NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
2024 IL App (3d) 230741-U
Order filed March 6, 2024 ____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ILLINOIS, ) of the 13th Judicial Circuit, ) La Salle County, Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) Appeal No. 3-23-0741 v. ) Circuit No. 23-CF-434 ) BRENNAN L. JORGENSON, ) Honorable ) Howard C. Ryan, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. ____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE DAVENPORT delivered the judgment of the court. Justice Holdridge concurred in the judgment. Presiding Justice McDade dissented. ____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
¶1 Held: The court did not abuse its discretion in granting the State’s petition to deny pretrial release.
¶2 Defendant, Brennan L. Jorgenson, was charged on December 6, 2023, with unlawful
possession of cannabis with intent to deliver (Class X) (720 ILCS 550/5(g) (West 2022)), unlawful
possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (psilocin) (Class X) (id.
§ 570/401(a)(11)), and eight counts of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (Class X and Class 2) (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2022)). The State filed a verified petition to deny pretrial
release, alleging defendant was charged with a nonprobationable offense, and his release posed a
real and present threat to the safety of any person, persons, or the community under section 110-
6.1(a)(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1) (West 2022)).
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 The factual basis provided that on December 5, 2023, agents of the drug task force executed
a search warrant on defendant’s residence. They located: (1) “a large-scale cannabis grow
operation,” (2) over 20,000 grams of cannabis, (3) over 10,000 grams of psilocin mushroom bars,
(4) over $17,000, (5) a scale, (6) a vacuum sealer, (7) a money counter, and (8) eight firearms,
which were identified in the petition. The State attached photographs to the petition, depicting
what was discovered. Defendant had prior convictions for criminal damage to property, possession
of narcotics, and possession of drug paraphernalia.
¶5 A hearing was held on the petition on December 6, 2023. The State called Agent Luke
Radtke of the La Salle Police Department who was assigned to the drug task force and was the
lead agent in this case. Radtke stated that he had spoken to an informant about Tommy Higgins
selling drugs and guns. The informant gave Radtke addresses where Higgins had been “staying
and dealing drugs and selling guns out of and a stash house.” The address of the stash house was
a house owned and occupied by defendant. Radtke initially began to get a search warrant for a
different address, but the informant stated that he and Higgins were driving to another location to
sell a gun. The informant told Radtke what to expect in the vehicle. Officers executed a traffic stop
on the vehicle and took the informant and Higgins into custody. Defendant was “spotted at the
traffic stop.” Regarding defendant’s residence, the informant told Radtke that he had driven
Higgins there three or four times in the previous month. Higgins would go inside and come out
2 with drugs. Radtke obtained a search warrant for defendant’s house. Defendant had left the
residence just prior to the execution of the search warrant, and he was stopped down the road by
an officer and detained. Radtke discussed the photographs and what was discovered inside
defendant’s house. He stated everything discovered at the house indicated that it was a large-scale
operation. The informant had come to Radtke with the concerns about a family member who lost
their life due to a gun that was given to him by Higgins. Everything told to him by the informant
was “spot on.” Based on his training and experience and the information collected, Radtke stated
he believed defendant and Higgins were in business together dealing drugs and selling guns. The
State argued defendant posed a threat to the safety of the community based on the large number of
drugs and guns. The State also noted defendant mentioned in his presentence investigation report
that his four-year-old daughter lived in the residence where guns and drugs were in the house,
unsecured.
¶6 Defense counsel admitted multiple character letters from defendant’s family and friends
and noted defendant had his own construction business. Defense counsel also argued defendant
did not physically possess the guns, nor did he use them against anyone. The court granted the
State’s petition, finding it met its burden by clear and convincing evidence. In doing so the court
stated it could not find any conditions to keep the community safe, based upon the large nature of
the operation. It explained, “He’s already got conditions. He’s a felon. He’s not supposed to be
committing crimes, and he’s not supposed to be having drugs. I can’t think of any pretrial
conditions that he’s going to comply with because he hasn’t done it yet just in his normal life.”
¶7 II. ANALYSIS
¶8 On appeal, defendant contends the court abused its discretion in granting the petition to
detain. We consider factual findings for the manifest weight of the evidence, but the ultimate
3 decision to grant or deny the State’s petition to detain is considered for an abuse of discretion.
People v. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13. Under either standard, we consider whether
the court’s determination is arbitrary or unreasonable. Id.; see also People v. Horne, 2023 IL App
(2d) 230382, ¶ 19.
