A Cook County judge ordered two sheriff’s deputies taken into custody for criminal contempt after they refused to step aside and allow an unrestrained murder defendant classified as a high-risk offender to physically embrace family members inside an open courtroom, according to a Newsmax report by crime correspondent Jason Mattera.
Mattera said Circuit Judge John F. Lyke Jr. directed the deputies to permit the contact at the end of a Sept. 9 hearing, but the officers objected because they said allowing it without approval from a supervisor would violate security protocol.
What followed was an unusual confrontation between the judge and the deputies responsible for courtroom security, ending with both officers temporarily detained and later released after apologizing.
Deputies Said They Needed Supervisor Approval
Mattera reported that the defendant had been classified as a “high-risk movement offender” and was not restrained when Lyke invited family members forward for a brief goodbye.
According to the court transcript cited in the report, the deputies told Lyke that they could not simply allow the contact without first getting authorization from their sergeant.
“I’m giving you a direct order to step out the way,” Lyke told them, according to the transcript.
One deputy responded that he was following the direction of his supervisor.
Lyke then ordered the deputies taken into custody.
“Take him into custody,” the judge said. “Take him in the back.”
The disagreement placed the deputies in a difficult position: they were being given one instruction by the judge who controlled the courtroom while saying their own department required something different before they could allow a high-risk detainee to have physical contact with relatives.
Deputies Were Held In Criminal Contempt
Mattera said Lyke had both deputies removed from the courtroom and held them in criminal contempt.
According to the report, the deputies were stripped of their badges and protective equipment while in custody.
Lyke later had them brought back before him.
Mattera said the judge effectively required an apology under the threat that the deputies could be jailed depending on how they responded.
“Depending on what they say will depend on if they go to jail, if they go home,” Lyke told the court reporter, according to Mattera’s report.
The deputies eventually apologized and were released.
That exchange is perhaps the most unusual part of the incident because courtroom security officers are normally there to carry out safety procedures, yet in this case they themselves became the people facing possible confinement.
Sheriff’s Office Says Policy Required Approval
Mattera said the Cook County Sheriff’s Office was not opposed in general to inmates having brief contact with family members.
The dispute was instead about where and how that contact should happen.
According to the report, sheriff’s policy requires supervisor approval before restraints are removed from detainees classified as high risk.
The sheriff’s office argued that any family contact should take place in a secure setting where people can be screened and the chance of escape can be reduced.
The office also criticized Lyke’s handling of the deputies, saying his actions showed too little concern for the security challenges courtroom officers face while protecting staff, defendants, judges and members of the public.
That distinction matters because the issue was not simply whether a defendant should ever be allowed to hug relatives.
The argument was about whether a judge could order that contact immediately in an open courtroom despite security officers saying they had been instructed to follow a different procedure.
Union Calls The Detention An Abuse Of Authority
Teamsters Local 700, which represents the deputies, strongly criticized the judge.
Union president Ramon Williams said punishing deputies for following their training and required procedures amounted to “an outrageous abuse of the court’s authority.”
Williams called for the Office of the Chief Judge to reprimand Lyke and said the judge should apologize to the deputies.
The union’s position was that the officers were not trying to defy the court for personal reasons.
They believed they were following the security rules governing the movement of a detainee considered high risk.
That makes the conflict more complicated than ordinary courtroom disobedience. A deputy ignoring a judge for no reason would be one thing, but an officer saying that compliance could violate established safety procedures creates a direct clash between courtroom authority and department policy.
Alderman Questions The Open-Court Setting
Chicago Alderman Raymond Lopez also criticized what happened during an interview included in Mattera’s report.
Lopez said there are ways to allow defendants to interact with family members without creating the same security concerns.
“There’s a right way and a wrong way to allow for family engagement,” Lopez said.
He suggested that a secure room could be used where people could not easily flee.
Instead, he said, the defendant was in an open courtroom with access to a door.
“It is inexcusable what has happened,” Lopez said.
Mattera emphasized that the deputies were responsible not only for guarding the defendant but also for protecting everyone else inside the courtroom, including the judge.
That is an important point in understanding why the officers pushed back so strongly against an order that, on the surface, involved only a short family hug.
Lyke Said Defendants Are Still Presumed Innocent
The report also included Lyke’s explanation for allowing defendants to have contact with relatives.
He told the courtroom that he permits brief family hugs and said the charges themselves do not change the presumption of innocence.
“I don’t care what they are charged with,” Lyke said. “They are still presumed innocent.”
According to the account, Lyke also indicated that courtroom officers are generally aware of his practice and that more experienced deputies typically inform newer officers about it.
That provides some context for the judge’s frustration, although it does not resolve the dispute over whether the deputies were required to obtain supervisory permission before allowing the contact.
The core disagreement therefore appears to involve two overlapping systems of authority: the judge’s power to manage proceedings in his courtroom and the sheriff’s responsibility for safely handling people in custody.
Sheriff’s Office Says There Was A Similar Dispute Before
Mattera also discussed another incident involving Lyke and sheriff’s deputies in February 2025.
According to the sheriff’s office account cited in the report, Lyke ordered deputies out of a jury room while a detainee met with an attorney and family members.
The deputies said they had been instructed to remain in the room with the detainee.
Lyke allegedly responded that he did not care what their supervisors had told them and threatened to have the deputies removed if they did not leave.
The sheriff’s office later described that conduct as disrespectful and inappropriate.
Including that earlier dispute adds context to why the department reacted so strongly to the September confrontation.
From the sheriff’s perspective, this was apparently not the first time its security directives had collided with Lyke’s courtroom orders.
Mattera Points To Earlier Controversy Around Judge
Mattera also referenced another case in which Lyke had previously faced criticism for releasing a defendant on electronic monitoring rather than ordering pretrial detention.
According to Mattera’s report, that man was later arrested again and was accused of killing a police officer after allegedly using a hospital visit to carry out an ambush.
Mattera used that earlier controversy as background while discussing the latest confrontation.
Still, the Sept. 9 incident stands on its own facts: two deputies said they were following security rules, the judge believed they were refusing a lawful courtroom order, and the conflict ended with the deputies themselves temporarily in custody.
The episode raises a difficult question about what happens when a judge’s authority inside the courtroom directly conflicts with the security procedures deputies say they are required to follow.
In this case, the officers ultimately apologized and went home, but the dispute between the court and sheriff’s office over who should have had the final word was far from routine.
Growing up in the Pacific Northwest, John developed a love for the great outdoors early on. With years of experience as a wilderness guide, he’s navigated rugged terrains and unpredictable weather patterns. John is also an avid hunter and fisherman who believes in sustainable living. His focus on practical survival skills, from building shelters to purifying water, reflects his passion for preparedness. When he’s not out in the wild, you can find him sharing his knowledge through writing, hoping to inspire others to embrace self-reliance.
