1 Sheriff s Justice Institute: Central Court Report February 21, 2018 Executive Summary The Sheriff s Justice Institute recorded data and observations in Central Court from 8/29/16-12/20/16 and then again from 9/18/17-11/28/17. We find that: Felony gun charges o Before 9/18/17: D-s for felony gun charges were administered in 95.8% of cases After: D-s for felony gun charges were administered in 39.8% of cases o Before 9/18/17: The average D- was $133,684, the median D- was $75,000 After: The average D- was $21,891, the median D- was $10,000 o Before 9/18/17: s, IEM, and I-s were rarely administered After: The use of s, IEM, and I-s increased dramatically I s and s Increased o Before 9/18/17: I-s were administered 20.5% of cases. After: I- were given in 54.7% of cases. o Before 9/18/17: s were administered 0.6% of cases. After: s were given in 7.8% of cases. D frequency and amount decreased o Before 9/18/17: D-s were administered 53.0% of cases. After: D-s were given in 21.2% of cases. o Before 9/18/17: The average D was $95,815, the median was $75,000. After: The average D was $23,927, the median was $8,500. Decrease in defendants with a lead charge of Retail Theft o Before 9/18/17: Retail Theft was the 4 th most frequent charge. After: Retail Theft was the 11 th most frequent charge. Judges tend to follow Office of the Chief Judge s (OCJ) Pretrial Divisions recommendations more frequently o Before 9/18/17: Judges followed the DMF in 34.0% of bond court decisions. After: Judges followed the DMF in 71.2% of bond court decisions. Defendants spend more time in front of Judges After 9/18/17 defendants spent more than twice as long in front of Judge as they did before. Disparities between private attorneys and Public Defenders (PD) have diminished o Before 9/18/17: Private attorneys spent 2.8 times longer in front of the bench than PDs. After: Private attorneys spent 1.3 time longer in front of the bench than PDs. Overview Before 9/18/17 (Observed from 8/29/16-12/20/16) 25 Days Observed Average of 58 defendants per day 94.2% Public Defender (PD) o 3.4% currently in DOC custody o 1.6% not in court due to incapacitation Private Attorney 5.8% After 9/18/17 (Observed from 9/18/17-11/28/17) 47 Days Observed Average of 42 defendants per day 93.7% Public Defender (PD) o 3.4% currently in DOC custody o 0.5% not in court due to incapacitation Private Attorney 6.3%
2 s for Felony Gun s Before 9/18/17, D-s for felony gun charges were administered at a higher rate with higher bond amounts than after 9/18/17. Before 9/18/17, s, IEM, and I-s were rarely administered for felony gun charges. After 9/18/17, the use of s, IEM, and I-s increased dramatically. 2.2% 2.0% 0.6% 9.3% 22.4% 39.8% 95.8% 28.0% D EM I C D I IEM NO BOND Type n % C 0 0.0% D * 250 95.8% Less than $10,000 4 1.6% $10,000 - $39,999 41 16.4% $40,000 - $99,999 106 42.4% $100,000 - $249,999 53 21.2% $250,000 or more 46 18.4% I 5 2.0% IEM 6 2.2% Less than $10,000 0 0.0% $10,000 - $39,999 4 66.7% $40,000 - $99,999 2 33.3% $100,000 - $249,999 0 0.0% 0 0.0% lle 0 0.0% Total 261 100.0% Type n % C 2 0.6% D * 128 39.8% Less than $10,000 58 45.3% $10,000 - $39,999 41 32.0% $40,000 - $99,999 21 16.4% $100,000 - $249,999 7 5.5% $250,000 or more 1 0.8% I 90 28.0% IEM 72 22.4% Less than $10,000 0 0.0% $10,000 - $39,999 27 37.5% $40,000 - $99,999 27 37.5% $100,000 - $249,999 18 25.0% 30 9.3% lle 0 0.0% Total 322 100.00% *Average D : $133,684 *Median D : $75,000 *Average D : $21,891 *Median D : $10,000
