparency. He also notes that his office is unique in operating such a program at the sheriff’s level, whereas other jurisdictions operate them under the judiciary.
Judge Evans’ court GPS program, currently monitoring approximately 2,000 defendants primarily for curfew violations and domestic violence cases, would require an additional 150 employees and $23.9 million annually to assume Dart’s responsibilities. A key difference is that Evans’ probation officers lack arrest powers, relying on police departments for enforcement. Evans views his program as more effective and humane, providing individual officers and access to services. However, he acknowledges concerns among judges about Dart’s program’s termination and the potential for increased jail populations. He is exploring alternative solutions, including potential involvement of the Administrative Office of the Courts or legislative intervention. Ultimately, both parties aim for an improved pretrial system that balances public safety and the presumption of innocence.