know, be worked out, a little bit more than where we are today, and i don't know if you have any thoughts? >> yeah, i support that and i will second the motion. >> okay, so we have a motion, to continue to the call of the chair. without objection. >> next item, please? >> item number 4, is an ordinance amending the administrative code to expand the category of the jail inmates eligible for the home detention program and authorizing the sheriff to implement a program to pretrial being held in lieu of bail. >> thank you very much. and we are here and now we are going to hear from former supervisor and now, sheriff, and now welcome to the chamber, thank you. >> and thank you, mr. chair and good morning, supervisors. and before that, it is an amendment to the administrative code that updates, current law,

so that we are consistent with the state law as it stands, it is the sheriff's department of every county, that is enabled to be the administrator of the electronic monitoring. for an incus and prerelease population and. the law as it it is current reflects, penal code, 1203.016 which is provides for the placing and sentence the inmates and voluntary and involuntariary and the home detention in lieu of confinement and it is the subsection is the correctional administrator will have the sole authority to admit program participation as alternative to physical custody and other subsection is no public agency or entity may operate a home detention program in any county without a written contract with the county's correctional administrator. the new law that is within this

state the 1203.018, we had introduced this legislation, to the city attorney's office and to the adult probation department, many, many months ago and so that we can remain consistent and that we can form and comport with the state law. 018 which is not in books currently and we are proposing that it does to this legislation, provides for the inmates to participate in a monitoring program, if specified conditions are met, no holes or warrants in custody for 30 days in the misdemeanor be 60 days or a felony, consistent with public safety concerns of the community. it also through thize of this body the board of supervisors, requires us to cult with the district attorney and so that we may prescribe reasonable rules and regulations for the electronic monitoring program

and no agency or entity may operate a home detention program in any county without written contract with the county correctional administrator. which is us. >> and if the goal is to everything that we can while enhancing the public safety to provide alternatives to incarceration, electronic monitoring is one of the safest and the most effective alternatives that i believe that we have. and in that, has been well practiced over the last few years, in 2010, the sheriff's department had 280 people in the electronic monitoring and 2011 it was 231 and 2012 it dropped considerably to under 150. 2013, the largest in five years of 359.

people were put on electronic monitoring, and what that translates to in savings is 24,362 days of custody we are saved from county expense because of the 359 that we put on electronic monitoring, over 24,000 days of custody, and then were spared and that translates into consideration costs, as well. what this also does is it fosters what is unspoken and what has been practiced for quite some time, is that the sheriff's department has a very strict criteria of who goes on electronic monitoring very rigid in its past and when we have rejected the courts or the district attorneys, the suggestion that the people go on the electronic monitoring we have that right of refusal to put the people on the monitoring and for years now, is that the courts and

independent of the county administrator that is recognized by the state penal code. would certainly go ahead and encourage electronic monitoring to its own independent means. even though the sheriff's department had recommended against it. what this legislation does is it fosters, a level of consultation with the courts and the da that does not normally exist now, in a more formalized way so that any time that the sheriff's department, would recognize that we do not go with the idea of electronic monitoring or the reevaluation of people that we think should be monitored because they have demonstrated the kind of behavior that merits this amendment to their incarceration and then we will go back to the courts and to

the district attorney in seeking that modification, but as it stands now, there has been not this practice, and i think that it is time, that we bring the criminal justice partners together, in making sure that we are consistent, with the changes of state law, and that is exactly what this legislation prepares to do today. more than happy to answer any questions. >> colleagues, any questions, supervisor yee? >> thank you, sheriff for your presentation. and you have existing programs right now, and i am just curious, like, who is doing the monitoring, at this point. if we are put on the electronic monitoring it is the sheriffs that do the monitoring and what concerns us is that anybody independent of us, in a

presentence population would be put on electronic monitoring then that raises questions about the liability of the city should they not be monitored by the deputy sheriffs. >> for some reason, i thought that i read in the legislation that for the write up, that this possibility that the monitoring will be done by the private company or something? >> i am sorry, we contract out and so we contract out so they... >> to a vendor, that, we contract out to a vendor who supplies us the equipment for the electronic monitoring, and that equipment is then administered on the individual. >> okay. >> and that... zme. so we go through the normal considering procedures and rfp, where the companies bid and we have just now concluded what have been a five year contract, and in anticipation of a new vendor.

