Budget & Finance Committee continues review of sheriff's electronic monitoring rules after research briefing and strong public opposition

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors Budget & Finance Committee on Oct. 5 continued consideration of the sheriff's annual rules and regulations for the home detention and electronic monitoring (EM) program after presentations from the Department of the Sheriff, the Budget and Legislative Analyst and the California Policy Lab (CPL) and more than an hour of public comment.

Chair Supervisor Hillary Ronan opened discussion after Crispin Hollings of the Sheriff's Office reviewed state statutory authority for EM and said court-ordered pretrial EM placements have grown substantially in recent years. Hollings said courts increasingly set EM conditions and that the sheriff's office administers those court orders.

Alyssa Scogg of the California Policy Lab presented descriptive evaluation findings, saying San Francisco's monthly pretrial EM caseload rose from about 50 in 2018 to nearly 140 in 2021; roughly 84% of people placed on EM were booked on felony charges; an estimated 38% were unhoused; and the share of EM cycles that completed without court-ordered termination was about 40% overall but markedly lower (near 20%) for unhoused people. CPL noted data limitations, including an inability to observe reasons for most terminations, and recommended better digital records and targeted services for the early weeks of monitoring.

Supervisors spent much of the meeting pressing the sheriff and presenters on legal authority, program outcomes and equity. Members asked whether the Board could adopt separate rules for pretrial and post-sentence EM (the latter being the subject of the annual review), and whether setting Board rules would shift authority from courts to the sheriff. Deputy City Attorney John Givner told the committee that, under state law, the Board may adopt its own EM program rules but doing so could create a locally governed program that differs from court-ordered EM.

Committee members and community commenters raised civil liberties concerns. Chair Ronan and ACLU-affiliated speakers said the sheriff's office has, in practice, imposed program requirements (including warrantless searches and indefinite retention of GPS data) that the ACLU and a private firm have challenged in litigation. Public commenters from community groups, legal services and advocacy organizations urged the Board to substantially scale back or end EM use and reallocate funds to community-based supports.

The Budget and Legislative Analyst flagged legislative-file confusion: the resolution under review references both rules and a contract scope of work and appears to apply across pretrial and post-sentence populations; the BLA recommended the sheriff bring separate, clearly worded rules for pretrial and post-sentence EM and suggested the Board consider ordinance changes such as data-retention limits.

After extended questioning and public comment, Supervisor Chan moved to continue Item 5 to the call of the chair so the Board can pursue additional review and oversight; the motion passed unanimously (3 ayes). The committee did not adopt the rules or amend the contract in this session; the sheriff's current practices and court orders remain in effect pending further action.

The committee noted the Sentinel Offender Services contract was referenced in the file and that the sheriff spends about $800,000 per year for sentinel services; the BLA said an August 2022 contract amendment increased a not-to-exceed amount but did not come before the Board. The committee requested additional information and clearer separation of pretrial and post-sentence authorities before acting further.

The committee's continuation means the Board will have further opportunity to consider CPL's recommendations — improved data systems, earlier service interventions for the first two weeks on EM and policy changes to reduce harms for unhoused and other vulnerable populations — and to solicit input from the newly formed Sheriff's Oversight Commission and legal counsel.