Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Electronic Monitoring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel tightens electronic‑monitoring rules after high‑profile failures; advocates and defenders spar over due process
Summary
Senate Bill 95, which sets certification, reporting and penalty standards for electronic-monitoring providers and shortens reporting timelines for violations, was reported as amended after testimony from the attorney general's office, the governor's counsel, providers, survivors and defense groups.
Senate Bill 95, introduced by Senator Bethany Cloud, cleared the committee as amended after lawmakers adopted a package of provisions aimed at tightening oversight of electronic monitoring providers and speeding notification of violations.
The committee adopted amendments that add district attorneys and law enforcement as formal recipients of monitoring reports, change the reporting time for equipment issues to “immediately, but in no event longer than 30 minutes,” and permit courts to waive monitoring costs for juveniles at the court’s discretion. The clerk read the amendment set into the record and the chair called for no objections; the amendments were adopted.
Deputy Attorney General Larry Freeman and Christopher Walters, deputy executive counsel to the governor, described repeated monitoring failures tied to major crimes and homicides in prior years and argued the state needs stronger reporting, provider certification and penalties for negligent operators. Freeman said the bill was drafted with input from multiple stakeholders to tighten notice and enforcement requirements.
Providers and victim advocates supported stronger rules. Jill Dennis of the Association of Supervised Monitoring Providers said the measure would promote accountability and cited cases where missed reports or court inaction preceded violent crimes. Survivor Bridal Peterson urged “real time alerts” to improve victim safety and better coordination among providers, courts and law enforcement.
Defense groups and juvenile advocates urged guardrails to protect due process. Megan Garvey of the Louisiana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Lauren Hall of the Louisiana Center for Children's Rights warned that the bill, as written, could allow arrests based on monitoring alerts without timely notice to defense counsel, produce ex‑parte actions, or lead to detention of juveniles due to device failures or clerical errors. Hall described juvenile cases where inaccurate alerts were later corrected and urged notice and hearing protections before arrest or remand.
The committee debated but did not adopt language to require that defense counsel be notified at the same time as other recipients; proponents said immediate notice to prosecution and law enforcement is necessary to protect potential victims and to allow rapid interventions when monitors are breached. Several members noted the need for a statewide data system that would allow jurisdictions and providers to share location and violation information but said that requires further planning and funds.
Amendments and penalties: the adopted amendments increase the list of recipients that must be notified of placement and violations (including local DA offices and law enforcement), reduce the equipment‑issue reporting window to “immediately, but in no event longer than 30 minutes,” and allow courts discretion to waive juvenile monitoring costs. Witnesses described provider penalties discussed during drafting — fines (daily or per case up to $10,000 cited in testimony) and potential jail and bans for negligent providers — that would be implemented under provider certification rules.
Outcome and next steps: the committee adopted the committee amendment set and reported SB 95 as amended. Members and stakeholders signaled continued work will be necessary to address data infrastructure, precise due‑process safeguards for juveniles and timing of notifications to defense counsel.
