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).
2026 IL App (3d) 260161-U
Order filed June 18, 2026 ____________________________________________________________________________
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. 3-26-0161 v. ) Circuit No. 26-CF-51 ) JACKSON B. YEAGER, ) Honorable ) Michelle A. Vescogni & Defendant-Appellant. ) H. Chris Ryan, Jr., Judges, Presiding. ____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE BERTANI delivered the judgment of the court. Justice Davenport concurred in the judgment. Justice Anderson dissented. ____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
¶1 Held: The State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that conditions of pretrial release could not mitigate the threat defendant posed. Reversed and remanded.
¶2 Defendant, Jackson B. Yeager, was charged on February 9, 2026, with five counts of child
sexual abuse material (Class X) (Pub. Act 104-245, § 50 (eff. Jan. 1, 2026) (amending 720 ILCS
5/11-20.1)) and five counts of unauthorized video recording (Class 3) (720 ILCS 5/26-4(a-5), (a- 20), (d)(4) (West 2024)). The State filed a verified petition to deny pretrial release, alleging
defendant was charged with a detainable 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)(5) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(5) (West 2024)). We reverse and
remand with directions.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 The factual basis from the State’s petition provided that on February 2, 2026, officers were
dispatched to a residence regarding a hidden camera found in the bathroom. Officers spoke with
E.H., who was 17 years old, and her parents, who resided at the residence. E.H. stated that she
entered the bathroom to take a shower, noticed a gap between the bathroom mirror and the wall,
and located a black camera device. She alerted her parents. The camera had been taped to the back
of the bathroom mirror, and the camera lens was directed toward the shower. The camera contained
a memory card and was sent for forensic analysis. The camera was motion activated and recorded
in short clips. On the memory card, four female siblings all under the age of 18 were observed in
different clips from February 2, 2026. Two clips depicted the unclothed breasts of E.H. prior to
her discovery of the camera. Three other separate clips depicted the unclothed buttocks of O.H.,
M.H., and A.H. at different times on February 2. Defendant was married to the adult sister of the
minors and was seen on video clips on February 2. In the clips, defendant was bending down and
looking at the camera, “as though he [was] confirming the angle the camera [was] viewing.” The
family noted defendant “spen[t] a great deal of time” in that bathroom.
¶5 Defendant was interviewed by officers on February 6, 2026. He stated that he installed the
camera at the residence on January 31, 2026. Defendant claimed he installed the camera to have
proof if something happened to his daughter from a previous marriage when she visited the
2 residence. However, defendant also acknowledged that his daughter was always with him and his
wife at the residence, never alone. He further stated that his daughter was not in his care from
January 31 through February 6, 2026, as she was with her mother. Defendant was aware the minors
in the residence used that bathroom. He did not have permission to install the camera, nor did he
notify anyone that he was doing so.
¶6 Defendant scored 1 out of 14 points on his pretrial risk assessment, indicating he was a
Level 1 risk when Level 6 was the highest risk level. This scoring took into account that defendant
was unemployed at the time of his arrest. Defendant was 34 years old and did not have a criminal
history. He stated that he lived at his house with his wife and three-month-old baby. He also shared
custody of his five-year-old daughter. Defendant stated that he had reliable transportation, was
unemployed, did not have a source of income, and did not have military service. However,
defendant listed his wife as his verification contact, and she stated that he did not have reliable
transportation, he served in the army for five years, and she did not know if he was honorably
discharged.
¶7 A hearing was held on the petition. After providing the factual basis, the State argued that
there were no conditions that would mitigate the threat defendant posed to the minors. The State
noted that defendant was familiar with the family, had access to the residence, and had breached
trust. It argued home confinement was inappropriate and that detention was the only possible way
to protect and mitigate the threat he posed. Defense counsel argued that defendant did not have a
criminal history, lived “about an hour away” from the alleged victims, and there was “absolutely
no reason he needs to go anywhere near that home.” Counsel asked that defendant be released with
GPS monitoring and that the court enter a no contact order with the victims and a stay away order
from the residence. In rebuttal, the State said that defendant did not “have a reason to be going to
3 this home every single day, nor did he have a reason to put a covert camera in the bathroom.” The
State further indicated that defendant had attempted to call the parents of the victims from jail.
