SB1199 amends Illinois’ hate crime statute to add actual or perceived employment as a peace officer, and status as a retired peace officer, as protected categories. Under the bill, a person could commit hate crime if they commit certain listed offenses because of that status, even if there were other motivating factors as well. The covered offenses include assault, battery, aggravated assault, misdemeanor theft, criminal trespass, criminal damage to property, mob action, disorderly conduct, and certain harassment offenses.
The bill also keeps the existing structure of the hate crime law, including felony classifications, enhanced penalties for offenses committed in or near certain sensitive locations, and civil remedies for victims. It would continue to allow restitution, fines, probation conditions, mandatory community service, and required participation in an in-person educational program discouraging hate crimes. The bill’s effective date is January 1, 2026.
Impact
If enacted, SB1199 would expand Section 12-7.1 of the Criminal Code of 2012 by adding peace officers and retired peace officers to the list of protected classes for hate crime prosecutions. That change would affect criminal charging decisions, sentencing exposure, and related civil liability for conduct motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived law-enforcement status. It would not create a new standalone offense, but would broaden the circumstances under which existing crimes can be treated as hate crimes under Illinois law.
Sentiment
The available record shows the bill was introduced by Senator Andrew S. Chesney, but there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes included here. As a result, there is no documented debate or formal legislative sentiment in the provided materials. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to reflect a supportive policy position toward additional protections for law enforcement personnel and retirees.
Contention
The main point of contention is the expansion of hate crime protections to peace officers and retired peace officers, which may be viewed by supporters as a necessary safeguard for law enforcement and by opponents as an unwarranted extension of hate crime law beyond historically protected identity categories. Another possible issue is the bill’s “regardless of the existence of any other motivating factor or factors” language, which lowers the threshold for proving hate-crime motivation when one of the listed statuses is involved. No specific stakeholder positions are documented in the provided record.