jail populations throughout all urban centers -- i appreciate the newness of this discussion to some of the supervisors here, is that i doubt that the adult probation department or even the public defender would support this legislation if in fact they thought that would increase public safety risk or in any way subvert the paramount concern of public safety, which is why they came to the move down this road. now, if this road is too soon for some supervisors because i'm hearing some misinformation even in the comments that has been misunderstanding in the comments that have been shared, i'll be more than happy to make sure our office gives you a

briefing over however period of time so you understand what the contrast is. there's no way shape or form that i as sheriff and that this department would want to do anything to forward any risk or compromise to public safety, but the notion that i heard being put out there, whether this is true in the perception or not of some, that we would unilaterally put what we are proposing is the same way that there's a response mechanism by the da and court who often asks us could we put a sex offender or somebody for child important electronic monitoring, we have the right to say no and we often do. but what we've noticed though, by the way we've said no to people being put on em, it's happening anyway, a cottage industry has erupted that is

not supervised by the sheriff's department and by state statute, all em for sentence population supervised by the sheriff's department. to allow somebody to be be put on,m even after we've rejected it, and we're trying to reign that practice in. if this detail is, you know, much too much to take in here on the fly, if you'd like to postpone or have it delayed and we're more than happy to give a complete and full briefing. of course we'd be happy to do that. >> i have more questions. i think with all your work you

see the crime statistics that president chiu rattled off. i mean, there was a shooting 30 minutes ago at third and oakdale so i am representing a part of a constituency that is on edge when it comes to public safety and we need to look at this from a very broad perspective, so i am not prepared to vote on it, or if we do call the vote today i think that i would be voting no because i just don't have enough information and i'm happy to continue this conversation, sheriff, and i am a little surprised that we weren't given a briefing on this because this is a very serious topic, one that touches all of us. now, i have one question real quick. when you say -- when the judge grants em and you've indicated with you don't support this decision, what kind of recourse

is there? do you in em so what we're

proposing is just a process and that process is to inform the da and the judges because that process doesn't exist based on kufrnt law and that's what the state law allows us to do. any notion that we would be putting somebody out who's involved in a shooting or robbery or anything like this, this is something that completely departs from what we're even thinking or talking about, but ultimately it's da and judges who would have that decision. >> my final question is i understand that the da and the committee, is there a representative here today? no. did they send a communication

to the mayor's office, the da? you read a letter -- a statement from the chief, i'm wondering if there's a statement from the da. >> mayor's office to the president, no, ma'am we don't have a statement from the da to read. i can ask for da to come here. i know they're opposed to this legislation. >> to the same that a public defender supported it. >> this highlights the point, that that information was never shared, didn't know chief steel was in favor of it. all i'm hearing is from opposition so i don't know what other offices have -- how you guys have dealt with this particular matter, but this is something that i'm taking very seriously and i'd loov to hear what some of your other thoughts are. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you.

actually, i don't have an issue with the process or timing here. my understanding is that this has been in committee sever times. i aem assuming it came out of the committee report simply so the two reeds could be before the board goes into recess so i'm prepared to vote on this today. i do have concerns about this. i want to associate myself with supervisor farrell's remarks and president chius, but i want to focus so far has been on the pretrial em with bail. the legislation also makes a change for post trial for convicted inmates and it does so by eliminated the requirement that be placed on em as a convict that you have

to have been either minimum security or low risk and so it looks like the sheriff's department is leaving or something. i have questions also. can i ask questions too or -- yes. i don't know if you just heard what i just said, i think it's been appropriate so far on the pretrial em but in terms of post conviction, there's a change to the law eliminating the requirement that people who are convicted in custody has to be either minimum security and low risk and that's being eliminated. why is that? >> that's the state law. that's just amending the state law total 3.016 it deleted forming local law to that code

section. >> are you saying we have to do that? >> what the legislation is just conforming local law to state law. >> are we able to go beyond state law? do we have -- so they -- >> this is not going beyond state law. >> for example, the state law required before that for someone who's convicted they had to be eligible for em, they had to be minimum security and low risk. that changed in terms of what allow eded counties to place people on em who are low risk. do we have to stick with that standard of state law or can we go beyond it and say we still want people participating in em who are convicted to be minimum security and low risk only?

>> i would have to reread it. my understanding is to implement that it has to be approved by the board. the state law says you don't need that requirement, this legislation is just conforming to that. if you don't change the current legislation that won't change. >> so we can -- we don't have to make this amendment in terms of people who have been convicted. we could limit em for people in san francisco for people who have been convicted in low risk? >> i would have to discuss that with the city attorney. >> i'm just trying to pull up the section of the government code right now, but -- these

two sections of the code authorize the board to create a program so the board could adopt a program that authorizes the sheriff to use em in a more limited set of circumstances. >> so just to be clear, currently is -- currently under san francisco law for people who have been convicted of crimes and in county jail to be eligible for em they have to be minimum security and low risk offenders. is it the case we can just stick with that limitation despite the fact that state law would allow us to eliminate that limitation? >> yes, the state law authorizes the boards to adopt a program and prescribe rules for that program. >> so we can be more limited than state law.