3 Felony Gun s Breakdown The following is a breakdown of the charge group Felony Gun. This group is broken down by class, charge, and statute for the 322 individuals that entered CBC after 9/18/17 facing a felony gun charge. CLASS N % X 14 4.3% 1 6 1.9% 2 148 46.0% 3 36 11.2% 4 118 36.6% TOTAL 322 100.0% See page 15 for Felony Penalties Statute Class n % *720-5/24-1.1(A) FELON POSS/USE WEAPON/FIREARM/PAROLE 2/3 170 52.8% FELON POSS BODY ARMOR X 2 0.6% *720-5/24-1.6(A)(1) AGG UNLAWFUL USE OF WEAPON/VEH 4 72 22.4% *720-5/24-1.6(A)(2) AGG UNLAWFUL USE WEAPON/PERSON 4 33 10.2% AGG UUW W/ BODY ARMOR/NO X 1 0.3% 720-5/12-3.05(E)(1) AGG BATTERY/DISCHARGE FIREARM X 11 3.4% 720-5/24-5(B) POSS FIREARM W/ DEFACED SER NO 3 11 3.4% 720-5/24-1.5(A) RECKLESS DISCHARGE OF FIREARM 4 6 1.9% 720-5/24-1.2(A)(2) AGG DISCHARGE FIREARM/VEH/SCH 1 4 1.2% 720-5/24-1-A-9 CARRY/POSSESS CONCEALED GUN 4 3 0.9% 720-5/12-2-C-2 AGG ASSAULT/DISCHARGE FIREARM 4 1 0.3% 720-5/24-1.2(A)(1) AGG DISCHARGE FIREARM/OCC VEH 1 1 0.3% 720-5/24-1.6-A-3-A AGG UUW/LOADED PISTOL, REVOLVER, HANDGUN-NO CCL 4 1 0.3% 720-5/24-1.8(A)(1) POSS FIREARM/VEHICLE/GANG MBR 2 1 0.3% 720-5/24-1-A-4 CARRY/POSSESS FIREARM SCHOOL 3 1 0.3% 720-5/24-3(A)(K) SELL FIREARM/NO VALID FOID 4 1 0.3% 720-5/24-3.8(A) POSSESSION OF A STOLEN FI 2 1 0.3% 720-5/29D-35.1(A) BOARD AIRCRAFT WITH WEAPON 4 1 0.3% 720-5/4-3.1 A-1 AGG UNLAWFUL USE OF WEAPON 4 1 0.3% Total 322 100.0% *Statutes 720-5/24-1.1(A), 720-5/24-1.6(A)(1), and (A)(2) make up 86.3% of CBC Felony Gun charges. 7 Days After CBC n % Community 195 60.6% I 87 44.6% Paid 54 27.7% EM 34 17.4% Paid Released EM 20 10.3% Hard Custody 127 39.4% Total 322 100.0% SJI tracked whether a person was released from CCDOC 7 days after defendants appeared in CBC. Rebooking Reason n % New 13 61.9% Felony Gun 5 38.5% VOBB 6 28.6% Placed on EM 2 9.5% Total 21 100.0% As of 2/1/18, 21 individuals have been rebooked. This does not include defendants who went from EM to hard custody.
s 4 I s and s have increased. Before 9/18/17, I-s were administered in 20.5% of cases and after, I- s were given in 54.7% of cases. Before 9/18/17, s were administered in 0.6% of cases and after, s were given in 7.8% of cases. Overall, D- frequency and amounts have decreased. Before 9/18/17, D-s were administered in 53.0% of cases and after, D-s were given in 21.2% of cases. Before 9/18/17, the Average D- was $95,815, with a Median at $75,000. After 9/18/17, the Average D- was $23,927 with the Median at $8,500. Type n % C 1 0.1% D * 859 53.0% Less than $10,000 91 10.6% $10,000 - $39,999 285 33.2% $40,000 - $99,999 249 29.0% $100,000 - $249,999 126 14.7% $250,000 or more 108 12.6% I 333 20.5% IEM 415 25.6% Less than $10,000 33 8.0% $10,000 - $39,999 202 48.7% $40,000 or more 180 43.4% 10 0.6% lle 3 0.2% Total 1621 100.0% Type n % C 5 0.3% D * 422 21.2% Less than $10,000 211 50.0% $10,000 - $39,999 113 26.8% $40,000 - $99,999 70 16.6% $100,000 - $249,999 25 5.9% $250,000 or more 3 0.7% I 1091 54.7% IEM 321 16.1% Less than $10,000 2 0.6% $10,000 - $39,999 151 47.0% $40,000 - $99,999 168 52.3% 155 7.8% lle 0 0.0% Total 1994 100.0% *Average D : $95,815 *Median D : $75,000 *Average D : $23,927 *Median D : $8,500
