Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Electronic Monitoring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Author withdraws bill after extensive testimony on licensing, registry and provider accountability for ankle monitors
Summary
Representative Kerner voluntarily deferred House Bill 244 after extended testimony on June 2, 2025, as advocates and providers pressed competing fixes — licensing and registries for electronic monitoring providers versus enforcement and certification changes already moving through other bills.
Representative Kerner asked the committee to voluntarily defer House Bill 244 on June 2, 2025, after extended testimony about accountability, licensing and registries for electronic monitoring (ankle monitor) providers.
Kerner framed the bill as an effort to make “providers and the whole industry more accountable.” He introduced Jill Dennis of the Association of Supervised Ankle Monitoring Providers and Matt Dennis, who identified himself as a provider, to explain system failures and why the legislation was needed. Jill Dennis recounted several homicides she tied to failures in monitoring and said providers historically have not been held accountable: “I was tired of the fact that the only time we had a discussion about problems with GPS is when someone was hurt and killed.”
Matt Dennis told the committee Louisiana became the first state to allow criminal liability for providers who intentionally withhold reporting, but he said the industry lacks licensing and registration: “You need to have laws that allow you to take people like me out if I don't do my job. You need to be able to identify who I am. This industry is not licensed. It's not regulated. It's not instructed.” He argued for licensing similar to bail‑bond agents and for publicly accessible registries of providers and monitored individuals.
Lawmakers questioned whether other bills already address parts of the problem. Committee members noted Senate Bill 95 creates certification standards and registration requirements for equipment and certain providers but, according to witnesses, does not create the licensing regime advocates sought. Representative Kerner and witnesses contrasted HB 244’s proposed provider licensing and registries with SB 95’s narrower focus on certification and judge‑oriented enforcement tools.
Representative Walters expressed support for HB 244’s centralized database language and asked members to move the bill favorably; Representative Fontenot questioned whether law enforcement should perform monitoring instead of private companies. Provider witnesses described operational models and recordkeeping practices; they said public‑records exposure depends on the use of public funds.
After extended questioning and discussion, Representative Kerner said he was “pulling this bill” and asked to defer it, giving proponents “a little opportunity to say a few words before I pull it.” The chair accepted the author’s voluntary deferral; the committee marked HB 244 as deferred at the author’s request.
Although HB 244 was withdrawn for further work, the hearing clarified key tensions: advocates sought licensing and public registries for providers and monitored individuals, providers warned about operational constraints and existing statutes, and members pointed to overlapping measures (notably SB 95) that address related but not identical issues. The author said he intended to return with a revised proposal.