>> it's not just that state law changed and we have to conform, the sheriff eefs department is asking the supervisors to make a policy choice that people who have been convicted in county jail, who are not minimum security that they're electronic monitoring. you're asking for that policy judgment? >> i have to make a slight adjustment to that reasoning. first of all, the code section itself is what has been transposed into the legislation. our own em eligible however, does require that people do not have the serious or violent felonies that you might be addressing. but for purposes of an actual policy standpoint as the city attorney said, if you wanted to limit to just the previous incarnation so to speak of low

level, looks like you can do that >> okay. so you have on the one hand, minimum security and low risk offenders and then you mentioned serious violent felonies, the assaults and robberies and rapes and murders, but there's a whole class of crimes in between, we're talking about auto break ins, home burglaries, vandz lichl, are those the kind of crimes that would be in that in between category under your proposal for people who have been convicted would now be eligible for em? >> it depends on the specific charge. i know that distinction might be lost in just discussing felonies. i know they might be serious. all crimes are serious to many people, but there's actual penal code section definitions of what a serious felony is,

what a violent felony is. some of the ones you mentioned are serious and violent -- robberies, rapes, that type of offense. >> what about breaking into a car. >> that's second-degree, considered a regular felony, not serious or second-degree. >> what about breaking into ten cars. >> volume doesn't matter. >> i know we've seen in my district, that would now -- that person would be eligible for em. the reason i raise this with respect to the convictions -- i think the bail issue has been thoroughly covered. i have a frustration and many of my constituents have a frustration, that in san francisco to get to the point where you're actually convicted and incarcerated, it's not always the easiest thing, nor

should it be easy, but you have some of these people for some of these crimes to be prosecuted, convicted, sentenced to jail in terms of -- instead of some sort of diversion. that's sort of like running the gauntlet and we see, you know, a lot of times people being churned back outs on to the street and committing these crimes again and so i think a lot of people might be frustrated to hear that even if you get to the point where a person actually gets arrested, prosecuted, convicted, sentenced and is actually in custody, and then even then they might just get sent out on em, i think a lot of people would find that not to be acceptable. >> supervisor, i just wanted to share in the discussion a little bit. just want to reiterate that that language of minimum security prisonerings and low risk offenders is consistent with the change in state law so

that's just simply a replication -- >> state laws allows us, doesn't require us. >> i have no problem what soever in making sure that the language is returned if that's something that san francisco wants to do unique to itself. but in the larger discussion that you just shared about concerns to district, i was a supervisor who presided over a disfrikt that was well enveloped with all ranges of crime, that was a signature issue for me. i carried that forward as sheriff. any suggestion or any inference that we're trying to be lenient is completely false. and yet what we're trying to do is i think, leverage what state law has empowered all state sheriff's associations to make sure we maintain or reach by allowing for a pretrial population, which is the import

of this legislation an anlt that never existed before in the city and county of san francisco. any lifting from that of scenarios of certain people that could violate, we could be here all day and all night sort of those what if scenarios and i get that. those are very important scenarios but thags why we have succeeded so well in our em and home detention program and it sounds like there is more assurances that you would like to have as i would completely understand as o why we would make sure either for the convicted sentence side of em, which by the way it's the courts who ask us to put somebody in em. we don't do that for the sentence side when convicted side. it's the courts that say will you put somebody on em. it's the courts who generate that request. it's only been sometimes where it's the other way around where

the courts have asked us to do something and for public safety concerns we have not, but all courts are suggesting put people on em. >> okay. i appreciate that. so colleagues, i -- given that, it seems the purpose of change in state law, we don't have a jail overcrowding problem in san francisco and in fact, there is significant frustration that there are some people who should be doing time in jail two who don't because it's not a serious crime. we have property crimes happening, the auto break ins, burglaries, vandalism that have significant impacts on our communities and these are real impacts and you have people who cycle through the system. there's little to no accountability and so when you

have someone who makes it through the system, that's a pretty serious thing in san francisco. i don't agree with making electronic monitoring more per mesquite permissive for people who [inaudible] as well and so i'm not prepared to support this. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you. i have a clarifying point and a question and i want to make a couple points. for sheriff, my understanding is that one of the objective in trying to consider the option of making em a possibility is to address the fact that there are some people who sit in county jail not because they are a public safety, but because

