Background
Michael Henry was charged with threatening a public official and intimidation, then released pending trial subject to a stalking no-contact order protecting Tinley Park Mayor Michael Glotz and Glotz’s wife. His release conditions barred contact with the protected individuals by any means and required GPS monitoring with exclusion zones.
After Henry filed materials in his criminal case and communicated with law enforcement, prosecutors, and media outlets about the case, the circuit court added restrictions barring him from filing documents in the criminal case or preparing or sending communications concerning Glotz. Henry later emailed a draft civil complaint naming the protected parties and filed a lengthy lawsuit against them in Sangamon County. Police then filed new Class A misdemeanor charges alleging violations of the court’s order and the order of protection.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed the Cook County circuit court’s revocation of Henry’s pretrial release. Under section 110-6(a), the State needed to show that Henry was charged with a felony or Class A misdemeanor allegedly committed while on release; it did not need to prove at the revocation hearing that he actually committed the new charged offense.
The court further held that the State established by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions would reasonably prevent Henry from being charged with another felony or Class A misdemeanor. Henry’s continued filings and communications despite multiple court orders showed that GPS monitoring and no-contact restrictions had not stopped, and would not stop, the conduct underlying further charges. Justice Ocasio dissented, reasoning that the orders were ambiguous and that filing a civil complaint was not contact with a protected person.
Key Takeaways
- A pretrial-release revocation hearing does not require the State to prove that the defendant committed the new offense; a qualifying new charge alleged to have occurred during release can trigger revocation proceedings.
- The State must still prove by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably prevent further qualifying charges or ensure appearance.
- Repeated conduct inconsistent with court-imposed restrictions can support a finding that additional release conditions would be ineffective.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes the threshold for revoking release from the merits of the new criminal charges. Challenges to whether the conduct actually violated a no-contact or protection order belong in the proceeding on those new charges, not necessarily in the release-revocation hearing.
Because this was a Rule 23 order, it is nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(e)(1).