The Fifth District Appellate Court reversed Madison County Associate Judge Emily Nielsen’s order rejecting pretrial detention under the SAFE-T Act for a man who fled police in a stolen vehicle, speeding towards on-coming traffic until he crashed head-on with another motorist.
Madison County State’s Attorney Tom Haine said the appellate court’s ruling provides clarification on the application of the SAFE-T Act, or the Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today Act.
“As with any new law, the Courts have been tasked with interpreting the SAFE-T Act and making rulings on its application. Prosecutors from across the state have appealed various court decisions regarding the SAFE-T Act’s application, with a goal of making the SAFE-T Act less harmful to law-abiding citizens,” Haine said. “We’re grateful for the State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, which has assisted local prosecutors in these appeals. This Appellate Court Opinion, which clarifies one of the many ambiguities in this new law, is an important win for the safety of police officers, motorists, highway workers and pedestrians across Illinois.”
Appellate Justice Barry Vaughan delivered the opinion on May 8 with Justices John Barberis and Mark Boie concurring.
They concluded that the trial court applied the incorrect definition for a forcible felony. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s ruling and remanded it for a new hearing on the state’s petition to deny pretrial release for defendant Matthew Delaney.
According to the appellate court opinion, Delaney was charged on Jan. 17 with unlawful possession of a stolen motor vehicle and aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer. Delaney was in a stolen vehicle when he fled from officers of the Madison County Sheriff’s Department, driving 87 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone. He was on parole for home invasion, aggravated battery with a firearm and burglaries at the time.
That same day, Haine’s office filed a petition to deny Delaney pretrial release, arguing he had a high likelihood of willful flight to avoid prosecution.
On Jan. 31, Haine’s office filed an amended petition to deny pretrial release, adding that Delaney’s release posed a threat to the community. During the pretrial detention hearing, Nielsen asked what facts would suggest that Delaney threatened or inflicted great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement.
The State’s Attorney’s Office argued that officers attempted a traffic stop after discovering the vehicle was stolen. Delaney fled, and officers deployed spike strips. Delaney continued to flee, crossing over a raised median and driving head-on into oncoming traffic. Delaney stopped the vehicle after striking a Honda Civic head-on.
“The state argued that driving through spike strips, then driving into oncoming traffic at excessive speeds and striking a vehicle head-on, involved a threat or infliction of great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement,” the opinion states.
Nielsen asked if the driver of the Honda Civic was injured. The state responded that he declined medical treatment, “but it did not believe that negated the risk the driving head-on in traffic posed to the community.”
Defense counsel argued that she had never seen aggravated fleeing listed as a forcible felony.
“Counsel clarified that she was not contending defendant’s offense as charged was not serious but argued that was no evidence to support the idea that defendant contemplated his actions would harm anyone and no one was, in fact, harmed,” the opinion states.
Nielsen concluded that the state failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Delaney committed a qualifying offense for pretrial detention and issued a release order.
Haine’s office filed an appeal on Feb. 12, arguing that Nielsen applied the wrong definition of “forcible felony” and that no evidence of defendant’s contemplation of the use of force should be required.
The defendant argued that the state’s interpretation of a “forcible felony” would “lead to absurd results that were not intended by the legislature because the state could simply allege any felony offense may have the potential to involve the threat of or infliction of great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement, through hypothetical examples of what could have happened, instead of what actually happened in a case.”
The appellate court disagreed.
“Our interpretation would not require every felony or charge of aggravated fleeing to be considered a forcible felony. Rather, under our interpretation, a forcible felony occurs only when the circumstances of a particular case show that defendant’s actions actually threatened or inflicted great bodily harm, permanent disability, or disfigurement,” the opinion states.
The appellate court reversed Nielsen’s order granting pretrial release and remanded the case for a new hearing on the amended petition to deny release.