A man who was on electronic monitoring following a previous arrest for possession of a machine gun and stolen catalytic converters has been charged with attempted murder after allegedly shooting a woman in Humboldt Park. Deshawn Neal, 42, reportedly shot the 36-year-old victim in both thighs while she was in a car on January 21.
According to prosecutors, Neal followed the victim’s vehicle and fired multiple shots at it, hitting the victim before fleeing the scene. The victim, who knew Neal, was able to identify him to detectives. The sheriff’s office was able to track Neal’s movements using his GPS-equipped ankle monitor, which placed him within 300 feet of the shooting scene at the time of the incident.
Neal had been on pretrial release for a previous case involving the discovery of a large number of stolen catalytic converters and a machine gun in a commercial garage. Despite facing charges of armed habitual criminal and possession of a stolen motor vehicle, Neal was granted permission to be on electronic monitoring under the SAFE-T Act, which allows for essential movement outside of the home.
Judge Luciano Panici Jr. ordered Neal to be detained after his arrest for attempted murder. This incident has raised concerns about the effectiveness of the electronic monitoring program, especially in cases where individuals are allowed significant freedom of movement despite facing serious charges.
Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart made the decision to transfer the electronic monitoring program to the chief judge’s office due to the challenges posed by the SAFE-T Act and the increasing number of violent crimes committed by participants in the program. Neal’s case is a stark example of the risks associated with allowing individuals on pretrial release to have unrestricted movement.
This incident highlights the need for a reevaluation of the electronic monitoring program and the criteria used to determine who is eligible for such supervision. The safety of the public must be a priority when considering the release of individuals facing serious criminal charges. Neal’s case serves as a reminder of the potential dangers posed by individuals who are granted freedom of movement while awaiting trial for violent offenses.