5 Judge Comparisons CBC Outcome by Judge Before 9/18/17 64% 57% 57% 56% 46% 22% 12% 18% 25% 26% 16% 28% 25% 24% 18% 1.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.7% 1.1% Judge Bourgeois A Judge Brown B Judge Chiampas C Judge Panarese D Judge Sullivan E 69% CBC Outcome by Judge After 8/18/17 65% 44% 47% 51% 52% 34% 11% 18% 15% 5% 4% 25% 17% 10% 27% 14% 14% 10% 11% 7% 22% 20% 6% Atcherson Judge F Judge ClancyG Judge Lyke H Marubio Judge I Judge MillerJ Navarro Judge K
6 A Closer Look Before 9/18/17 8/29/16-12/20/16 Judge A Judge B Judge C Judge D Judge E D 64.3% 56.6% 57.4% 28.3% 56.4% Less than $10,000 0.0% 1.1% 27.4% 0.0% 5.7% $10,000 - $39,999 5.5% 50.2% 36.3% 4.0% 41.5% $40,000 - $99,999 28.6% 36.6% 16.4% 46.7% 34.0% $100,000 - $249,999 28.6% 5.8% 15.1% 27.3% 8.1% $250,000 or more 37.3% 6.3% 4.8% 22.0% 10.7% IEM 22.4% 18.0% 25.5% 46.0% 18.1% Less than $10,000 0.0% 0.0% 24.6% 0.0% 2.0% $10,000 - $39,999 13.6% 96.9% 47.7% 23.2% 82.3% $40,000 or more 86.4% 3.1% 27.7% 76.8% 15.7% I 12.2% 25.4% 15.9% 24.6% 24.5% 1.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.7% 1.1% C 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% lle 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% After 9/18/17 9/18/17-11/28/17 Judge F Judge G Judge H Judge I Judge J Judge K D 11.0% 33.6% 25.3% 27.1% 10.4% 22.1% Less than $10,000 75.0% 14.3% 45.9% 85.3% 65.1% 28.8% $10,000 - $39,999 9.4% 27.5% 33.9% 11.6% 27.9% 48.1% $40,000 - $99,999 12.5% 40.7% 11.9% 3.2% 4.7% 21.2% $100,000 - $249,999 3.1% 17.6% 7.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% $250,000 or more 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 2.3% 1.9% IEM 15.1% 18.5% 16.7% 14.0% 14.2% 20.0% Less than $10,000 0.0% 2.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% $10,000 - $39,999 27.3% 62.0% 61.1% 12.2% 55.9% 53.2% $40,000 or more 72.7% 36.0% 37.5% 87.8% 44.1% 46.8% I 68.8% 43.5% 46.9% 51.4% 64.6% 51.9% 5.1% 4.4% 10.0% 7.4% 10.8% 6.0% C 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
7 s Defendants lead charge shown in each observational period. Before 9/18/17, Retail Theft was a top five charge. After 9/18/17, it did not crack the top ten. s n % PCS 445 27.5% Felony Gun 261 16.1% Mfg/Del/Possession with Intent 203 12.5% *Retail Theft 123 7.6% Driving Suspended/Revoked License 97 6.0% Felony Cannabis 76 4.7% Agg/Robbery/Firearm 60 3.7% Residential/ Burglary 55 3.4% Agg DUI 53 3.3% Theft 44 2.7% Agg Battery 34 2.1% Agg Battery Peace Officer 32 2.0% Fraud/Forgery 18 1.1% Escape EM 17 1.0% Possession of Stolen Motor Vehicle 16 1.0% Agg Assault 14 0.9% Criminal Damage to Property 13 0.8% Fleeing/Eluding 12 0.7% Agg Domestic Battery 8 0.5% Vehicular Hijacking 7 0.4% Attempted Murder 5 0.3% Battery 5 0.3% Arson 4 0.2% Armed Habitual Criminal 4 0.2% Home Invasion 4 0.2% False Report 3 0.2% Agg Battery Child 2 0.1% Armed Robbery 1 0.1% Possession of Explosives 1 0.1% Unauthorized Video Taping 1 0.1% Mob Action 1 0.1% Criminal Trespass to Vehicle 1 0.1% Drinking in the Public Way 1 0.1% Total 1621 100.0% *Before 9/18/17: Retail Theft was the 4 th most frequent charge *After 9/18/17: Retail Theft was the 11 th most frequent charge n % PCS 601 30.1% Felony Gun 322 16.1% Mfg/Del/Possession with Intent 196 