¶8 The court granted the State’s petition finding the State met its burden by clear and
convincing evidence. In doing so, the court noted that it found defendant’s explanation for the
camera implausible, where his daughter was not in his care during the requisite time frame and
never alone at the residence. The court found that placing defendant on GPS monitoring with a
stay away order was not enough to mitigate the threat he posed to the minor victims.
¶9 Defendant filed a motion for relief, solely arguing that conditions were available to mitigate
the threat he posed. The court denied the motion.
¶ 10 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 11 On appeal, defendant argues that the State failed to prove that there were no conditions that
could mitigate the threat he posed. As the hearing on the State’s petition to deny pretrial release
contained no live witness testimony, our review is de novo. People v. Morgan, 2025 IL 130626,
¶ 54.
¶ 12 The Code establishes the presumption that every person charged with an offense is eligible
for pretrial release. 725 ILCS 5/110-2(a), 6.1 (West 2024); People v. Cousins, 2025 IL 130866,
¶ 25. To overcome this presumption, the State must file a verified petition requesting the denial of
pretrial release (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a), (d) (West 2024)), and bears 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
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).
2026 IL App (3d) 260161-U
Order filed June 18, 2026 ____________________________________________________________________________
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. 3-26-0161 v. ) Circuit No. 26-CF-51 ) JACKSON B. YEAGER, ) Honorable ) Michelle A. Vescogni & Defendant-Appellant. ) H. Chris Ryan, Jr., Judges, Presiding. ____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE BERTANI delivered the judgment of the court. Justice Davenport concurred in the judgment. Justice Anderson dissented. ____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
¶1 Held: The State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that conditions of pretrial release could not mitigate the threat defendant posed. Reversed and remanded.
¶2 Defendant, Jackson B. Yeager, was charged on February 9, 2026, with five counts of child
sexual abuse material (Class X) (Pub. Act 104-245, § 50 (eff. Jan. 1, 2026) (amending 720 ILCS
5/11-20.1)) and five counts of unauthorized video recording (Class 3) (720 ILCS 5/26-4(a-5), (a- 20), (d)(4) (West 2024)). The State filed a verified petition to deny pretrial release, alleging
defendant was charged with a detainable 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)(5) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(5) (West 2024)). We reverse and
remand with directions.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 The factual basis from the State’s petition provided that on February 2, 2026, officers were
dispatched to a residence regarding a hidden camera found in the bathroom. Officers spoke with
E.H., who was 17 years old, and her parents, who resided at the residence. E.H. stated that she
entered the bathroom to take a shower, noticed a gap between the bathroom mirror and the wall,
and located a black camera device. She alerted her parents. The camera had been taped to the back
of the bathroom mirror, and the camera lens was directed toward the shower. The camera contained
a memory card and was sent for forensic analysis. The camera was motion activated and recorded
in short clips. On the memory card, four female siblings all under the age of 18 were observed in
different clips from February 2, 2026. Two clips depicted the unclothed breasts of E.H. prior to
her discovery of the camera. Three other separate clips depicted the unclothed buttocks of O.H.,
M.H., and A.H. at different times on February 2. Defendant was married to the adult sister of the
minors and was seen on video clips on February 2. In the clips, defendant was bending down and
looking at the camera, “as though he [was] confirming the angle the camera [was] viewing.” The
family noted defendant “spen[t] a great deal of time” in that bathroom.
¶5 Defendant was interviewed by officers on February 6, 2026. He stated that he installed the
camera at the residence on January 31, 2026. Defendant claimed he installed the camera to have
proof if something happened to his daughter from a previous marriage when she visited the
2 residence. However, defendant also acknowledged that his daughter was always with him and his
wife at the residence, never alone. He further stated that his daughter was not in his care from
January 31 through February 6, 2026, as she was with her mother. Defendant was aware the minors
in the residence used that bathroom. He did not have permission to install the camera, nor did he
notify anyone that he was doing so.
