Bonilla’s Bill to Expand Electronic Monitoring for Non-Violent Offenders Passes Public Safety Committee

April 9, 2014 10:00 am · 23 comments

Assemblywoman Susan A. Bonilla’s public safety legislation, AB 2499, has been approved by the Assembly Public Safety Committee with a 5-0 vote.

AB 2499 provides County Sheriffs more tools to manage our criminal justice system by updating requirements for the electronic monitoring of non-violent and non-serious offenders.

“It is vital our local law enforcement agencies have the tools and authority they need to ensure the public safety of our communities,” said Assemblywoman Bonilla. “AB 2499 will help relieve pressure on county jails while making sure inmates that need to be incarcerated stay off our streets.”

Sponsored by the California State Sheriffs Association, AB 2499 (Bonilla) helps county sheriffs who are looking to implement and expand their electronic monitoring programs by making current law more workable and consistent. Specifically, this measure:

  • Allows for any county jail inmate who qualifies under rules set forth by a county board of supervisors to be placed on electronic monitoring.
  • Allows for good time and work time credits an inmate has earned in other home detention programs to be transferable to a county’s electronic monitoring program.
  • Permits a local law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the location of an individual participant in an electronic monitoring program to request the GPS coordinates of that participant.

AB 2499 will be heard next in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Let's just monitor April 9, 2014 at 10:23 AM

every human being in this country except:
Welfare recipients
Union members
Government employees
Homeless people
Mentally ill people
Child abusers
Wife Beaters
LGTB people
and anyone else who may be offended but not including
People who work for a living
People who pay taxes
retired people

Don't tax me bro April 9, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Sure, as long as they’re released into her neighborhood I’m all for it.

Lake April 9, 2014 at 11:03 AM

Agencies don’t have the funds or staff to monitor the current groups on monitors – who is funding this?

@1 April 9, 2014 at 11:06 AM

How’s that Kool-Aid taste?

Don't look now... April 9, 2014 at 11:37 AM

but aren’t they trying to( monitor) everyone already?

RANDOM TASK April 9, 2014 at 11:40 AM

wow election time rolls around and the rats start to scurry ……here is a pinch of what I will do in my next term they say but really all they are doing is securing their seat and fleecing rights to our tax money

I was in favor of the bill April 9, 2014 at 11:43 AM

until I discovered it wasn’t “Electrocution for Non-Violent Offenders”

gratt April 9, 2014 at 11:54 AM

waste of money, let them live next door to the judges homes.

Dennis April 9, 2014 at 12:22 PM

There are 100K paroled sex offenders in CA that they can’t locate already. Those who have the devices disable and remove them, and it may be months before they are discovered.

So the current program is a failure, but the Dems want to expand it, to let even more felons out of Prison (to ‘electronic monitoring”)?

absurd, Unless there are real teeth this is a guard dog that is all bark and no bite.

How about any parole violator forced to return to prison to finish the original sentence, and tack on 2 more years for the parole violation?

Whats that? The Dems would have to spend our tax dollars to build more prisons, instead of giving it to their pals, the big contributors?

tsk tsk.

And this is going to cost how much? April 9, 2014 at 1:13 PM

And what assurances are there that these felons won’t go missing as are so many sex offenders?

Another feel good bill that will cost $$$Millions and has a good chance of not working very well.

Bonilla ran unopposed last time, anyone taking odds that it will happen again?

BagsFlyFree April 9, 2014 at 1:18 PM

And who pays the power bill for this equipment and the other electronics used to keep these people entertained while trapped in their homes/apartments? The taxpayer money will be funnelled into PG&E subsidy programs rather than county jails..

BFF Out!

RunDogRun April 9, 2014 at 1:59 PM

Useless. Does anybody we elect actually
ever *really* do anything to improve the
state of the State?

False hope ??? April 9, 2014 at 6:06 PM

From Assembly Analysis
“…notwithstanding any other provision of law, the board of supervisors of any county may authorize the county correctional administrator to offer a voluntary or involuntary home detention program in lieu of confinement in the county jail, or other correctional facility or program under the auspices of the probation officer.”