9.8% Felony Cannabis 136 6.8% Residential/ Burglary 88 4.4% Agg/Robbery/Firearm 85 4.3% Driving Suspended/Revoked License 75 3.8% Agg Battery Peace Officer 68 3.4% Agg DUI 65 3.3% Theft 46 2.3% *Retail Theft 44 2.2% Agg Battery 41 2.1% Fraud/Forgery 35 1.8% Escape EM 30 1.5% Possession of Stolen Motor Vehicle 27 1.4% Agg Domestic Battery 26 1.3% Armed Habitual Criminal 21 1.1% Agg Fleeing/Eluding 13 0.7% Vehicular Hijacking 10 0.5% Armed Violence 9 0.5% Criminal Damage to Property 9 0.5% Att Murder 8 0.4% Home Invasion 6 0.3% Violation Order of Protection 4 0.2% Agg Battery Child/Disabled 3 0.2% Child Abduction 3 0.2% Agg Kidnaping 2 0.1% Aggravated Cruelty to Animals 2 0.1% Arson 2 0.1% Continuing Fin Crim Entrprs 2 0.1% Criminal Trespass 2 0.1% False report of offense 2 0.1% Intimidation 2 0.1% Att Defeat Screen Test 1 0.1% Bring/Poss Contra Penal Inst 1 0.1% Communicate Witness 1 0.1% ID Theft 1 0.1% False Personation Peace Officer 1 0.1% Obstruction/ Destroy Evidence 1 0.1% Public Indecency 1 0.1% Resist/ Obstruct Peace Officer 1 0.1% Stalking 1 0.1% Total 1994 100.0%
8 PSA Beginning July 1, 2015, the Chief Judge s Office s Pretrial Service Division implemented a comprehensive risk assessment instrument known as the Public Safety Assessment (PSA). The PSA is a Kentucky-based model designed to better evaluate a defendant s threat to the community and likelihood to appear at their next court date. The PSA is broken down into three scales: New Criminal Activity (NCA), Failure to Appear (FTA), and New Violence Criminal Activity (). In bond court the NCA and FTA scales are designated as a number from 1 to 6. Higher numbers are used to indicate higher likelihoods that the defendant will be rearrested or fail to appear for court dates. The scale is designated as a violence flag. The flag is used to notify judges that a defendant has a high likelihood of committing a new violent crime. A defendant either has a violence flag or does not. The combined NCA and FTA scores result in a defendant s recommended monitoring level which can be found using the Decision Making Framework (DMF) Matrix (see next page). There are 7 total recommendations, in order of increased levels of monitoring: 1) Release with Conditions 2) Release with PM- court date reminders 3) Release with PSL I- once a month face-to-face meetings. 4) Release with PSL II- biweekly face-to-face meetings. 5) Release with PSL III- biweekly face-to-face meetings and biweekly phone call check-ins. 6) Sheriff s EM 7) Maximum conditions DMF pretrial monitoring levels with their respective conditions are laid out in the chart below: DMF- Monitoring Level and Contacts Risk Level (by Color) Monitoring Level Phone Contact Face-to-Face Contact Conditions of Monitoring Dark Green Release w/ Conditions ne ne Light Green Release w/pm ne ne Yellow PSL I ne 1x Monthly Yes Amber PSL II ne 1x Biweekly Yes Light Orange PSL III 1x Biweekly 1x Biweekly Yes Dark Orange Sheriff s EM Red Maximum Conditions
