HOUSE BILL REPORT
HB 1136
As Passed Legislature
Title: An act relating to studying electronic monitoring as an alternative to incarceration.
Brief Description: Ordering a study of electronic monitoring systems.
Sponsors: By Representatives O'Brien, Darneille, Kirby, Miloscia, Lovick and Chase.
Brief History:
Criminal Justice & Corrections: 1/27/05, 2/3/05 [DP].
Floor Activity:
Passed House: 3/10/05, 95-0.
Senate Amended.
Passed Senate: 4/11/05, 49-0.
House Concurred.
Passed House: 4/18/05, 95-0.
Passed Legislature.
Brief Summary of Bill |
|
|
|
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE & CORRECTIONS
Majority Report: Do pass. Signed by 7 members: Representatives O'Brien, Chair; Darneille, Vice Chair; Pearson, Ranking Minority Member; Ahern, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Kagi, Kirby and Strow.
Staff: Yvonne Walker (786-7841).
Background:
A range of terminology is used when describing electronic supervision. One of the most
frequently used terms is electronic monitoring, which is generally associated with
technologies that determine whether an offender is at home (or other location) as stipulated
by his or her condition of supervision. Other terms that are frequently used when referring to
electronic monitoring include electronic bracelets, home detention, home arrest, and home
confinement.
The electronic monitoring program uses electronic equipment to monitor a person's presence
at a particular location from a remote location. It works like a cordless phone. During
specified times, one has to be at the location where the monitor sends a signal to the base.
The base connects over a modem to a remote station and delivers data of the offender's
whereabouts. It is a device of a size of a regular pager. A rubber strip (with a metal cord
inside) attaches the monitor to the person's leg. If that person steps outside of the monitored
range an alarm or other signal can go off.
Electronic monitoring is often used by the courts as well as local and state correctional
entities to ensure an offender's compliance with a condition or requirement of a sentence.
Offenders can be charged a fee for this special service (alternative to incarceration sentence)
of electronic monitoring to help offset the cost of supervision.
Summary of Bill:
Electronic Monitoring Study. The WASPC must conduct a study on electronic monitoring
in every state. The study must analyze each state's activity regarding electronic monitoring
and must review the following issues:
The WASPC must place its findings and recommendations into a final report and present it to
the Legislature by no later than December 31, 2005.
Placement of Offenders on Electronic Monitoring. The Department of Corrections (DOC)
must work with the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs to establish and
operate an electronic monitoring program for low-risk offenders who violate the terms of
their community custody. Between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2006, the DOC must
endeavor to place at least one hundred low-risk community custody violators on the
electronic monitoring program per day if there are at least that many low-risk offenders who
qualify for the electronic monitoring program.
Local governments, their subdivisions and employees, the DOC and its employees, and the
Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs and its employees are immune from
civil liability for damages arising from incidents involving low-risk offenders who are placed
on electronic monitoring unless it is shown that an employee acted with gross negligence or
bad faith.
If specific funding is not provided for the bill, it becomes null and void. The entire act
expires on December 31, 2005.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Available.
Effective Date: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed. However, the bill is null and void unless funded in the budget.
Testimony For: This is an effort to find a more economical way of supervising nonviolent
offenders in the community rather then incarcerating them in jail or prison. Many counties
are already using electronic incarceration with great success.
About 15 years ago the WASPC developed an electronic monitoring system throughout the
state. Since that time the technology has grown. Technology has improved so much so that
policymakers are starting to think it is a good idea to increase its use. In Washington the use
of electronic monitoring has been stagnant, however throughout the rest of the country the
growth is increasing. In the State of Michigan, they have nearly 30,000 offenders on
electronic monitoring at any given time. The intent of this bill is to study what other states
are doing, to determine what technology they are using, how much they are using electronic
monitoring technology, and to see what ideas we can use to increase technology in
Washington.
The biggest violators of the program are juveniles, however home monitoring for adults has
been very successful and violations for adults are very rare.
Sheriffs and police chiefs throughout the state support this bill. The majority of county jails
throughout the state are overcrowded and utilizing more electronic monitoring could save
taxpayers money and could open up beds in many of the jails.
Testimony Against: None.
Persons Testifying: Representative O'Brien, prime sponsor; Tim Schellberg, Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs; Larry Taylor, Benton County Sheriff; and Lin Miller, Department of Corrections.