they don't have the money to pay bail. i mean, isn't that sort of part of the sort of one of the reason? is that correct or -- >> i would say it's a sizable population that can't afford bail. we're not the highest and we're not the lowest, but our pretrial population in san francisco in county jail is about 60, 65%. some of those people are there because they condition afford bail so people who can afford bail, i understand wouldn't be given the same level of response versus those who can't. >> yeah, and i want to make a point very clear, you know, i chaired the public safety committee when this item fist came up months ago, there was a concern that was raised by the district attorney's and we postponed the item so we could

give the sheriff and da the opportunity to have a conversation and so we could get more information from the da's office. at the time the police department was not even saying anything about even having a concern. we had a follow-up hearing where the da and sheriff came and it's clear that the da and the sheriff have a different perspective. the police department, once again, was not at the hearing, did not present any concerns so i do believe that before we move forward that we should give the police department an opportunity to present its concerns to the sheriff's department so i think continuing this item so there is that dialogue makes sense. i want to note a couple of

things -- i know that supervisor e is here because both of us made it very clear that no one on that committee would support em in any way continuing or expanding if public safety in any way was compromised. the concern articulated by the da was about the fact they needed to be a uniform metric, which was interesting because the da also noted that day themselves haven't had a metric in years and the sheriff actually has a metric, but i think that for both supervisor yee and me, what was really important here was that at the end of the day the people who have the final say is the court.

more importantly for me t adult probation department saying this is the right approach. that's what sort of helped me get comfortable with the idea we're taking every precaution to ensure public safety, but to the extent that there's any question from the chief of police that that's not what's happening, i want those questions to be pursued, to be answered and i would like to get more information so i will make a motion to continue this, to -- you know, after the recess so that we have some time to get more information, but i also want to note a

couple of other points, that i agree with the nakt we have to ensure the safety of the public. i think that that has to be our first and number one priority. but i also want to disagree with this idea that somehow we just need to lock people up because one of the things that i am proud of with sheriff hennessy is fact that we have explored alternatives to incarceration because the people that are incourse rated disproportionately from certain communities and low income. to the extent we can be safe in terms of maintaining the community safe without incarcerating people and looking at alternatives to incarceration, i think san francisco should proudly pursue that. and the interesting thing is that on one hand we have a da who's saying we don't need a new county jail and we should

explore alternatives to explore incarceration, but at the same time, it's criticizing the very alternatives that he wants the sheriff to explore. i'm not sure that we need a new county jail, i'm still not clear on that decision, but i do want the exploration of alternatives to incarceration, so long as public safety is not compromised. so i think that we should explore this possibility if it is the case that public safety is not compromised. i think we have a obligation to do that. and the fact that we have some empty beds in our county jail system doesn't mean that we need to use those beds. in fact, i think we should always figure out alternatives, if possible. so i believe that the right approach here is to continue

this so we have more time to get to the facts so that we are focused on facts because i think there are legitimate concerns, i appreciate the concerns supervisor farrell has raised, supervisor wiener, but i don't want it to be a situation that just because this sheriff happens to be propose ago good idea we're going to shoot it down because it's him that's proposing it. >> supervisor breed. >> thank you. i had a clarifying question. pretrial diversion, so when low level offenders in some cases can't necessarily afford bail, that's usually the resource they use in order to get out so i'm trying to understand how is -- how are the populations that

this is proposing -- i know it's proposing both those who are convicted and not convicted, but how does this -- how is this different from-how is the population proposed here different from the population that's usually proposed in pretrial diversion? >> in essence, pretrial does not exist in san francisco. we fund pretrial diversion if -- >> i understand that. >> in a sense that is a program in the sheriff's department, em does not exist. >> why would we agree to add a layer where if someone qualifies for pretrial diverse and they don't necessarily need to be monitored, then why would we had that extra layer to the responsibility of those particular -- at those low level offenders. it's lake we're saying they can get out on pretrial diverse, then through this policy that now we're going to add another

layer and require them to wear an ankle monitor. >> no, not at all. it's just another option in order to ensure the security of somebody who would be not in custody and required to be part of home detention and supervised. it's a tool that doesn't exist in the pretrial community. >> my understanding is that low level offenders who qualify for retrial diverse are usually allowed to go free and those seem to be the same -- not go free, but are usually fighting outside of the court system, they don't pay a fee for bail, they go through the process of dealing with their particular situation and i'm just -- i don't see the difference between the two populations that are being proposed here. >> well, the population that is put on pretrial is essentially

put on there by the courts. the em does not exist so the courts would have an option for em pretrial electronic monitoring that currently does not exist. >> from my perspective we're saying low level, right? so they're all low level. so those two potentially can be put on ankle monitors or not >> we don't supersede the courts. we don't make that decision. the courts make the decision. we're instituting -- >> i understand that, but what i don't understand -- i'm trying to understand why this is being added as an additional layer when it seems like there's something that actually exists to support allowing low level offenders the opportunity to potentially get out through pretrial diverse, why is this necessary for the ankle monitoring part of those who have not necessarily been convicted yet? that's what i'm