The charge a defendant is facing can have an effect on the DMF. These charges include: Domestic Battery, Stalking, Violation of an Order of Protection, Criminal Sexual Abuse, Kidnapping, and Arson. If a defendant is arrested for any of these charges then the defendant will be bumped up a level on the DMF matrix. For example: If a defendant scored a 4 on the NCA scale and a 4 on FTA scale then, on the DMF matrix, this would land them on a monitoring level of PSL III. If a person was arrested for Domestic Battery then this would bump up the defendant s monitoring level to Release with Sheriff s EM. There are certain charges that are automatic Maximum Conditions Recommended including but not limited to certain types of Aggravated Battery, Vehicular Hijacking, Armed/Agg Robbery, and Att/Murder. 9 NCA 1 NCA 2 NCA 3 NCA 4 NCA 5 NCA 6 FTA 2 Released with Conditions Released with Conditions Released with Conditions Release with PM Release with PM PSL I FTA 3 Release with PM PSL I PSL II PSL II PSL III with Curfew FTA 4 PSL I PSL I PSL III Sheriffs's EM FTA 5 PSL I PSL III Sheriffs's EM FTA 6 Maximum Conditions Maximum Conditions Maximum Conditions Maximum Conditions Maximum Conditions Maximum Conditions Maximum Conditions All information collected on the PSA and DMF was gathered on vember 13, 2015 during a PSA Refresher Training Opportunity Go-To-Meeting sponsored by Dr. Marie Vanstrand of Luminosity. For more info visit: http://www.arnoldfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/psa-risk-factors-and-formula.pdf For the remainder of this report levels Release on PM, PSL I, PSL II, PSL III and PSL with curfew under are grouped together under the category of Pretrial Supervision.
10 DMF in Practice Side by comparisons of the OCJ s Pretrial department s recommendations on all defendants during the periods observed. Pretrial Recommendation N % Conditions 177 10.9% Pretrial Supervision 895 55.2% EM 83 5.1% Max 206 12.7% N/A* 260 16.0% Total 1621 100.0% Pretrial Recommendation n % Conditions 307 15.4% Pretrial Supervision 1048 52.6% EM 120 6.0% Max 291 14.6% N/A* 228 11.4% Total 1994 100.0% *N/A- There were instances when Pretrial Service was unable to conduct an interview for certain defendants. Instances included: defendants admitted to the hospital, defendants in CCDOC custody prior to Court, defendants without any prior history, or if an interpreter was not present. Some scores were unavailable to court attendees because the Judge did not ask for the PSA numbers. Followed DMF? Before 9/18/17 Judges followed the DMF in 34.0% of bond court decisions. After 9/18/17 Judges followed the DMF in 71.2% of bond court decisions. It is important to note the DMF recommendations do not directly correspond with the current bond court system. Below is an attempt to match the DMF recommendation with the administered bond type and amount. Accordance n % Yes 463 34.0%, harsher 831 61.1%, more lenient 67 4.9% Total* 1361 100.0% *N/A not included Accordance n % Yes 1257 71.2%, harsher 301 17.0%, more lenient 208 11.8% Total* 1766 100.0% Grid Pretrial Recommendation Follow DMF? Condition Pretrial Supervision EM Max Yes I-, defendant can afford I-, defendant can afford EM, harsher defendant cannot defendant cannot defendant cannot afford, EM, afford, EM, afford, ---, more lenient I-, defendant --- --- can afford defendant can afford- If the defendant explicitly stated an amount they could post. defendant cannot afford, I-, EM, defendant can afford defendant cannot afford- If the defendant explicitly stated an amount they could not post or the defendant never stated a bond amount they could post.