and that would be able to help us forward our electronic monitoring program. >> okay. >> so you. >> keep in mind, though, that it is liability of city and county and it is the sheriff's department who is held responsible that should something run afoul of electronic monitoring then we would want a sworn peace officer, our deputy sheriffs to be the ones who are able to respond. what concerns me, is that when there has been rejection by the sheriff's department, for people who have been asked to be put on electronic monitoring and then others within the city criminal justice said to put them on electronic monitoring but it is not within our department. and that is why, this legislation aims to foster much better collaboration with the courts da and others, because of the question of liability. >> okay. >> and that makes a lot more sense, in regards to what you were saying and what i was reading. so i appreciate that.

>> and the other question that i had is, you talk about consultation with the other departments like the da? >> i just, and could you give me a sense of conductation. >> that someone may not want to go on the monitoring or just the opposite, that information, is not fluid, and it should be with the district attorney office and or the public defender and or the courts. and again, the two primary correctional administrators but for our population is the sheriff's department and then for a post release, adult probation, but we are just

talking about our population. >> so, if you were consulting with others, and they disagree what happens? >> we can take it to the court. >> certainly. >> we can take it to the court, sure. >> we will be back with the monitoring piece, is there a ratio of how many staff members that you need to monitor, the number of people that would be electronic system. but we have a full time of three shifts of people a day from the sheriff's deputies but it would not require, and you have 300 now and all of a sudden you have 600 and you have to monitor to have more

stop to monitor the 600. it could suggest that and this is an issue of public safety. and we want to be sure that it is enhanced and the fact that the criteria and the courts and the da that it is applicable to this person, and likely that that person is not going to run afoul. and as a matter of fact, i will give you a statistic out of the people who were evaluated for electronic monitoring only 26 had failed to comply and that is when our own deputies and our own actions would then certainly correct the person from not being on electronic monitoring.

>> okay. >> i don't know what your monitoring system is, if someone is looking at a screen and just telling you that someone is breaking the rules? >> it is electronic system. and we have the ability to be notified licra dar, we would be notified if someone runs afoul or violates the boundaries within the system that they are being monitored for. >> okay. >> >> supervisor mar? >> thank you, sheriff, i am strongly supportive of the alternatives in incar ration and programs like in-home custody. and i want to be supportive but i do have questions as well, that the da's letter to us, raises some concerns and i just wanted to ask you how we insurance public safety if we are releasing new groups of

people that are, i guess, maybe potential dangers to the community especially because it is had been low risk offenders and minimum security and there is the possibility that this is expand and releasing people that are higher security and not low risk offenders but i wander how we insure that there is public safety. >> we just received this ourselves and on the letter it is not even identified nor has the letter within sent to us. and we just saw this, and it is not the smoothest way to introduce alternative perspective, but, consistently with the 1203.018. that is what four, to fives are reasoning to conduct with both courts and district. so that there would not be any slips and that is exactly the

whole point, instead of invoking fear mongering and i think that it is more important to be in, consultation with each other so that we are consistent with the state law which we are not now, because what is on the books is 1203.016 which already enabled the sheriff's department to be able to administer the electronic monitoring and as i said earlier, when the sheriff's department and this is contrary to what the district attorney had written, what is interest, is that they defaulted saying that someone should not go on to the electronic monitoring, the courts were putting people on it. and that is where there is not proper consultation between a

number of entity and that has been ongoing practice and that is the kind of practice that i think that we are trying to correct which is why we met for some time with the adult probation to attend to this matter and that is what this legislation does. >> instead of as they frame it, giving too broad relief authority to the sheriff's office, you are saying that coordination with the courts, adult probation, and the da, is a good thing when you are trying to determine who should be released into electronic monitoring but you are saying the sheriff's office has an important role. >> the sheriff's department is... i am sorry. >> the sheriff's department is singled out by the state code as being the administrator but since the letter did not reference the penal code, i will just remind what the penal code says in 1203.018 which is not in existence right now. again, after consulting between the sheriff and district

