Latest news with #ACLUofIllinois
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Organizations push back on new charging pilot program in letter to State's Attorney Burke
Dozens of people and organizations on Friday sent a letter to Cook County State's Attorney Eileen O'Neill Burke opposing a pilot program that allows Chicago police officers to bypass prosecutors and directly file charges in some low-level felony gun cases, arguing the initiative 'removes critical oversight from the charging process.' The 136 signers of the letter, which include the ACLU of Illinois, Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts and the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, as well as Chicago Police district councilors, professors and academics and other individuals, ask Burke to halt the policy and reinstate felony review for all gun cases. 'It undermines fundamental principles of equal justice and due process, erodes public trust, and poses serious risks to communities who are already overpoliced,' the letter said, arguing the pilot program disproportionately impacts Black neighborhoods. In Cook County, local police submit many felony cases to assistant state's attorneys who decide whether to approve charges. The office's Felony Review Unit is nearly unique, with few other similar models nationwide, though not all felony charges go through that process. Most felony narcotics cases are directly filed by police. Matt McGrath, spokesman for the state's attorney's office, said in a statement that all 54 cases that have gone before a judge or grand jury have 'withstood scrutiny and advanced.' Another 12 cases are still pending. The office plans to continuing expanding the program, he said. 'The felony review bypass program is a collaborative effort between the State's Attorney's office and CPD designed to get police officers back on the beat sooner while allowing prosecutors to focus time and resources on violent and victim-centric crimes,' McGrath said. 'It's important to note felony review bypass is not prosecutorial review bypass, and the pilot is working due to extensive training of district personnel by CCSAO felony review supervisors and clearly defined evidence requirements, among other factors.' The state's attorney's office launched the pilot program in January in the department's Englewood District on the South Side and later expanded to the Far South Side's Calumet District while the office reviews data with an eye on continuing to grow the program. Officials have said the effort frees up police and prosecutors for higher level work by allowing police to directly file charges in matters where felony review prosecutors were already approving charges in around 90% of cases and generally handling them by phone. Still, the move was criticized by Cook County Public Defender Sharone Mitchell Jr. and some aldermen and community members, who pointed out that the stakes can be high for an individual if police get charges wrong, as people can be detained until the case goes before a judge. But the program got a nod of support from Mayor Brandon Johnson who told WTTW last month that the effort would 'give us an opportunity to see if we can expedite the process that one, solves crime, but it doesn't impede officers from returning back to the people.' Friday's letter marked an effort to push back on a larger scale, and it argued that prosecutors, rather than police, have the legal training to assess the legitimacy of criminal charges. It contended that the districts chosen for the pilot program are majority Black and have a history of abuse at the hands of police, including torture and excessive force. Among other objections, the letter also said the move was made without community input and could put a strain on court resources. 'Lack of independent review at this stage increases the risk of unconstitutional arrests being taken to court and shaky legal cases proceeding to prosecution, and it undermines accountability and trust within the legal system,' the letter said.
Chicago Tribune
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Organizations push back on new charging pilot program in letter to State's Attorney Burke
Dozens of people and organizations on Friday sent a letter to Cook County State's Attorney Eileen O'Neill Burke opposing a pilot program that allows Chicago police officers to bypass prosecutors and directly file charges in some low-level felony gun cases, arguing the initiative 'removes critical oversight from the charging process.' The 136 signers of the letter, which include the ACLU of Illinois, Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts and the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, as well as Chicago Police district councilors, professors and academics and other individuals, ask Burke to halt the policy and reinstate felony review for all gun cases. 'It undermines fundamental principles of equal justice and due process, erodes public trust, and poses serious risks to communities who are already overpoliced,' the letter said, arguing the pilot program disproportionately impacts Black neighborhoods. In Cook County, local police submit many felony cases to assistant state's attorneys who decide whether to approve charges. The office's Felony Review Unit is nearly unique, with few other similar models nationwide, though not all felony charges go through that process. Most felony narcotics cases are directly filed by police. Matt McGrath, spokesman for the state's attorney's office, said in a statement that all 54 cases that have gone before a judge or grand jury have 'withstood scrutiny and advanced.' Another 12 cases are still pending. The office plans to continuing expanding the program, he said. 'The felony review bypass program is a collaborative effort between the State's Attorney's office and CPD designed to get police officers back on the beat sooner while allowing prosecutors to focus time and resources on violent and victim-centric crimes,' McGrath said. 'It's important to note felony review bypass is not prosecutorial review bypass, and the pilot is working due to extensive training of district personnel by CCSAO felony review supervisors and clearly defined evidence requirements, among other factors.' The state's attorney's office launched the pilot program in January in the department's Englewood District on the South Side and later expanded to the Far South Side's Calumet District while the office reviews data with an eye on continuing to grow the program. Officials have said the effort frees up police and prosecutors for higher level work by allowing police to directly file charges in matters where felony review prosecutors were already approving charges in around 90% of cases and generally handling them by phone. Still, the move was criticized by Cook County Public Defender Sharone Mitchell Jr. and some aldermen and community members, who pointed out that the stakes can be high for an individual if police get charges wrong, as people can be detained until the case goes before a judge. But the program got a nod of support from Mayor Brandon Johnson who told WTTW last month that the effort would 'give us an opportunity to see if we can expedite the process that one, solves crime, but it doesn't impede officers from returning back to the people.' Friday's letter marked an effort to push back on a larger scale, and it argued that prosecutors, rather than police, have the legal training to assess the legitimacy of criminal charges. It contended that the districts chosen for the pilot program are majority Black and have a history of abuse at the hands of police, including torture and excessive force. Among other objections, the letter also said the move was made without community input and could put a strain on court resources. 'Lack of independent review at this stage increases the risk of unconstitutional arrests being taken to court and shaky legal cases proceeding to prosecution, and it undermines accountability and trust within the legal system,' the letter said.