11 Followed DMF by Judge 74.9% Before 9/18/17 DMF Accordance by Judge 65.0% 54.9% 56.3% 62.1% Bourgeois Brown Chiampas Panarese Sullivan Judge A Judge B Judge C Judge D Yes, harsher, more lenient Judge E 8/29/16-12/20/16 Judge A Judge B Judge C Judge D Judge E Yes 24.0% 32.7% 39.4% 31.3% 36.2%, harsher 74.9% 65.0% 54.9% 56.3% 62.1%, more lenient 1.2% 2.3% 5.7% 12.5% 1.7% After 9/18/17 DMF Accordance by Judge 75.1% 63.2% 70.2% 71.6% 78.2% 63.6% Atcherson Clancy Lyke Marubio Miller Navarro Judge F Judge G Judge H Yes, harsher, more lenient Judge I Judge J Judge K 9/18/17-11/28/17 Judge F Judge G Judge H Judge I Judge J Judge K Yes 75.1% 63.2% 70.2% 71.6% 78.2% 63.6%, harsher 7.1% 29.4% 20.7% 15.7% 8.9% 25.7%, more lenient 17.8% 7.4% 9.2% 12.8% 12.9% 10.7%
12 Time After 9/18/17, defendants spent more than twice as long in front of the bench as they did before 9/18/17. Judge Ave Time (sec) All 80.0 Judge E 107.4 Judge C 104.8 Judge D 77.8 Judge B 70.9 Judge A 65.5 Judge Ave Time (sec) ALL 181.5 Judge G 197.1 Judge I 196.9 Judge J 191.2 Judge K 183.8 Judge F 178.8 Judge H 156.7 PD vs. Private The time disparity between private attorneys and Public Defenders has diminished. Before 9/18/17, private attorneys spent 2.8 times longer in front of the bench than PDs. After 9/18/17, private attorneys spent 1.3 time longer in front of the bench the PDs. Before 9/18/17 After 9/18/17 Private Attorney Public Defender Private Attorney Public Defender 0 50 100 150 200 250 Seconds 0 50 100 150 200 250 Seconds Representation Avg time (sec) Public Defender 69.4 Private Attorney 191.8 Representation Avg time (sec) Public Defender 179.8 Private Attorney 237.1
13 Felony gun charge comparisons The following are side by side examples of defendants charged with felony gun charges from before and after 9/18/17. For information on Pretrial s scores and recommendations please see pages 8 and 9. Defendant D.S. Age 31 NCA 6 FTA 4 Pretrial Rec. Max UUW Felon 400,000 D Defendant M.D. Age 24 NCA 6 FTA 5 Pretrial Rec. Max UUW Felon $500 5,000 D Defendant E.M. Age 20 NCA 2 Pretrial Rec. conditions AGG Discharge $500 250,000 D Defendant A.S. Age 20 NCA 2 Pretrial Rec. conditions AGG Discharge $1,000 10,000 D Defendant F.P. Age 26 NCA 1 Pretrial Rec. conditions AGG UUW 40,000 D Defendant M.F. Age 24 NCA 1 Pretrial Rec. conditions AGG UUW I- Defendant A.H. Age 19 NCA 2 Pretrial Rec. conditions AGG Discharge 500,000 D Defendant T.R. Age 28 NCA 2 Pretrial Rec. conditions AGG Discharge $5,000 50,000 D
14 Defendant L.C. Age 38 NCA 3 FTA 2 Pretrial Rec. Pretrial Supervision UUW Felon 500,000 D Defendant K.C. Age 18 NCA 3 FTA 2 Pretrial Rec. Pretrial Supervision AGG UUW $500 2,000 D Defendant D.D. Age 20 NCA 4 FTA 2 Yes Pretrial Rec. Max AGG UUW 350,000 Defendant R.G Age 36 NCA 6 FTA 5 Yes Pretrial Rec. Max UUW Felon $1,500 Defendant C.M. Age 28 NCA 6 FTA 4 Yes Pretrial Rec. Max UUW Felon 500,000 D Defendant E.J. Age 46 NCA 4 FTA 4 Yes Pretrial Rec. Max UUW Felon $0 I- Defendant J.M. Age 27 NCA 1 Pretrial Rec. conditions AGG UUW 100,000 D Defendant J.M Age 29 NCA 1 Pretrial Rec. conditions AGG UUW I- Defendant D.G. Age 29 NCA 4 FTA 3 Pretrial Rec. Pretrial Supervision UUW Felon 150,000 D Defendant A.H. Age 56 NCA 4 FTA 3 Pretrial Rec. Pretrial Supervision UUW Felon
15 Felony Penalties in Illinois Class X- between 6 and 30 years IDOC and/or fine up to $25,000 Class 1- between 4 and 15 years IDOC and/or fine up to $25,000 Class 2- between 3 and 7 years IDOC and/or fine up to $25,000 Class 3- between 2 and 5 years IDOC and/or fine up to $25,000 Class 4- between 1 and 3 years IDOC and/or fine up to $25,000