attorney that does not exist in the current law, so, i believe that there has been an inaccurate interpretation, which prompted, i think, certainly, legitimate concerns, but we have for quite some time, gone over to address those. >> and determining if someone is released whether it is a pretrail or a sentenced inmate, what are the risk factors that you would like at to determine if a person may be a risk to the community? >> it could be consistent with our ab109 state realignment, but certainly, violence, and any serious felony and sex offender would not be a candidate. for electronic monitoring. because we are a jailed

population and very few, misdemeanors and so it is almost a thing of the past and then for anybody who would be charged, or convicted of a felony, and then they would certainly have to be evaluated with the very strike criteria but it has been common practice that those folks have been filtered for not being electronic monitoring, and if, we are going to put people in electronic monitoring, then we should have greater consultation with the courts and the da. that is what 1203.018 does. >> thank you, if i may follow up. and i have to say that i am frustrated that we have this letter that just came in because it raises the possibility of releasing people and putting people on electronic monitoring that should not be and the letter

says that essentially that the sheriff's office, this is what the letter is saying does not have all of the information needed to make an assessment of whether or not to place someone on electronic monitoring. you know, i guess the implication here is that somehow if we do this, that there is a possibility that someone who is dangerous and should not be on electronic monitoring, will be placed on it. >> we just got this letter lit earlly five minutes ago as the hearing started it was not sent to us it was sent to the mayor, and to the board of supervisors and i think that is bad form and i think that it denotes fair mongering because this has been well discussed with a number in the criminal justice system so that we take the precautions to make sure that there is not any slip ups, in

the electronic monitoring process. but what i have not heard is anybody calling attention to the effect that because we have had such a strike filter, which is contrary to what the letter suggests, we have had such a strict filter, that it does not send and should not send or affirm the right of anyone else with the exception of the adult probation to be able to put people on the electronic monitoring because if that does occur independent of the sheriff's department, the city then is risking significant liability. >> now one of the points that this letter says is that as a custodial agent who is not necessarily present in the court and doing the bail review that you may not have all of the access to all of the information to fully assess the risks. >> which is why we will go to the court and the district attorney because that is what is required of us. which is not referenced in this

letter at all. so it is as if this reality of the penal code change in the state was not consulted in this letter. >> so in other words, if there is a concern that the da, excuse me, has about an individual inmate, then, you will have to court any way to get guidance from the court on that one. >> i have even sent the in-house attorneys and we can speak to this to meet with the presiding judge who we have told them with the pg, that we would absolutely come back to the courts and not take uni lateral action and what is concerns me is what is the cottage practice and the electronic monitoring by the state of california. and because we reject someone from the electronic monitoring does not mean that another body

is independently authorized or proxied to go ahead and administer without the consultation. >> i guess that is not what i understand about the letter. >> if it is the case that if the da feels that someone or like you are proposing goes electronic monitoring should not go and you are not acting uni laterally in that case and the court and so, i don't understand the issue and i think that i wish that someone from the da were here to clarify that point because it seems that what you are saying is that there will be an opportunity if there is a difference of opinion for a court to look at that issue. >> i am going to bring up the in-house attorney mr. niko as well. >> because it was also meeting with the presiding judge. >> good morning. >> my name is mark and i am the assistant legal counsel with the sheriff's office and we did

have the discussion with the presiding judge and i think that the knee jerk reaction to this legislation is that the sheriff is going to uni laterally implement and decide who goes on electronic monitoring and that is not the intent of the legislation and the penal code section. the section, basically it says that for the electronic monitoring provider to be accepted in a county, they have to contract with that county with the correctional administrator which is the sheriff's department and what we are saying is that we want to make sure that is in our administrative code, to reflect the penal code section, to make sure that if anybody is placed on the electronic monitoring in the city that it goes through the correct channels. >> the sheriff's thought with this legislation is not to change the procedure for putting people in the electronic monitoring or changing who goes on the electronic monitoring it is to confirm that anybody on electron monitoring go through