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Jim Dey: Free-speech issues more complicated than some like to pretend
Mar. 12—ACLU of Illinois spokesman Ed Yohnka, in a commentary published in Tuesday's News-Gazette, gave a full-throated defense of free speech. "'Free speech on campus is lawful — no matter who is president," the headline stated. President Woodrow Wilson vehemently disagreed. But few others would. Yohnka's general proposition is dead on. Most of Yohnka's commentary was a negative critique of President Donald Trump. There's nothing wrong with that. Presidents can — and should be able to — take a punch. But it fell short, failing to recognize that freedom of speech can be a more complicated issue than it may seem at first blush. That's why the law books are bulging with judicial decisions addressing what constitutes freedom of speech — and what does not. Yohnka urged university officials to support the "great" and "lawful" tradition of free speech. But what does that mean? Too many people view free speech as a constitutional guarantee for others to express opinions they share. Au contraire. Free speech also guarantees people's rights to say or write things others may find despicable or disturbing. The ACLU was much more expansive than Yohnka in a Jan. 14 letter to University of Illinois bureaucrats in which it noted that it "monitored" the UI's response to last spring's anti-Israel protests and called for the UI to "show restraint" and respect for students' constitutional rights. The issue then was not what students were saying, but what they were doing while purporting to exercise freedom of speech. Let's call it free-speech-plus, the fact-intensive and sometimes controversial behavior that often accompanies free speech. The UI objected to students taking over university property for their tent encampment. The UI also objected to protesters using bullhorns, which were potentially disruptive to the teaching that occurs on campus. And the UI — as well as the local state's attorney — objected to protesters wrestling and fighting with police officers carrying out lawful orders to dismantle the tent city. In these kind of displays, campus and community rebels want to stick it to the man, speak truth the power, laugh in the face of would-be oppressors, afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. But, being mostly self-absorbed youngsters, they also want — or, more accurately, demand — their self-congratulating effrontery to be absolutely risk-free, with no recriminations of any kind relating to discipline or, especially, prosecution. That's not what happened at the UI. Hence the ACLU's warning letter. The protesters' expressive behavior was not the problem. But what went with it became the UI's problem. Former UI law school Dean Vic Amar, a constitutional scholar, has written that the concept of free speech does not allow protesters to take over public buildings, block public sidewalks used by people traversing campus or establish tent cities on public property. He has written that noise control is a "valid (government) interest" because teachers and students are in classrooms, libraries and labs pursuing their studies or research. Here's another issue that doesn't get much consideration: Tent cities can become nightmarishly filthy. That why "sanitation" is a "significant regulatory concern." As far as free speech goes, people are and should be free to have at it on all sides of an issue. While subject to time, place and manner restrictions, it doesn't cost a thing and can be a useful in calling attention to perceived wrongs. But speech-plus can be a horse of a different color. While it doesn't come with a get-out-of-jail-free card, protesters can invoke their own legal immunity by exercising their legal rights while simultaneously respecting those of others.
