Bring up is that electronic monitoring is being overused. I think this is also brought up in the pie charts. African american makes up half of the folks on electronic monitoring. There is no real evidence that electronic monitoring is being used as an alternative to incarceration. If we didnt have electronic monitoring, as mr. Yuen pointed out, we werent using it a lot in San Francisco. Those same folks were being released without having to have electronic monitoring added as an additional condition for a pretrial release. With these principles in mind, i am asking the board to make three changes to the sheriffs and the probation departments policies and procedures with respect to electronic monitoring. The first is that the sheriff and a. P. D. And their private contractors should make every reasonable and simple attempt to contact our incliclients before seeking an arrest warrant if there is a technical violation. This could be reaching out to support people, a list of caseworkers, Pretrial Services or another agency if applicable. It doesnt make any sense and its inhumane to put someone in jail for an equipment failure issue or Something Else that could be resolved by making a few phone calls instead of spending hundreds of dollars to reincarcerate someone. In my practice, the courts release folks in any event but it puts them on thin ice. I had a client on a residential drug treatment program. His battery failed to charge and he was arrested, brought to jail and released within a few days but he lost his space, he lost his bed space in the residential treatment program. It caused him great harm in terms of rehabilitating themselves and resolving his criminal case. I was pleased to hear that he wants to formalize this type of program where we have a designated support person for anyone who is on electronic monitoring to avoid these types of rearrests and reincarcerations. So the second is that the sheriff does not have the Legal Authority to strip people of their 4th amendment privacy rights for unreasonable search and seizures and stop telling people it does and stop telling them to sign an acknowledgment of this. If a judge says someone has a search condition and needs to waive their 4th amendment right, thats something that the judge has the authority to do. I heard that the Adult Probation Department may be searching peoples homes and the Sheriffs Department form needs to be changed so unless a judge authorizes it, a person that is on electronic monitoring should not have to sign a waiver giving up their 4th amendment rights. The third is in a similar vein, the Sheriffs Department does not have the Legal Authority to use the information gathered through electronic monitoring, the gvm. P. S. Monitoring in any other way than intended which is to ensure the person that is on electronic monitoring complies with specific court orders. The form, the contract that is currently written says that the Sheriffs Department has the right to use the g. P. S. Data and share that with Law Enforcement partners. That is not authorized by law and its contrary to california law, specifically the california Electronic Community privacy act. So, these are the three changes we would like to have this board consider in administering this braham. Also, i just wanted to bring up a couple of issues that are specific to juvenile cases that my colleague wanted me to raise with you this morning. Number one, there is currently an issue in Juvenile Court with children being on electronic monitoring for too long periods of time. According to the data in our office, the average is currently 96 days, which is far longer than the 20 days that is recommended as a maximum that interferes with youths in their developmental trajectory, and those with behavioral and Mental Health disabilities, et cetera. Also, it interferes with the confidentiality that is a core principle of our Juvenile Court system. Its stigmatizing children who may be ashamed of having the device. For this reason, were asking it not be used in Juvenile Court. Finally for juveniles, it really deepens youth involvement in the criminal Justice System because youth are subject to penal consequences for things that are not crimes, like not charging their ankle monitor or being late to school or late to get home. So, we look forward to divesting in this in the adult and juvenile systems. Its not clear to our office that electronic monitoring is making us safer at all. It is using up resources that could be directed to other services that have been proven to provide better out comes. I will look forward to creating a more equitable and humane system for our clients. I will be happy to answer any questions that may arise. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions or comments from my colleagues . I do have a question. I think that when you mentioned about the sheriff, the Juvenile Court and adult probation all use electronic monitoring. The bulk of electronic monitoring is used by the Sheriffs Department. When youre looking at electronic monitoring, can we point to some best practices and things that you think that are actually doing well and how electronic monitoring can be i mean how theyre using it in a way that is less harmful, i think to the client. Well, our office is not an advocate of electronic monitoring, period. The idea that its being enhancing Public Safety or its being used to enforce court orders is frankly a myth. Its being added on to other conditions of release for a person who the court is considering to release pretrial. The persons that are charge with the most dangerous crimes, theyre not being released, period. Thats been the case for decades, obviously. The persons that are eligible for release, even for felony offenses, they can be released. They can be supervised, and electronic monitoring doesnt have to be imposed in order to ensure Public Safety. I can tell you from personal experience, its been an extraordinarily rare situation where a client of mine who is out of custody on electronic monitoring committed another crime. So, the idea that its this monitoring folks, and the judges are based on a Public Safety assessment, theyre feeling more comfortable in releasing somebody that they wouldnt otherwise release. I think frankly its a myth. It doesnt really do anything. There is no data to show that and antidotally as a public defender, the things that work for the clients are reminding them to come to court, whether thats Pretrial Service or the persons attorney and as you mentioned throughout this hearing, whether the person has stable housing, whether the person has stable employment, whether the person has, you know, food, clothing, and shelter. All of those things will assure attendance in court. The idea that electronic monitoring is ensuring their court appearance, there is no data to back that up. There are many uh instances where the electronic monitoring interferes with their ability to socialize with friends and family, maintain relationships, their ability to attend job interviews, et cetera. My experience is that the subcontract with sentinel, that staff is poorly trained and can often create misinformation, for every movement that a client wants to do, whether its a job interview, an appointment for a medical situation for a child, they