Legislative Committee: Butler Presses to Scrap SAFE-T Act; Committee Keeps Narrower Ask

Will County Legislative Committee | October 6, 2026

Article Summary: Board member Daniel J. Butler told the Will County Board’s Legislative Committee on Oct. 6, 2026, that he would like to see the SAFE-T Act scrapped altogether, drawing disagreement from Chair Denise Winfrey and another member. No motion was made, and the state agenda’s existing plank seeking four specific amendments to the act was left unchanged.

SAFE-T Act Discussion Key Points:

The draft 2027 State Legislative Agenda supports four amendments to the act, including a 15-day deadline to transport defendants arrested in another county, up from five days.

Winfrey said she does not oppose the act but opposes how some judges administer it.

Ogalla said the listed changes came from the state’s attorney’s office and described them as reasonable and achievable.

Butler also questioned a raw milk plank he said he had not seen before, but said he would let it go.

WILL COUNTY — A debate over Illinois’ pretrial release law surfaced in the closing minutes of the Will County Board’s Legislative Committee meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 6, 2026, but produced no change to the county’s draft 2027 State Legislative Agenda.

Board member Daniel J. Butler said there were a couple of items in the state draft he had not seen before, naming the SAFE-T Act plank and a plank on unpasteurized milk. He said he would let the milk item go but wanted to address the other.

“The SAFE-T Act — I’d like to see it scrapped altogether,” Butler said. “It’s been nothing but a problem. You talk to any of the attorneys, any of the people in the police department, they all don’t like it. In public, they’ll say, ‘We follow the law,’ but it’s just a big crippling factor.” He described a case in which he said a man was found in Mokena with incendiary devices and a map of places he intended to bomb and was released, with authorities later having to pick him up in Indiana.

Chair Denise Winfrey said the problem lies in administration rather than the statute. “I do not oppose the SAFE-T Act. I do oppose the way that some people are administering the act, because there are provisions in the act that would have prevented that from happening,” she said. “I think that sometimes we have lazy jurists who do not use the full extent of their authority to implement those things that are already provided for in the act.”

Vice Chair Judy Ogalla said the plank as written is deliberately modest. “This language here doesn’t go too far,” she said, adding that the state’s attorney’s office provided the requested changes and considers them reasonable. She said the county’s Republican members do not have the numbers in Springfield to repeal the law, but that some Democratic legislators might consider targeted language. “You’ve got to chew at it a little bit at a time to get support,” she said.

Another member said she did not believe crime had increased because of the act, and noted that before it took effect a defendant who could post bond could be released in any event. She agreed with Winfrey that administration, not the statute, drives most complaints.

Butler said he would support the initiative but would be waiting for it to be complete. Ogalla added that the act has nonetheless burdened the state’s attorney’s office with additional work on compressed deadlines.

What the Plank Asks For

The draft’s Public Safety section, on page 23, supports four amendments: removing the requirement that a court review a defendant’s pretrial detention at every court date, with review instead only upon written motion of the defendant, citing 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(i-5); extending the five-day window to transport a defendant arrested in another county by an additional 10 days, for a 15-day deadline, citing 725 ILCS 109-2; issuance by the Illinois Supreme Court of approved statewide forms for petitions and orders related to detention and pretrial release; and state funding for all costs associated with mandates placed on counties by the act.

The unpasteurized milk plank Butler referenced appears on page 19, opposing SB2702, which would allow off-farm sale and delivery of raw milk. A member said she had taken the matter up with the health department and believed it had been removed at the department’s request, but noted it appears in the draft again. No motion was made to strike it.