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Debate over Chicago's sanctuary policies intensifies as federal lawmakers seek answers from Mayor Johnson
The Brief Mayor Brandon Johnson will testify before the House Oversight Committee about Chicago's sanctuary city policies. Local business owners and officials remain divided on the impact of these policies. Federal officials claim sanctuary laws make enforcement difficult, while advocates say they improve public safety. CHICAGO - Mayor Brandon Johnson is headed to Washington, D.C., this week to testify before the House Oversight Committee regarding Chicago's sanctuary city policies. The hearing is part of a broader effort by federal lawmakers to examine how these policies impact public safety and cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. What we know Chicago's sanctuary city policy dates back to 1985 when then-Mayor Harold Washington enacted protections for undocumented residents, ensuring they could access city services without fear of deportation. The ordinance has since been updated by multiple mayors, including Johnson. Under the city's current Welcoming City Ordinance, local law enforcement does not cooperate with federal immigration authorities in detaining individuals solely based on their immigration status. Some city leaders, including 15th Ward Alderman Ray Lopez, argue this policy endangers public safety by limiting law enforcement's ability to share information about criminal suspects with federal immigration agents. On the other side, advocates like Ed Yohnka of the ACLU of Illinois argue that sanctuary laws build trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement. Yohnka says that when undocumented residents feel safe reporting crimes, it ultimately makes communities safer. What they're saying "We may be immigrants, but we are working immigrants that bring money into our community and money into our state," said Laura Gutierrez-Ramos, owner of Nuevo Leon Restaurant in Chicago's Little Village neighborhood. She says her business has suffered as customers have chosen to stay inside their homes out of fear of increased immigration enforcement. "Police should be able to ask someone's immigration status and share that information if they're engaging in dangerous criminal activity," said Ald. Lopez, who has proposed modifying the Welcoming City Ordinance to allow more cooperation with federal authorities. ICE officials, including President Donald Trump's border czar Tom Homan, argue that Chicago's sanctuary policies have made it harder to detain individuals who pose public safety threats. "We've arrested people with assault allegations, extreme sexual assault," Homan said. "These are all bad people." What's next The House Oversight Committee is expected to press Johnson and other mayors on the consequences of their sanctuary city policies. The hearing, scheduled for Wednesday, is being promoted by committee leaders with a dramatic, Hollywood-style preview. Meanwhile, business owners like Gutierrez-Ramos hope the political debate leads to real solutions. "I think we should all have compassion at heart. I wish the hatred would be sowed into compassion and move this city and country forward," she said.
Yahoo
13-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Project AI — How AI is impacting lawmakers in Illinois
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WMBD) — It's a potentially life-altering technology. The possibilities of AI are unquantifiable and nobody really knows the rules, but that's not stopping lawmakers from trying to figure them out. Right now, AI can be used to better enhance your searches for information online, or it could be used to create deepfake images and videos ranging from prominent figures in society to children. It eventually could be used to solve incredibly complex problems faster than we have been able to before. Or it could be used as a cheap alternative to employees, leading to a sharp reduction in jobs. 'AI systems are designed by people and people have biases, conscious or not, you know, humans create the models, they choose the training data, they build the decision, trees use them, algorithms, they assign weights to the different inputs and factors,' Stephen Ragan with the ACLU of Illinois said. Technology moves far faster than government. But as the infancy of AI has taken hold, and some new tools are available to the public, some lawmakers have tried to put guardrails on it. Last year, the state passed a law allowing victims of deepfake pornography to sue the creators. 'We are rapidly becoming unable to tell the difference between an image that is depicting an abuse of an actual child and an AI-generated pornographic image of a child,' State Representative Jennifer Gong-Gershowitz said. Gong-Gershowitz said she passed that bill, and she's made it her mission to make sure children are protected in the new landscape of AI. Her next goal? Requiring age verification that's tied to the device. 'This would be a way to ensure that parents have strong safeguards, ethical safeguards, safeguards around that technology to ensure that children are exposed to child predators for the content that is mature content not intended for children,' Gong-Gershowitz said. She and her colleagues are trying to take it even further. A new report from an AI taskforce laid out a roadmap for how the state should proceed. They are focusing on three particular areas. First, making sure AI algorithms don't adopt discriminatory practices. Second, ending deepfakes in political messaging. And third, protecting employees and their jobs. Republican Rep. Ryan Spain also sees the need for AI regulation. But he also does not want to see the state totally villainize it. 'I think an original notion from the government was, 'we may not understand AI so lets just not use it, let's put our head in the sand and prevent it,' I don't think that's going to be possible,' Spain said. 'I think the rapid expansion of AI is happening so quickly that it's here to stay as a tool.' It's a difficult line to walk and there are plenty of ideas for how to get this done. The Illinois ACLU is also leading a push for stronger AI protections. 'So there's certainly a way to get at it without, you know, these internal concerns about artificial intelligence being some like international entity,' Ragan said. There is only so far Illinois as a state can go without federal regulations in place. But that isn't stopping them from trying. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
