A Rock Falls man accused of firing a gun into a parked car will remain out of jail before trial – under a judge’s unusual order requiring video doorbell cameras at every entrance of his home, a condition an appellate court says is both legal and effective.

The Illinois Appellate Court’s Fourth District on Thursday upheld a Whiteside County judge’s decision to release Gregory McElhiney on pretrial release with a novel set of conditions: home confinement, home searches, drug testing and video doorbell cameras at every entrance and exit of his residence.

“Perhaps more fundamentally, the State does not argue against the efficacy of the video doorbell condition fashioned by the trial court,” the opinion states. “We find the video doorbell condition imposed to be creative and proper.”

The Whiteside County State’s Attorney’s Office had argued the conditions were insufficient and not contemplated by law. The appellate court disagreed – and in doing so, expanded the toolkit available to judges trying to balance public safety with the presumption of innocence.

“While they cannot guarantee that defendant will avoid a subsequent charge for a felony or Class A misdemeanor while on pretrial release, no condition could ever guarantee such a result,” the court wrote.

McElhiney’s case traces back to April 2024, when he was charged with possession of drug paraphernalia and driving while his license was revoked, both Class A misdemeanors. He was initially released on a notice to appear. In May 2024, he was charged with driving while his license was revoked, a Class A misdemeanor, and initially released, according to Whiteside County court records.

Then, in August 2024, he was charged in Whiteside County with unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon and criminal damage to property after allegedly firing a gunshot into an unoccupied vehicle in a residential area. Court records show he has eight prior felony convictions dating to 2001, including three for methamphetamine possession and one for burglary.

A trial judge initially detained him. But in October 2024, the court released him on conditions including GPS monitoring, reporting requirements, not possessing a firearm and a no-contact order.

The situation changed in May 2025.

While awaiting trial on the original charges, McElhiney was arrested again – this time on suspicion of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver (15 to 100 grams), a Class X felony; possession of methamphetamine (15 to 100 grams), a Class 1 felony; and driving while his license was revoked, a Class A misdemeanor.

[ Deputy: Vehicle wanted in Rock Falls search found 2 hours later with new driver, meth ]

The State’s Attorney’s Office moved to revoke his pretrial release, arguing his criminal history and new felony charges proved no conditions could keep him safe in the community.

A judge agreed and revoked his release.

But in November 2025, McElhiney asked the court to reconsider. He argued the methamphetamine charges were weak and that stricter conditions could work. He also noted he had employment, stable housing, a child and an ill father.

The trial judge granted the motion – but imposed significantly tighter restrictions. In addition to home confinement, home searches and drug testing, the court ordered McElhiney to install video doorbell cameras at every entrance and exit of his home and to give the Office of Statewide Pretrial Services access to view the footage in real time.

The State’s Attorney’s Office challenged the order in January 2026, contending the video doorbell condition was not authorized by statute, would burden pretrial services resources, and did not meaningfully address the risk McElhiney posed.

The trial court stood firm. It reasoned that while the cameras could not physically prevent violations, they would deter McElhiney from breaking the rules because he would not know when someone was watching. The recordings could also be reviewed later if suspicious activity occurred, and motion sensors could alert authorities to movement.

The appellate court, in its ruling, upheld that reasoning.

The judges noted that Illinois law permits “reasonable conditions” that are “the least restrictive means” to ensure a defendant’s appearance at trial and prevent new crimes. Because the statute does not explicitly prohibit video doorbell monitoring, the court inferred it was permissible.

The court also emphasized that the new conditions were “significantly more stringent” than the GPS monitoring that had failed before. Home confinement, home searches, drug testing and constant video surveillance of all exits created a monitoring regime that would catch violations quickly.

“Nobody can enter or exit defendant’s home without Pretrial Services’ knowledge,” the court wrote.

The appellate judges acknowledged McElhiney’s history of reoffending, but they concluded that no condition could guarantee he would not reoffend, and the question was only whether the conditions were “reasonably fashioned to prevent subsequent reoffenses.”

They found that they were.

McElhiney remains on pretrial release pending trial on the original charges. His next court appearance is set for 1 p.m. May 15.