have to seek permission beforehand to do so. They cant get it from the staff then that interferes with their daily life and their rehabilitati rehabilitation. Got it. Supervisor walton, i see you in the queue. Thank you chair fewer. I just had a question in terms of the three recommendations that you provided for rules changes. Have you had a discussion or the Public Defenders Office had a decision with the sheriff on these rules . I personally have not been involved in any discussion with the sheriffs office, but its possible that my office has. I was pleased to hear that he seems to agree with our recommendation for a rule change, which is to try to provide a designated person or some system where if theres a technical violation with some phone calls, we can resolve the issue rather than having the person subject to an arrest warrant. Thank you, mr. Hot hollings, are you still on . I am still on. I think there was a coming to a process of supporting recommendation number one. What about the other two recommendations . Back on recommendation number one. We believe that were already doing this and were really happy that other people are now interested in working with us to formalize this. So again, on the other two recommendations, it is our take that we are not adding on any new conditions. These are not conditions of the Sheriffs Department but the conditions of the court and were simply making it Crystal Clear to the defendant that these are part of their conditions of their Court Ordered release to e. M. So lets start with item three. This is the time of the Trump Administration and folks have been trying to violate sanctuary policy rules for decades. So, if we are sharing information with Law Enforcement bodies, and its not specific about what they said, then as written, you could be sharing information with i. C. E. And folks coming in that are doing things that will effect our sanctuary policies and that is something that i would think that the sheriff would be 100 against and make it easy to remove rule number 13. Well, i believe there are other city policies that direct us with regards to interacting with i. C. E. And i believe this sheriff and his predecessors have stood by that city policy and support that city policy. I dont see that as particular with this rule. This rule is a rule of the court and were making it clear to the defendant that this is what has been agreed to as part of their Court Ordered release to e. M. To answer my question, youre not going to accept any of the recommendations, changes for the rules. These are not our rules. I believe you just said they are rules well, im reading them and they have a Sheriffs Department letter head. Youre right. Its this departments take that these are rules that the court has ordered and we are, you know, a lot of this happens quickly in court and we dont believe all the defendants are clear about what is agreed to. We want to make it clear to the defendants that this is what has been agreed to by the court, ordered by the court. My question is simple, youre not going to agree to make these rule changes. These are not our rule changes to make. So this is not your letter head . This is our letter head, but youre asking if were going to change the letter head . We can engage in the discussion about changing that. Its really a yes or no question, if youre going to accept the recommendations or not. The rules are not our rules to change. I believe there was something you wanted to add, my apologies. Not at all. Im looking at the same form that is a form that is the Electronic Monitoring Program rules by the San FranciscoSheriffs Department and it require it is participant to sign it and rule number 13 says the person acknowledges that their e. M. Data can be shared with other criminal justice partners. That is not an order thats coming from a judge. That we feel is not a lawful act that the sheriff can engage in. Number 5 said the person shall submit the search of his residence at any time but the sheriff cannot independently by having someone sign this form to agree to participate in the e. M. Program to give up their 4th amendment right by agreeing to participate in the program. I understand that these things are explained to a person sort of calmly in a different setting outside of the court setting, but those two rules, number 5 and 13 are not lawful unless a judge has ordered it. In that case sure, you can read that to them. As it currently stands, every participant in the program is signing a way to lawful rights they dont need to sign away. Its unnecessary. So if i may, supervisor walton, i think that we are looking at suggestions, recommendations 1, 2, and 3. We have consensus on item number 1, is that correct that actually what the public defender is proposing here is that the forms, that the client could add names and phone numbers to the top of the electronic monitoring forms. They will be contacted if there is a technical at adjustment that needs to be made instead of sheriffs coming out and rearresting them or incarcerating them. So im hearing that you may have consensus on item number one. Is that correct . Yes. Yes we have consensus. Great. With regards to the details of what that all looks like, the sheriff is happy to work with the public defender on that. That is great. So item number two, eliminate number five, what we heard also is that what this is [inaudible] the court mandates that they should submit to a search of the residence, then yes, the court mandated that. You put the sheriff before number 5, it should be saying if the court has ordinance [inaudible] that is at the least of what the public defender wanted but i feel its a compromise. I feel what you agreed upon, what i heard is that if the court says it, the court says it. Thats mandated by the court. So if they were to write on item number 5, instead of eliminating it, if the court has mandated it, i understand that i shall submit to a search. I am wondering if that will come to a consensus. I think were reiterating if the courts are demanding it, we must do it and comply. Will that be okay . Sure. And would that be okay with you . You know, i think this department is happy to work with the Public Defenders Office on the wording of this form, which again really we put together to the intention of this form is to make clear to the defendant what we understand is the order by the court. So what youre saying sounds really reasonable, and what i can absolutely commit to is that my boss is happy to work the public defender on the wording for this form. Yeah, i think what were hearing here is that many times when people are put on electronic monitoring or what happens in the court as people have mentioned, it happens very quickly. [inaudible] your world is turned upsidedown. So i think the form is a way also to really remind what their responsibilities are. [inaudible] this is what the electronic monitoring is. Actually it is the essence of electronic monitoring is that it is that the court says you must have electronic monitoring upon release. It makes sense that on this form, a consent form of electronic monitoring that it would be spelled out in a much more concise way. So it has a deeper understanding of what the court has ordered. This is not [inaudible] what im hearing today