¶6 Defendant scored 1 out of 14 points on his pretrial risk assessment, indicating he was a
Level 1 risk when Level 6 was the highest risk level. This scoring took into account that defendant
was unemployed at the time of his arrest. Defendant was 34 years old and did not have a criminal
history. He stated that he lived at his house with his wife and three-month-old baby. He also shared
custody of his five-year-old daughter. Defendant stated that he had reliable transportation, was
unemployed, did not have a source of income, and did not have military service. However,
defendant listed his wife as his verification contact, and she stated that he did not have reliable
transportation, he served in the army for five years, and she did not know if he was honorably
discharged.
¶7 A hearing was held on the petition. After providing the factual basis, the State argued that
there were no conditions that would mitigate the threat defendant posed to the minors. The State
noted that defendant was familiar with the family, had access to the residence, and had breached
trust. It argued home confinement was inappropriate and that detention was the only possible way
to protect and mitigate the threat he posed. Defense counsel argued that defendant did not have a
criminal history, lived “about an hour away” from the alleged victims, and there was “absolutely
no reason he needs to go anywhere near that home.” Counsel asked that defendant be released with
GPS monitoring and that the court enter a no contact order with the victims and a stay away order
from the residence. In rebuttal, the State said that defendant did not “have a reason to be going to
3 this home every single day, nor did he have a reason to put a covert camera in the bathroom.” The
State further indicated that defendant had attempted to call the parents of the victims from jail.
¶8 The court granted the State’s petition finding the State met its burden by clear and
convincing evidence. In doing so, the court noted that it found defendant’s explanation for the
camera implausible, where his daughter was not in his care during the requisite time frame and
never alone at the residence. The court found that placing defendant on GPS monitoring with a
stay away order was not enough to mitigate the threat he posed to the minor victims.
¶9 Defendant filed a motion for relief, solely arguing that conditions were available to mitigate
the threat he posed. The court denied the motion.
¶ 10 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 11 On appeal, defendant argues that the State failed to prove that there were no conditions that
could mitigate the threat he posed. As the hearing on the State’s petition to deny pretrial release
contained no live witness testimony, our review is de novo. People v. Morgan, 2025 IL 130626,
¶ 54.
¶ 12 The Code establishes the presumption that every person charged with an offense is eligible
for pretrial release. 725 ILCS 5/110-2(a), 6.1 (West 2024); People v. Cousins, 2025 IL 130866,
¶ 25. To overcome this presumption, the State must file a verified petition requesting the denial of
pretrial release (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a), (d) (West 2024)), and bears 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). “Evidence is clear and convincing if it leaves no reasonable doubt in the mind of the
trier of fact as to the truth of the proposition in question *** .” Chaudhary v. Department of Human
4 Services, 2023 IL 127712, ¶ 74. The clear and convincing standard rests somewhere between
requiring more than a preponderance but less than evidence beyond a reasonable doubt necessary
for criminal conviction. People v. Craig, 403 Ill. App. 3d 762, 768 (2010). Where the State has
not met its burden, detention is unlawful. Cousins, 2025 IL 130866, ¶ 25.
¶ 13 A court is guided by a list of nonexhaustive factors it may consider when determining
whether appropriate conditions for pretrial release exist. 725 ILCS 5/110-5(a) (West 2024). When
granting pretrial release, a court must utilize mandatory and discretionary conditions—or some
combination thereof—to impose the least restrictive means necessary “to reasonably ensure ***
the safety of any other person or persons or the community.” Id. §§ 110-5(c), 10.
¶ 14 Weighing the evidence at hand, we conclude the State’s proffer failed to satisfy its burden
to justify detention. The State argued that defendant should be detained and continued to pose a
risk to the minor victims citing (1) his admission to the installation of a covert camera in the
bathroom, (2) his familiarity with the family and victims, (3) his access to the residence, (4) his
implausible justification, (5) and his attempt to contact one of the minor victims’ parents while
incarcerated. These considerations peripherally touch on several factors a court may consider, such
as the weight of evidence and the nature and seriousness of the threat posed by his release. Id. §§
110-5(a)(2), (4) (West 2024). In our view, the State’s proffer disproportionately relied on the
severity of the sex offense charged and its circumstances in requesting defendant’s detention. Id.
