A press release from State Rep. Barb Wheeler:
Tragic Events Inspire Legislation
Antioch, IL… On the morning of March 15, 2013, Diane Kephart was tragically murdered outside of her parents’ home in Antioch, Illinois by her ex-boyfriend, Paul Neff, who ultimately took his own life.
This very tragic series of events inspired the Kephart family to seek change and become advocates for victims of domestic violence.
The family reached out to State Rep. Barbara Wheeler (R-Crystal Lake) with an idea that they believe may have saved their mother’s life.
The meeting between the Kephart family, Rep. Wheeler, and criminal defense attorney Ed Donahue led to the introduction of a new collaborative bill, House Bill 3744. This bill is aimed at strengthening Illinois’ current electronic surveillance laws to protect victims of domestic violence.
Barb Wheeler
“In the wake of this awful tragedy, they have decided to become victims’ advocates to help protect others in ways their mother wasn’t. Their story has led to new legislation that we believe will better protect victims of domestic violence,” said Wheeler.
Approximately one month before the murder, Neff was arrested and charged with aggravated domestic battery, aggravated domestic assault, and possession of a deadly weapon after threatening Kephart’s life with a knife inside his home.
After the incident, Kephart proceeded to obtain an emergency order of protection against Neff.
Neff was released on bond 2 days later, and was not ordered to wear a GPS bracelet.
Prior to the court case and approximately one month later, Kephart obtained a permanent order of protection against Neff.
Three days later, Neff murdered Kephart outside her parent’s home and fled to a nearby abandoned trailer where he took his own life.
Under current Illinois law, upon a risk assessment and a 12 point evaluation, a judge has the authority to order a GPS tracking device for a person who has violated an order of protection.
This device alerts all parties (victim, police and defendant) should the defendant attempt to come within a certain distance of the victim.
HB 3744 would allow a judge the authority to order a GPS tracking device at a bond hearing, regardless of whether an order of protection is violated, if a person has been charged with a violent felony.
The electronic surveillance enforces the order and provides safety that a piece of paper cannot. As a condition of bail, the GPS tracking device would be ordered and paid for from the defendant’s bail money.
Jamie Kephart, daughter of Diane, reflected on the tragic death of her mother and the legislation her loss inspired:
“At the end of every day I just want to call my Mom and talk with her, and I no longer have that option.
“Our family doesn’t have the option to be with her this Thanksgiving, and it will be even harder this Christmas.
“It’s that emptiness in my heart that gets me up every day and motivates my family and I to fight in honor of my Mom and those who can’t fight for themselves.
“I pray every day to God to ‘grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change and the courage to change the things I can.’
“We are so fortunate to have someone like Representative Wheeler to back up our family and push for change in legislation that could have saved our Mom and other helpless victims.”
At first glance this seems reasonable.
But how would this application work?
Meaning, the article states, “This device alerts all parties (victim, police and defendant) should the defendant attempt to come within a certain distance of the victim.”
Since victims are not stationary, does the victim wear some sort of device which communicates with the defendants GPS?
Or is the alleged victim’s residence used as the victim’s location?
Who ultimately pays for the device if the defendant is found not guilty?
The story is an example of why some people want concealed carry.
Right. Another law and more money spent.
If someone is intent on killing the domestic partner , a gps is not going to stop them.
They will remove it and go do the deed.
It is just like the order.
No emotional person will let a piece of paper stop them.
It’s another “feel good” law that has an element of sensibility to it.
In the end, it may deter one or two borderline individuals but Mark points out a major flaw.
Is the victim or intended protectee supposed to hunker down in one location and stay there while allow the respondent free access to anywhere but with the protectee’s “umbrella?”
Just hits the mark.
We have to consider the protectee/victim’s ability to defend themselves.
Even if this scheme WORKED PERFECTLY… When seconds count the police are minutes away (and then, only if you’re very lucky).
“A certain distance”??
Hopefully, that distance is greater than the range of a concealed carry handgun.
Otherwise, more useless legislation on the books.
But hey – they get to go on Christmas break!
I think I have a simple solution.
After Neff was arrested and charged with aggravated domestic battery, aggravated domestic assault, and possession of a deadly weapon after threatening Kephart’s life with a knife, he should have been denied and released on bond.
It was obvious that Neff had serious violent issues.
Kephart’s life might have been saved if this animal was caged promptly.
The intent of the change to the existing law is to make easier for the judge to order an ankle bracelet and with the violator paying the fees; the bracelet would make the victim aware if the defendant comes into the area restricted by the order of protection or if the defendant removes said device.
Had Mrs Kephart been aware that Neff was in the area or been warned that he had removed the device, she would undoubtedly not have walked into an ambush or at the minimum not walked to her car alone.
@Justin/Mark the article states that the GPS would be funded by the defendants bail money.
Therefore there is no debt on the taxpayer/state.
Also, if the defendant is found not guilty, they would not have to wear the bracelet.
This is why the tracker is ordered at the bond hearing, as “a condition” of bail.
I assume the tracker would be worn for the length of the trial or however long the judge felt it was necessary.
I agree that if the intent is there the crime will be carried out, but at least the victim would have warning?
Removing the bracelet would alert the police and to answer your other question about the victim, they would also have a device that alerts them.
The technology is also used for people on house arrest, sexual criminals, and people on house arrest.
Do you think they shouldn’t be used with those crimes as well?
I also believe in conceal and carry, but not everyone does and not everyone is comfortable carrying a firearm.
In this case the tracker is the weapon-it empowers the victim and both parties can go about their life.
True Neff should have been put in jail, but that wasn’t the case.
If a tracker were worn on Neff, the victim would have known he was in the area and could have called the police, sought protection, or maybe even hid?
Having a gun in this scenario could have possibly saved Kephart, but she still would have walked into the same scenario.
The police obviously can’t follow every domestic violence criminal and ensure that a piece of paper enforces the restrictions laid out, so i’m curious as to what other alternatives you can suggest?
Wow looks like this made it into the tribune today.
Makes sense given the incident that occurred in Arlington heights on thurs where another woman was attacked by ex after she filed for emergency order of protection too….
http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-78548782/