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 trying to understand here. >> pretrial diverse itself is a program for certain offenders -- >> lo level offenders. >> misdemeanor offenders and certain misdemeanor charges.

normally what happens is this isn't universal, but first time offenders perhaps on first time misdemeanor charges would be eligible for pretrial diverse. what that means is that person gets released by the court on their own promise to come back, but they're deferred to the program, and when they come back to court successfully after however long and whatever things they're supposed to do, their case will be dismissed. that's the specific program. that's not applicable to all misdemeanors and charges and not applicable to any felonies. that small segment of people em is not even an issue for them because they get released. em is only for those people who after court has reviewed the case does not put them on pretrial diverse, but instead keeps them in custody and sets a bail so they're not eligible for that program. em is another program, if you

will, for the court to review the see if this person would be eligible. maybe they can can't go through pretrial diverse, but maybe em's a good way to keep them out of custody but accountable to the your. >> they're not completely considered low level offenders. >> it just depends on what the low level definition is. >> you don't necessarily know what an example might be of anyone who might fall into the category? for example, because we have a system in play with pretrial diverse, we understand how that works, we know who falls in that particular category, but what would potentially be the next level where it seems you would push for someone who might have behaved well over two month time period, they go to court -- what specific crime

are those persons being accused of that might maybe get a judge to potentially say no to pretrial, but this -- you would maybe push as a potential option for them to explore? >> i haven't reviewed the criteria for pretrial diverse in a while, but if my memory serves me right, an example any crime involving violence, a battery charge, even if misdemeanor would not be eligible for pretrial diverse, duis are not eligible. those are misdemeanor charges that are not eligible. >> for clarity it includes potential violent crimes. >> sure. >> okay, thank you. >> supervisor kim. >> my line of question is to continue supervisor breed's

line. you've answered her question, but what is the target pool that would be eligible for the em program? who are you envisioning? >> the exceptions to our rule, the people in our custody come to our attention as being in programs as being low classification, as being -- maybe they came into custody under the influence of narcotics or other type of substance where they're not presenting their best to the court. those are the people who we envision reviewing to say hey, this person is a little bit different than most of the people here in custody awaiting trial. they're involved in programming, they have no write ups, they're off their drugs or alcohol, they are performing as they should, there's no

behavioral issues. those are things that the staff can document, those are the things that the staff knows about that the court and da won't know about that we can say hey, this is the exception to the rule, please take a look at this again. >> and this wouldn't happen before the 30 days? >> under no circumstances. of misdemeanors, minimum of 30 days, felonies is a minimum of 60 days and why that's important is because our classification system which deals with a person's behavior, a person's seriousness of criminal offenses, which deals with a person's gang affiliation, those types of things. not only do we get information as time goes on about how they're performing, we also get the review every 30 to 60 days about is there anything new to evaluate for this specific person. >> i thought gang affiliation was part of the first day of court. >> certainly ly if a court or aa know about it that might not

be evident, it might come out during classification interviews. it's not true that a court or da would have gang affiliation, especially if the charge is not a gang violation or gang offense. >> are there categories of people you would limit? ed a different may have made bail and would have been out. >> sure.

>> is this -- so i assume this program is something that could potentially help that category of people. >> that's the target person. all the considerations are going to be looked at. what the bail is, what the reason for that bail was and all those another factors the sheriff is privy to once the person's in custody with them >> i'm very sympathetic to that category. is there a way to place the limitations on the em program so we know -- i mean, kind of along the lines of what supervisor breed is saying.

>> what this legislation calls for is not the sheriff to look at specific cases and say that person has done well we're going to let him or her out. all this is saying is identifying a person who the sheriff believes is on all the criteria they have, including criminal history, including behavioral history, all those types of things to be able to take a second look to bring it to the court for them to make a decision for the court or judge to make a decision, this person deserves another look. when they came in here the first day i didn't realize that, you know, they were talking crazy because they were off their meds or the fact that, you know, the current charge involved a certain offense that the judge wasn't going to let the person out for, but since being in custody has been going to the programs, has made changes, all those things for a judge to review to inform them to make a further

decision what's the best to do in this case. not the sheriff's decision to make. >> you know, i generally believe in less incarceration. i think for me it would just be helpful to have clear parameters around which category the individuals are eligible for the em program and that would give me a lot more confidence in moving this forward. i think i agree with supervisor campos. my apologies for not reaching out to you before this came to the board. i'd like to get some understanding to see if there's potential to put some parameters around who's eligible for the em program and so i would support that motion to continue. if that's not the case today, you know, then i'll have to make a decision based on the information before us, but i think for me that would give me

comfort in supporting a program like this. >> thank you. >> supervisor yee. >> thank you. i appreciate the discussion going on here. just a clarification though, my understanding of pretrial diversion because i had supervised those individuals who is gone through program and they need to do community work and so forth and part of what my understanding pretrial diversion that there's some assumption that the low level misdemeanor type person that could qualify on this is almost saying to the court i don't want to go to trial and there's some almost admittance of i did something wrong and i'm sorry and can i be in the program so i can wipe the charges clean.

that's what i thought pretrial diverse is. in fact, whereas i'm also seeing the same subset of individuals, some, who may have been accused of misdemeanor type charges, they may not feel like they want to admit they're guilty because they don't feel like they're guilty and also their strapped to having a bail and can't afford it. >> i want to make a distinction. pretrial diverse is not any type of admission to guilty. it's a mechanism to take the case out of court. you don't plead guilty, no contest or anything like that. there is no plea. it's almost like a postponement of a case to find out if you complete the program. if you complete the program

then the case is dismissed and it's like you were never arrested. the limits with pretrial diverse is normally first time offenders and certain specific charges, not all misdemeanor charges. if someone for whatever reason is not eligible for pretrial diversion, this legislation would give the possibility of a judge to review their history in custody to determine if em would be a good alternative. >> and those would be the individuals that would be waiting for trial. >> correct. >> okay. and we can't presume that a person is guilty or not guilty, but there's enoughevidence to bring it to trial? >> well, i personally presume they're not guilty, they innocent ub 'til proven guilty, but for the purposes of setting bail, the judge looks