The person accused of setting a girl on hearth aboard a Blue Line practice this week repeatedly violated his digital monitoring program by leaving his dwelling with out permission for prolonged durations, CWBChicago has discovered. And, information present, when Lawrence Reed randomly poured gasoline on the 26-year-old girl and set her ablaze on Monday night time, he had been out of his dwelling with out permission for greater than 12 hours.
Regardless of repeated, typically prolonged violations, he was by no means apprehended by personnel from the workplace of Chief Choose Timothy Evans, who’re liable for working this system. A spokesperson for the workplace declined to touch upon what efforts, if any, had been taken to find Reed, saying “This data would probably even be protected as a part of the pretrial document, so we might not launch it with out the defendant’s categorical permission.”
The violations had been famous in a courtroom submitting ready by “pretrial officers” in Evans’ workplace after Reed was federally charged with terrorism aboard mass transit on Wednesday.
Reed had been carrying an ankle monitor since Cook dinner County Choose Teresa Molina-Gonzalez rejected a prosecution request on August 22 to maintain him in jail pending trial on felony allegations that he knocked a social employee unconscious as a result of he was pissed off at being held longer than he anticipated at MacNeal Hospital’s safe psychiatric ward.
Shortly after 9 p.m. Monday, federal prosecutors say, Reed crammed a beverage container with gasoline at a West Aspect service station and boarded a practice towards downtown. At about 9:25 p.m., he walked between practice automobiles, approached a seated feminine passenger from behind, and poured the gasoline on her head and physique, officers stated.
She ran to the again of the practice automobile in a frantic try to flee, however he adopted and set her ablaze, prosecutors stated. The girl continued to burn contained in the automobile as Reed regarded on, and different passengers did nothing to assist her, based on the feds.
The girl, nonetheless absolutely engulfed in flames, burst from the practice when its doorways opened at Clark-Lake moments later.
On the time of the assault on Monday night time, Reed had obtained permission from Cook dinner County Choose Ralph Meczyk to be out of the home from 10 a.m. to five p.m. on Tuesdays, 11 a.m. to eight p.m. on Saturdays, and eight a.m. to three p.m. on Sundays, based on courtroom information.
The pretrial officers’ submitting reveals that their workplace was notified at 9:13 a.m. on Monday — a full 12 hours earlier than the hearth assault — that Reed was not the place he was purported to be. Their workplace obtained an “escalated alert” at 12:13 p.m. and yet one more “escalated alert” at 12:13 a.m. on Tuesday, some three hours after the assault occurred, the submitting states.
Earlier than his disappearance on Monday, Reed was away from his dwelling in violation of courtroom orders for practically 12 hours from Friday night time into Saturday morning — leaving at 6:31 p.m. and returning at 6:21 a.m., the submitting states. As soon as once more, the pretrial officers famous an “escalated alert” was obtained three hours after he allegedly left the home.
On Wednesday, November 12, 5 days earlier than the Blue Line horror, he left his dwelling with out permission for practically 24 hours straight, the courtroom officers’ submitting stated. He left at 9:59 a.m. and returned at 2:04 p.m., solely to go away once more at 3:18 p.m. and keep gone till 5:53 a.m. Thursday, based on the report. Court docket officers obtained “escalated alerts” of these violations at 12:59 p.m. and once more at 6:18 p.m. on Wednesday.
The primary violation famous within the submitting got here on Sunday, November 9, when he left his dwelling for 2 transient durations between 6:26 p.m. and 6:55 p.m.
In April, after Evans’ workplace assumed accountability for the countywide digital monitoring program, Cook dinner County State’s Lawyer Eileen O’Neill Burke instructed her workers in a memo that the chief decide’s workplace was not ready for the job, making this system “a severe risk to public security.”
O’Neill Burke wrote that the chief decide’s “personnel will not be regulation enforcement officers and can’t examine, search escape expenses, or receive an arrest warrant if an individual absconds. Accordingly, within the occasion that an individual absconds from digital monitoring … pretrial/probation officers’ recourse is to name 911 or search help from regulation enforcement after which advance the case to the courtroom name to report that data to a decide.”
We requested Evans’ workplace in regards to the digital monitoring alert system, pretrial staffing ranges, and what steps had been taken to find Reed earlier than Monday’s assault. Listed below are our questions and the responses offered by the workplace spokesperson:
- What steps had been taken to find Reed throughout curfew violation occasions? What had been the outcomes of these efforts? If no steps had been taken, why not?
We is not going to touch upon this, since it’s a pending case. This data would probably even be protected as a part of the pretrial document, so we might not launch it with out the defendant’s categorical permission (725 ILCS 185/31). - What are the usual procedures to be adopted when any defendant with comparable pretrial launch circumstances fails to be of their assigned residence as required?
Alerts are routinely emailed to the assigned pretrial officer for verification to find out if they’re legitimate curfew violations. If they’re legitimate curfew violations, the assigned officer will put together a non-compliance report with all alleged violations. The report will likely be reviewed by a supervisor earlier than being despatched to the Assistant State’s Lawyer, the assigned protection counsel, and the clerk to be tendered to the decide no later than the following scheduled courtroom date. The ASA will determine whether or not to file the non-compliance and petition to sanction or revoke pretrial launch. - What’s an “escalated alert?” What actions, if any, are taken when courtroom personnel obtain an “escalated alert?” What steps had been taken after every of the escalated alerts listed within the submitting?
Escalated alerts point out that a person has been out of compliance with their scheduled curfew for an prolonged interval. Escalated alerts are dealt with in the identical means as different curfew alerts; see the response to query 2. We additionally is not going to touch upon the final half, given the response to query 1 relating to disclosing data within the pretrial document. - What number of courtroom staff are assigned to observe pretrial EM alerts? What number of of these staff had been on responsibility 11/14 at 9 p.m.; 11/17 at 12 p.m.; 11/17 at 9:25 p.m.?
The division makes use of a layered monitoring mannequin that features the contracted monitoring middle, Dwelling Confinement workers, and pretrial/probation workers. Two separate teams of workers monitor pretrial EM and related alerts; Dwelling Confinement Unit EM technicians and Pretrial Providers post-release supervision workers. There are presently 17 EM technicians and about 120 FTEs in pretrial post-release. The technicians are cut up throughout 4 shifts masking 24 hours. Technicians are liable for triaging device-related alerts like tampers and communication loss; they don’t triage or reply to inclusion zone/curfew alarms, that are emailed on to the pretrial officer.On 11/14 at 9 p.m. there have been 4 technicians on shift; on 11/17 at 12 p.m. there have been 4 technicians on shift; on 11/17 at 9:25 p.m. there have been 3 technicians on shift.
The post-release workers supervise all defendants ordered to pretrial supervision, together with these on curfew or 24/7 dwelling detention. Every individual on EM has an assigned pretrial officer who’s liable for verifying and addressing inclusion zone/curfew alarms by way of the non-compliance course of. These workers work throughout regular county enterprise hours (M-F, 8 to 4, 8:30 to 4:30, or 9 to five).
- What number of defendants are on EM in any type?
As of 11/21/2025, there have been 3,191 people on EM with the Grownup Probation Division.
Authentic reporting you’ll see nowhere else, paid for by our readers. Click on right here to assist our work.