¶9 Everyone charged with an offense is eligible for pretrial release, which may only be denied
in certain situations. 725 ILCS 5/110-2(a), 110-6.1 (West 2022). The State must file a verified
petition requesting the denial of pretrial release. Id. § 110-6.1. The State then has the burden of
proving by clear and convincing evidence (1) the proof is evident or presumption great that
defendant committed a detainable offense, (2) defendant poses a real and present threat to any
person, persons, or the community or is a flight risk, and (3) no conditions could mitigate this
threat or risk of flight. Id. § 110-6.1(e). When determining a defendant’s dangerousness and the
conditions of release, the statute includes a nonexhaustive list of factors the court can consider. Id.
§§ 110-6.1(g), 110-5.
¶ 10 We find the court did not err in granting the State’s petition. First, Radtke testified he found
out that defendant lived at and owned the stash house where guns and drugs were found. While
defendant challenges the propriety of this evidence, the rules of evidence do not apply to detention
hearings (id. § 110-6.1(f)(5)). The court was able to consider Radtke’s testimony and determine
its credibility. Second, the large amount of drugs and guns found in this case posed a danger to the
community. Third, it was not against the manifest weight of the evidence for the court to find there
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
2024 IL App (3d) 230741-U
Order filed March 6, 2024 ____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ILLINOIS, ) of the 13th Judicial Circuit, ) La Salle County, Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) Appeal No. 3-23-0741 v. ) Circuit No. 23-CF-434 ) BRENNAN L. JORGENSON, ) Honorable ) Howard C. Ryan, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. ____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE DAVENPORT delivered the judgment of the court. Justice Holdridge concurred in the judgment. Presiding Justice McDade dissented. ____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
¶1 Held: The court did not abuse its discretion in granting the State’s petition to deny pretrial release.
¶2 Defendant, Brennan L. Jorgenson, was charged on December 6, 2023, with unlawful
possession of cannabis with intent to deliver (Class X) (720 ILCS 550/5(g) (West 2022)), unlawful
possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (psilocin) (Class X) (id.
§ 570/401(a)(11)), and eight counts of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (Class X and Class 2) (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2022)). The State filed a verified petition to deny pretrial
release, alleging defendant was charged with a nonprobationable offense, and his release posed a
real and present threat to the safety of any person, persons, or the community under section 110-
6.1(a)(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1) (West 2022)).
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 The factual basis provided that on December 5, 2023, agents of the drug task force executed
a search warrant on defendant’s residence. They located: (1) “a large-scale cannabis grow
operation,” (2) over 20,000 grams of cannabis, (3) over 10,000 grams of psilocin mushroom bars,
(4) over $17,000, (5) a scale, (6) a vacuum sealer, (7) a money counter, and (8) eight firearms,
which were identified in the petition. The State attached photographs to the petition, depicting
what was discovered. Defendant had prior convictions for criminal damage to property, possession
of narcotics, and possession of drug paraphernalia.
¶5 A hearing was held on the petition on December 6, 2023. The State called Agent Luke
Radtke of the La Salle Police Department who was assigned to the drug task force and was the
lead agent in this case. Radtke stated that he had spoken to an informant about Tommy Higgins
selling drugs and guns. The informant gave Radtke addresses where Higgins had been “staying
and dealing drugs and selling guns out of and a stash house.” The address of the stash house was
a house owned and occupied by defendant. Radtke initially began to get a search warrant for a
different address, but the informant stated that he and Higgins were driving to another location to
sell a gun. The informant told Radtke what to expect in the vehicle. Officers executed a traffic stop
on the vehicle and took the informant and Higgins into custody. Defendant was “spotted at the
traffic stop.” Regarding defendant’s residence, the informant told Radtke that he had driven
Higgins there three or four times in the previous month. Higgins would go inside and come out
2 with drugs. Radtke obtained a search warrant for defendant’s house. Defendant had left the
residence just prior to the execution of the search warrant, and he was stopped down the road by
an officer and detained. Radtke discussed the photographs and what was discovered inside
defendant’s house. He stated everything discovered at the house indicated that it was a large-scale
operation. The informant had come to Radtke with the concerns about a family member who lost
their life due to a gun that was given to him by Higgins. Everything told to him by the informant
was “spot on.” Based on his training and experience and the information collected, Radtke stated
he believed defendant and Higgins were in business together dealing drugs and selling guns. The
State argued defendant posed a threat to the safety of the community based on the large number of
drugs and guns. The State also noted defendant mentioned in his presentence investigation report
that his four-year-old daughter lived in the residence where guns and drugs were in the house,
unsecured.