the proper procedures. and as an example right now, now at least we are talking about a pretrial, and detainee who is on bail and cannot afford bail and they go to court and the court, the attorney, and the judge, and the district attorney, and discuss the case, and the person's history is laid out the person's current charges are laid out and the public safety issues are raised. for some reason, the judge set bail. this is not a situation where when that person comes back into custody, the sheriff department is going to say we want this person on am and they go out. no, what this legislation says is that the sheriff's department if it is going to be put on electronic monitoring, will review, the public safety criteria laid out in this very code section, 1203.058 in consultation with the district attorney and other interested people and then in san francisco's case, what we intend to do is go back to court. and say, judge, pursuant to our

criteria, this person is eligible and they have shown by the last 30 days or 60 days whatever the case may be, they have lived by the rules, and we have looked at the prior history, and then go back to court and say, would this person be eligible and will the court refer the person for em, if there is still an argument, my understanding is that the sheriff's department is not going to uni laterally change the court's decision. all that it does is when a person is eligible, and has been reviewed, and accepted, it goes to the proper procedures. >> if i may ask, the city attorney for just a quick question, in terms of the issue of if this moves forward, and it seems that there is still the opportunity for whatever, it is proposed in terms of an individual going on electronic monitoring that there would still be court review and i mean is that the case? what i understand the sheriff's

department is saying to the board, is that if the sheriffs intend as a policy matter, to seek the court review and any time and to consult with the district attorney and seek review any time that the district attorney disagrees and the ordinance would not require the sheriff to seek approval when making these pretrial determinations about electronic monitoring. but, as a policy matter, the sheriff's office may decide to do that and ultimately the state law, gives additional authority to the board of supervisors to adopt additional rules and regulations regarding this process, in consultation with the sheriff and the district attorney. >> is there a way to make that intent clear so that there is no question about sort of what we are going to do any way.

>> i would... again, i would review a 1203.018, subsection d, which says that the board of supervisors, after consulting with the sheriff and the district attorney may prescribe reasonable regulations, and it will take into account all of the factors listed of who will be eligible but also make it part of the understanding that once a person is eligible, it would be up to whatever you want to decide, the court to have the final determination in that instance, whether the person goes on em. or how you want to implement the actual program. >> mr. gibner in terms of sort of making that clear, how would you go about doing that? >> i think that what is subsection d, of 1203.018 provides us that the board as a

department is indicating, the board has the power to adopt the rules and regulations about how this program is going to work. this legislation is not adopting those rules and regulations, the state law provides when the board does adopt, or if the board chooses to adopt additional rules, regarding this program, the board would first consult with the sheriff and the district attorney. but this legislation, does not adopt those rules. that is... and we are in the legislation. that is not county practice we have noticed. but through the chair. the sheriff's department under this legislation would have the discretion over how to operate

this program. if the board of supervisors chose to put additional constraints on the program as authorized by the state law, it would do that by ordinance, the state law refers to it as rules and regulations. but the appropriate vehicle would be an additional ordinance in the future, under this ordinance, authorized by the state law, the sheriff's department has the discretion to make these decisions as long as it is following the criteria that are set forth in the ordinance and the penal code. >> sheriff, anything else? >> no that is consistent because it is the penal code that enables the sheriff to use that discretion, again, our intent as i believe confirmed through the legislation is to foster that level of consultation with the existing entities that normally does not exist. it does not exist, so well practiced. >> supervisor, yee? >> so, it was really helpful that you are here and we are

having this discussion and it is... you know, i don't know if we need to rush this, and i certainly would feel a lot more comfortable if there were language in here, that would clarify what you have described. as a process. i don't, i am a little uncomfortable because i did not read the penal code. what it says in there. the, i would like the concept that you would do things in consultation with the district attorney and that there is disagreement and that it would go to the court. is it in here? i did not see it in here. >> do you want me to read it in the record i can, if you like. >> the penal code. >> yeah. >> i think that we are in the sections here 1203.01 a this

section will apply to inmates being held in lieu of bail in know other basis, with notwithstanding, subsection b any other law of the board of supervisors of any other county may authorize the administrator as defined in paragraph one of subdivision and k to offer a program under which inmates being held in lieu of bail in the county jail or other correction alpha celebrity may participate in the electronic monitoring program if the condition, specified in the pub division, are met. >> and then, it just goes on to say that the most most relevant section is appropriate for the program and it is appropriate for the program based on the determination, by the correctional administrator that the inmates participation will be consistent with the community and two, number two, all participants will be subject to the