§ 110-5(a)(1). The Code is clear, however, that a single factor cannot dispositively support a
detention order; instead, the decision must be individualized to the present case. Id. § 110-6.1(f)(7).
¶ 15 The evidence establishes that defendant has no criminal history. Id. § 110-5(a)(3).
Defendant scored 1 of 14 possible points on his pretrial risk assessment. His lone point was based
on his unemployment at the time of his arrest, and he was assessed as a Level 1 risk—predictive
5 of the lowest risk-level for violating pretrial release. During the pretrial detention hearing, defense
counsel represented that the defendant resides “about an hour away” from the alleged victims.
Defense counsel advocated for the imposition of GPS monitoring, a no contact order with the
victims, and a stay away order from their home. In rebuttal, the State did not respond to the efficacy
of these proposed conditions for release but reiterated the circumstances leading to his charge.
Considering the foregoing, the State has not established, through clear and convincing evidence,
that no condition or combination of conditions of pretrial release could mitigate the threat
defendant poses. Accordingly, the court’s detention order is reversed, and this matter is remanded
for a new hearing on the appropriate conditions of pretrial release. Cousins, 2025 IL 130866, ¶ 36.
¶ 16 While it is the circuit court’s purview to deem the least restrictive conditions necessary to
mitigate the threat posed on remand (725 ILCS 5/110-5(c), 10(b) (West 2024)), other courts have
upheld or discussed certain discretionary pretrial release conditions imposed upon those charged
with sex offenses based on the circumstances: electronic monitoring (People v. La Parra, 2026 IL
App (1st) 252638-U, ¶ 33), electronic home monitoring (People v. Lee, 2024 IL App (2d) 240208-
U, ¶¶ 30-32; 725 ILCS 5/110-10(b)(5) (West 2024)), refraining from geographic areas or premises
(Lee, 2024 IL App (2d) 240208-U, ¶ 30 (schools, recreation centers); 725 ILCS 5/110-10(b)(4)
(West 2024)), refraining from approaching or communicating with particular persons (Lee, 2024
IL App (2d) 240208-U, ¶ 30; 725 ILCS 5/110-10(b)(3) (West 2024)), no unsupervised contact
with minors (People v. Reamy, 2024 IL App (2d) 240084-U, ¶ 9) and prohibiting internet access
(id. ¶ 17). These examples are not intended to be exhaustive of the measures the circuit court might
employ in considering the least restrictive conditions for the release of the defendant.
¶ 17 III. CONCLUSION
6 ¶ 18 The judgment of the circuit court of La Salle County is reversed and remanded for a hearing
on the least restrictive conditions of release.
¶ 19 Reversed and remanded with directions.
¶ 20 JUSTICE ANDERSON, dissenting:
¶ 21 I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding as I would affirm defendant’s detention
upon finding that the State met its burden of proving that there were no conditions to mitigate the
threat defendant posed. As the majority notes, the statute provides factors the court can consider
when determining the conditions of release, and the State presented evidence of such factors,
including the nature and circumstances of the offense. See 725 ILCS 5/110-5 (West 2024). There
appears to be no dispute that the video evidence depicts defendant setting up the camera to
covertly record his wife’s minor siblings. He also attempted to contact the victims’ family while
he was in jail, which reflects on his inability to abide by court orders and conditions.
¶ 22 Moreover, though defendant had no criminal history,
“the evidence of a defendant’s charged conduct, even if it took place on a single
occasion, may reflect such a departure from the basic expectations of civil society
that it becomes difficult to predict the defendant’s compliance with court orders—
or even societal norms regarding the safety of others—if the defendant is placed
on pretrial release. The presumption in favor of pretrial release *** does not
obligate a trial court to release such a defendant in the hopes that his otherwise
spotless record will negate the real and present threat he poses to the safety of the
community as shown by the State’s evidence.” People v. Romine, 2024 IL App
(4th) 240321, ¶ 20.
7 This case falls into such a scenario. Based on the facts presented, no conditions (at least, no
conditions that could be enforced in a meaningful way) would mitigate the threat to the victims,
and the community as a whole, defendant poses. I would affirm the trial court’s decision.