Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Electronic Monitoring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ACLU and vendors warn committee that ankle‑monitoring bill risks creating court debt cases; author says it’s a public‑safety fix
Summary
Representative Turner’s HB 968 would require monitoring companies to notify courts before removing ankle monitors and gives judges 15 days to act; the ACLU and vendors said the measure could import private debt-collection disputes into criminal dockets, while the author said the bill is designed to protect public safety, and the committee reported the bill favorably over objection.
Representative Turner told the committee HB 968 would create a framework to prevent private monitoring companies from unilaterally removing electronic-monitoring devices without court notice. Turner said the intent is not to create a debt-collection process: "This is not a debt collection bill. This is simply a framework to put together so the judge knows that the responsibility of the person with the monitoring system has not upheld their end," he said, adding he would work with stakeholders between committee and floor.
Opponents said the proposal, even with the amendment extending vendor notice from 10 to 15 days, risks moving private payment disputes into criminal court. Sarah Whittington of the ACLU of Louisiana said the removal provision in the bill applies only to nonpayment and does not require judicial findings of violation. "This bill does go beyond that and that removal provision is specifically and only for nonpayment," Whittington said, warning that the approach could result in people losing pretrial release because a private vendor treats monitoring as a condition tied to money rather than public‑safety supervision.
Mary Patricia Ray, representing a monitoring‑device vendor, said the bill forces vendors to pursue contradictory hearings in criminal court and questioned whether replacement vendors would accept clients the original vendor would not take on after nonpayment. "If no one takes them on, what options will a judge have besides revoking bail?" she asked.
Representative Turner and members agreed to continue negotiation; nonetheless Senator Talbot moved to report the bill favorably and the motion carried over objection.
Next steps: HB 968 was reported out of committee; the author offered to work with stakeholders to revise language ahead of floor debate.
