Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Electronic Monitoring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee continues review of Sheriff's electronic monitoring program after extensive public opposition
Summary
The committee continued Item 2 (Sheriff's home detention and electronic monitoring rules) to a future meeting after the Sheriff's presentation was disrupted and dozens of callers urged the city to reject or limit electronic monitoring as punitive surveillance.
The Budget & Finance Committee continued its review of the Sheriff's office home‑detention and electronic‑monitoring program on Sept. 30 after technical problems with a slide presentation and extensive public comment opposing monitoring as a form of surveillance.
Crispin Hollings, the Sheriff's chief financial officer, opened the presentation and noted that California law requires presentation of rules and the scope of services and insurance for programs and vendors (he referenced the penal code requirement that led to the presentation). The committee experienced difficulties viewing slides and agreed to continue the item to the next Budget & Finance meeting so a full presentation and public response can proceed.
Public commenters strongly urged the committee to reject contract renewal or to refrain from expanding electronic monitoring. Mohammed Shaikh of Critical Resistance said "EM is often mistakenly referred to as an alternative. It is not," characterizing electronic monitoring as another form of imprisonment and surveillance. Multiple callers, including advocates for women and people returning from jail, cited harms: interference with employment and parenting, monitoring inside homes, technical malfunctions, and lawsuits involving contractor practices.
Why it matters: Electronic monitoring is being used as an alternative to incarceration in some cases; advocates and service providers told the committee that monitoring expands surveillance and discourages alternatives such as diversion, housing and services. Several callers urged the city not to renew a contract with private vendors they described as having predatory practices.
Action taken: Supervisor Shamann Walton moved to continue Item 2 to the next Budget & Finance Committee meeting to allow for a full presentation and broader public participation; the motion passed on a recorded voice vote (Walton Aye; Chair Feuer Aye). Public speakers asked the Sheriff's Office to release the presentation materials ahead of the next hearing.
Next steps: The Sheriff's Office will provide the slides and is expected to present a complete package at the next meeting; community groups said they will return to press the committee for data on who is placed on monitoring, for which offenses, and the outcomes of any vendor litigation.