Appears to give additional control to Board of Supervisors, so politicians with no training in corrections get to tell the experts what to do? REALLY???

Now, what happens to those who violate say their probation or parole?
In the case of parole used to be before AB-109 passed in 2011 a violator would do a year back in State Prison, that was deterrence.
AB-109 mandates parole violators do County Jail time not to exceed 180 days.

With overcrowding in CA. County Jails, Parole violators almost Never serve those 180 days. Watch this video for an example. (less than 24 hours)
And this

Former Law-Guy April 9, 2014 at 6:57 PM

Many of the individuals posting here do not get the point of this law. The point is to allow the sheriff to allow even more inmates to serve their sentenced jail term on “electronic home detention.” It also provides that you only do 1/2 of your sentence, even if doing that sentence from home. I promise you that your local sheriff hates this and would love to expand the county jail in Richmond to house more inmates. It is plumbed and the foundation is there and ready to build. The funding is even there….However, due to Assemblywoman Bonilla and Jerry Brown among others, the sheriff’s jail is full of offenders that should be in state prison instead of county jail. Our sheriff has no choice but to release convicted criminals into these EHD programs.

The left-leaning legislature in this state will continue to tax the hard working citizens to death while hugging criminals. I see it every single day; the criminals are laughing at us suckers who dare to go to work each morning and be productive. Antioch averages 8 stolen cars per day; not per month; per day. Did you know that under AB 109, as supported by Ms. Bonilla, you can have 2, or 5, even 10 prior felony convictions for stealing cars; even if you set every single one on fire and destroyed it, and you can still not go to prison anymore. What the hell is happening to California?

Amy April 9, 2014 at 7:44 PM

Can you sue the courts who let a criminal out who re offends on YOU?

Elwood April 9, 2014 at 8:25 PM

Apparently, harsh criticism of the criminal-loving Bonilla is not allowed here, as my post was deleted.

. April 9, 2014 at 8:52 PM

Hey, it just means more voters for Bonilla (you know, the one whose staffers say that she “is in perfect touch with her constituents”)……

Guess her district encompasses 1000 Ward St in Martinez and 5555 Giant Hwy in Richmond… know, the jails.

gratt April 9, 2014 at 10:17 PM

AB 109 is a joke, the probation officers have them write apology letters instead of sending them back to prison or jail when they violate the so called supervision. It is true check it out.

gratt April 9, 2014 at 10:22 PM

AB 109 supervision is through the County Probation Dept. “JOKE”. They try not to violate any ex-con so numbers look good to try and make their program appear as it is working (smoke screen). Biscuits and gravy anyone???

Dennis April 10, 2014 at 12:43 AM

California’s Government Code, Sections 821,
845, and 846 state, in part:

“Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for
failure to provide adequate police protection or service,
failure to prevent the commission of crimes and
failure to apprehend criminals.”

In other words, the state and its corrupt politicians are “not accountable’ for their failures.

Anon April 10, 2014 at 2:19 AM

Or how about keeping them in jail? And oh ya, f$%^ the courts.

P.S. Bonilla, supporting boys using the girls bathroom since 2013.

Former Law-Guy April 10, 2014 at 6:07 AM

I am not sure why posters are upset at the local courts over this situation. The sentence can only be within the parameters of the statute as passed by the legislature. For example, the sentence for felony auto-theft with a felony auto-theft prior (or many many priors) is one of three choices; 2, 3 or 4 years. If the judge sentences the defendant to presumptive middle term of 3 years, the defendant gets 1/2 time and according to Ms. Bonilla, will not do the time in prison, according to AB 109, but instead in local jail, and under this law, on an ankle monitor. The possible length of the sentence and where it is served is not really up to the judge. Be mad for sure, but be mad at the right people….perhaps federal judges such as Theldon Henderson, a far left wing leftover appointed by Jimmy Carter in the 70s. Just wait till the end of Obama’s administration and see how far left the lifetime-appointed federal judges will be.

We really really should not be mad at the everyday local cops, probation officers and judges. Very few of them supported AB 109 and are frustrated as well.

Hillary April 10, 2014 at 7:21 AM

Sure Anon…

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: