pretrial detention hearing in Illinois

2026The State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the proof is evident or presumption great that the defendant committed a detainable offense; (2) the defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person, persons, or the community, based on the specific, articulable facts of the case; and (3) no condition or combination of conditions can mitigate the real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community based on the specific facts of the case. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(1)- (3) (West 2024). ¶ 15 Pursuant to a recent decision from the Illinois Supreme Cou

2026People v. Morgan, 2025 IL 130626, ¶ 51 (“Accordingly, when parties to a pretrial detention hearing proceed solely by proffer, the reviewing court stands in the same position as the circuit court and may therefore conduct its own independent review of the proffered evidence and evidence otherwise documentary in nature.”). ¶ 38 In Mr. Williams’ motion for relief, he asserted that his continued detention was not necessary because he did not pose a real and present threat to the safety of any person or persons or the community, the “State cannot produce any evidence of any danger” he poses, and “[

2025No witnesses testified at any of the detention hearings in this case. “[W]hen the parties to a pretrial detention hearing proceed solely by proffer, the reviewing court is not bound by the circuit court’s factual findings and may therefore conduct its own independent de novo review of the proffered evidence and evidence otherwise documentary in nature.” Morgan, 2025 IL 130626, ¶ 54 . ¶ 25 “[A] court ordering continued pretrial detention must make certain findings based on specific, articulable facts, just as at an initial detention hearing. [Citation.] However, [these] subsequent determination

2025People v. Harris, 2024 IL App (2d) 240070, ¶ 37 (“subsequent determinations are not subject to every statutory requirement that applies to initial detention hearings”); Casey, 2024 IL App (3d) 230568 , ¶ 13.

2026People v. Morgan, 2025 IL 130626, ¶ 44 ; Addison Insurance Co. v. Fay, 232 Ill. 2d 446, 453 (2009). ¶ 19 A. Detention pursuant to sections 110-6.1(a)(6)–(6.5) of the Code ¶ 20 Perry argues the State did not show by clear and convincing evidence that he committed an eligible offense under sections 110-6.1(a)(6)–(6.5) (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(6)-(6.5) (West Supp. 2025)).

2025People v. Morgan, 2025 IL 130626, ¶ 54 ; Addison Insurance Co. v. Fay, 232 Ill. 2d 446, 453 (2009). ¶ 25 After conducting our own independent review of the proffered evidence in the present case, we cannot say the circuit court erred by finding that defendant posed a high risk of willful flight to avoid prosecution.

2025“In reaching its determination, the trial court must consider (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, (2) the weight of the evidence against the defendant, (3) the history and characteristics of the defendant, (4) the nature and seriousness of the real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community that would be posed by the defendant’s release, and (5) the nature and seriousness of the risk of obstructing or attempting to obstruct the criminal justice process.” Id. ¶ 24 Although the State asserts in its memorandum of law that the trial court abused its discre

2024At a pretrial detention hearing, the State is explicitly permitted to present evidence “by way of proffer based upon reliable information.” 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(f)(2) (West 2022); see also id. § 110-6.1(f)(5) (exempting detention hearings from the rules of evidence).

2025See People v. Reimolds, 92 Ill. 2d 101, 106 (1982). ¶ 34 Schwedler’s next claim is that the circuit court failed to conduct a proper pretrial detention hearing.

2025See People v. Reimolds, 92 Ill. 2d 101, 106 (1982). ¶ 35 Schwedler’s next claim is that the circuit court failed to conduct a proper pretrial detention hearing.

2025Horne, 2023 IL App (2d) 230382, ¶ 18 (citing 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(h)(1) (West 2022)). ¶ 36 Our standard of review on appeal depends on the nature of the evidence presented at the pretrial detention hearing.

2025Horne, 2023 IL App (2d) 230382, ¶ 18 (citing 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(h)(1) (West 2022)). ¶ 37 Our standard of review on appeal depends on the nature of the evidence presented at the pretrial detention hearing.

2024See Kurzeja, 2023 IL App (3d) 230434, ¶ 14 . -6- No. 1-24-0312B ¶ 17 Turning to the pretrial detention hearing under section 110-6.1 of the Code, before conducting such a hearing, all defendants begin with the presumption that they are eligible for pretrial release. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e) (West 2022).

2024See Kurzeja, 2023 IL App (3d) 230434, ¶ 14 . ¶ 15 Turning to the pretrial detention hearing under section 110-6.1 of the Code, before conducting such a hearing, all defendants begin with the presumption that they are eligible for pretrial release. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e) (West 2022).

2024The Pretrial Fairness Act provides that although a “defendant may not move to suppress evidence or a confession” at a pretrial detention hearing, “evidence that proof of the charged crime may have been the result of an unlawful search or seizure, or both, or [obtained] through improper interrogation, is relevant in assessing the weight of the evidence against the defendant.” 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(f)(6) (West 2022); see also id. § 110-5(2) (a court “may consider the admissibility of any evidence sought to be excluded”). ¶ 36 While it is necessary to consider the circumstances under which Mr. McMur

2024An abuse of discretion occurs “when the circuit court’s decision is ‘arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable,’ or where ‘no reasonable person would agree with the position adopted by the trial court.’ ” People v. Simmons, 2019 IL App (1st) 191253 , ¶ 9 (quoting People v. Becker, 239 Ill. 2d 215, 234 (2010)). ¶ 22 Shaw first argues that Judge Ryan’s finding that his continued detention was necessary to avoid a real and present threat constituted an abuse of discretion because the Act requires the circuit court to base this determination on the specific articulable facts of the case. ¶ 23 The recor

2025People v. Thomas, 2024 IL App (1st) 240479, ¶ 12 (citing 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(1)-(3), 110-10). ¶ 40 When parties to a pretrial detention hearing proceed solely by proffer, a reviewing court “stands in the same position as the circuit court and may therefore conduct its own independent review of the proffered evidence and evidence otherwise documentary in nature.” People v. Morgan, 2025 IL 130626, ¶ 51 .

2025The finding, as required by section 110-6.1(i- 5), is “a less demanding standard than what is required at the detention hearing, though both are concerned with fundamentally the same question.” Id. ¶ 22 Under the recent Supreme Court decision in People v. Morgan, 2025 IL 130626 , “when the parties to a pretrial detention hearing proceed solely by proffer, the reviewing court is not bound by the circuit court’s factual findings and may therefore conduct its own independent de novo review of the proffered evidence and evidence otherwise documentary in nature.” People v. -5- No. 1-24-2240B Morgan

2025Id. § 110-2(b). ¶ 15 Under the recent supreme court decision in People v. Morgan, 2025 IL 130626, ¶ 54 , when the parties to a pretrial detention hearing proceed solely by proffer, as they did here, “the reviewing court is not bound by the circuit court’s factual findings and may therefore conduct its own independent de novo review of the proffered evidence and evidence otherwise documentary in nature.” Under the de novo standard, a reviewing court performs the same analysis that the trial court would perform.

2025The petition asserted that defendant posed a real and present Act, or the “Pretrial Fairness Act.” See Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248 , ¶ 4 n. 1.

2025Id. § 110-6.1(e)(1)-(3).

2024See Hongo, 2024 IL App (1st) 232482, ¶¶ 24-31 ; Casey, 2024 IL App 3d 230568, ¶¶ 11-13. ¶ 22 We acknowledge that the circuit court may have confused McCaleb by not explicitly making the “continued detention” finding required by the Code (see 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(i-5) (West 2022)) on February 20, 2024, and instead conducting that hearing as if it were an initial pretrial detention hearing.

2026Outside of the case law introducing the pretrial detention standard of review applicable on appeal, the motion for relief does not provide any citations to relevant authorities that would be pertinent to the defendant’s case. ¶ 35 These “[b]are contentions in the absence of argument or citation of authority do not merit consideration on appeal.” Obert v. Saville, 253 Ill.

2026Id. § 110-6.1(e)(1)-(3). “ ‘If the State fails to carry its burden on any of these three facts, the presumption remains, and detention is unlawful.’ ” People v. Cousins, 2025 IL 130866, ¶ 25 (quoting People v. Sorrentino, 2024 IL App (1st) 232363, ¶ 32 , citing 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e) (West 2022)). ¶ 30 Where the State proceeds solely by proffer at the pretrial detention hearing, we are not bound by the trial court’s factual findings and review the record de novo.

2025If the court decides to grant the continuance, the [c]ourt retains the discretion to detain or release the defendant in the time between the filing of the petition and the hearing.” 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(c)(2) (West 2022). - 10 - Accordingly, section 110-6.1(c)(2) requires the circuit court, upon granting a continuance, to hold a pretrial detention hearing within 48 hours of the defendant’s first appearance if the defendant is charged with offenses that are Class 3 or higher, as in the case sub judice. ¶ 29 “Once a violation [of a timing requirement] has been established, the court must determine

2025In determining the consequence of violating a timing requirement, the court must first determine whether the requirement is “mandatory” or “directory.” Id.

2025Id. § 110-6.1(h); see Clark, 2024 IL 130364, ¶ 21 . ¶ 21 On appeal, the State initially argues that defendant forfeited any claim that he is entitled to pretrial release based on the timing of the pretrial detention hearing because he failed to make a contemporaneous objection.

2025“A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or if the finding itself is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence presented.” People v. Deleon, 227 Ill. 2d 322, 332 (2008). ¶ 42 Regarding the standard of review, we initially note that while the trial court heard evidence by proffer at the pretrial detention hearing, the court heard Detective Kane provide the same factual allegations through his live testimony at the hearing on defendant’s motion for relief.

2025See People v. Burke, 2024 IL App (5th) 231167, ¶ 20 ; People v. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13 , People v. Whitaker, 2024 IL App (1st) 232009 , ¶ 68.