¶6 Defense counsel admitted multiple character letters from defendant’s family and friends
and noted defendant had his own construction business. Defense counsel also argued defendant
did not physically possess the guns, nor did he use them against anyone. The court granted the
State’s petition, finding it met its burden by clear and convincing evidence. In doing so the court
stated it could not find any conditions to keep the community safe, based upon the large nature of
the operation. It explained, “He’s already got conditions. He’s a felon. He’s not supposed to be
committing crimes, and he’s not supposed to be having drugs. I can’t think of any pretrial
conditions that he’s going to comply with because he hasn’t done it yet just in his normal life.”
¶7 II. ANALYSIS
¶8 On appeal, defendant contends the court abused its discretion in granting the petition to
detain. We consider factual findings for the manifest weight of the evidence, but the ultimate
3 decision to grant or deny the State’s petition to detain is considered for an abuse of discretion.
People v. Trottier, 2023 IL App (2d) 230317, ¶ 13. Under either standard, we consider whether
the court’s determination is arbitrary or unreasonable. Id.; see also People v. Horne, 2023 IL App
(2d) 230382, ¶ 19.
¶9 Everyone charged with an offense is eligible for pretrial release, which may only be denied
in certain situations. 725 ILCS 5/110-2(a), 110-6.1 (West 2022). The State must file a verified
petition requesting the denial of pretrial release. Id. § 110-6.1. The State then has the burden of
proving by clear and convincing evidence (1) the proof is evident or presumption great that
defendant committed a detainable offense, (2) defendant poses a real and present threat to any
person, persons, or the community or is a flight risk, and (3) no conditions could mitigate this
threat or risk of flight. Id. § 110-6.1(e). When determining a defendant’s dangerousness and the
conditions of release, the statute includes a nonexhaustive list of factors the court can consider. Id.
§§ 110-6.1(g), 110-5.
¶ 10 We find the court did not err in granting the State’s petition. First, Radtke testified he found
out that defendant lived at and owned the stash house where guns and drugs were found. While
defendant challenges the propriety of this evidence, the rules of evidence do not apply to detention
hearings (id. § 110-6.1(f)(5)). The court was able to consider Radtke’s testimony and determine
its credibility. Second, the large amount of drugs and guns found in this case posed a danger to the
community. Third, it was not against the manifest weight of the evidence for the court to find there
were no conditions to mitigate defendant’s dangerousness. As the court noted, defendant appeared
to run a large-scale operation that would be difficult to prevent defendant from running without
detention. Moreover, defendant was a felon, and the court found that he had shown his inability to
abide by any conditions set by the court. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in granting
4 the petition. We further find that the written order in this case was sufficient. See People v. Hodge,
2024 IL App (3d) 230543, ¶ 11.
¶ 11 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 12 The judgment of the circuit court of La Salle County is affirmed.
¶ 13 Affirmed.
¶ 14 PRESIDING JUSTICE McDADE, dissenting:
¶ 15 I dissent from the majority’s decision to affirm the circuit court’s order granting the State’s
petition to deny pretrial release.
¶ 16 As the majority recites, section 110-6.1(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 states
that “[a]ll defendants shall be presumed eligible for pretrial release. . . .” 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)
(West 2022). To rebut this presumption, the State must prove the following three elements, by
clear and convincing evidence: (1) that the proof is evident or the presumption great that the
defendant has committed a detainable offense; (2) that the defendant poses a real and present threat
to the safety of any person, persons, or the community; and (3) that no conditions can mitigate this
threat. Id.
¶ 17 I agree with the majority’s findings that the State satisfied both the first and second of the
above elements. As to the third element, section 110-10(b) of the statute sets out a nonexhaustive
list of possible conditions for pretrial release. See 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e) (West 2022). During the
hearing on its petition below, the State argued that, at the time when he committed the offenses
charged in this case, defendant was already a convicted felon prohibited from possessing the drugs
and guns found inside his home. However, the State did not specifically argue why any of the
conditions listed under section 110-10(b) would not mitigate defendant’s dangerousness. Nor did
the State argue why other conditions outside of the statute, such as preventing defendant or anyone
5 else from accessing the home where the drugs and guns were contained, would not mitigate the
same. Under these circumstances, I find that the State did not satisfy the third element and would
reverse the circuit court’s decision.