Ankle Monitors: Do They Count As Time Served?

Whether or not time spent wearing an ankle monitor counts as time served is a complex legal question that varies depending on the jurisdiction and the specifics of the case. In general, it seems that time spent under house arrest or electronic monitoring does not count towards time served in most states. However, there are exceptions, such as when the defendant is placed under electronic monitoring involuntarily due to jail overcrowding, in which case they may receive sentence reduction credits. Additionally, some judges have interpreted house arrest as 'confinement', which could count towards time served.

Ankle monitors don't count as time served in most states

In most states, time spent under house arrest or wearing an ankle monitor does not count as time served toward a sentence. This is because house arrest is considered "confinement", whereas ankle monitors are often used as a condition of bond release to monitor movements, reduce flight risk, and ensure the safety of the community.

However, there are exceptions. In California, for example, some counties follow Penal Code § 1203.017, which states that those on electronic monitoring involuntarily due to jail overcrowding receive sentence reduction credits as if they had served their sentences in a county correctional facility. This means that four days of credit are given for every two days spent on house arrest.

Additionally, the decision to grant credit for time served on an ankle monitor may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specifics of the case. For example, in New Mexico, there is a growing grey area regarding the level of restriction that qualifies as custody, with lawyers testing the boundaries due to advancements in technology.

It is important to note that the decision to grant credit for time served on an ankle monitor ultimately lies with the judge presiding over the case and may be influenced by factors such as the severity of the crime, the defendant's behaviour, and the impact on the victim and their family.

House arrest is considered confinement and counts towards time served

House arrest is a contentious issue in the US legal system, with some arguing that it should count as time served, while others disagree. In most states, a defendant is not awarded credit for pre-trial or pre-sentence time spent under house arrest or on electronic monitoring. However, this does not include cases where the defendant is unable to post bond due to financial constraints.

The debate has been brought to the fore in recent years with the increased use of GPS ankle monitors as a condition of bond release. In these cases, the ankle monitor is used to monitor the defendant's movements, reduce flight risk, and counter any potential danger to the community. While some argue that this should count as time served, it is generally not considered equivalent to jail time.

However, in the case of house arrest, the situation is less clear-cut. According to New Mexico District Attorney Dianna Luce, case law has determined that house arrest is considered 'confinement' and should count toward time served. This is supported by Penal Code § 1203.017, which states that if a defendant is put on electronic monitoring involuntarily due to jail overcrowding, they should receive any sentence reduction credits they would have received if they had served their sentence in jail.

Most judges agree with this interpretation, and some providers of electronic home monitoring are now allowing credits without a court order. However, there is still some resistance from companies that provide these monitoring services, as it would reduce their revenue. Additionally, not all counties in California follow Penal Code § 1203.017, creating a discrepancy in how house arrest is credited.

Overall, while there is no straightforward answer, it seems that in most cases, house arrest is considered confinement and counts toward time served, especially if it was involuntary due to jail overcrowding.

Ankle monitors are used to monitor defendants' movements and reduce flight risk

Ankle monitors are often used as a means to monitor defendants' movements and reduce their flight risk. They are usually employed as an alternative to pre-trial detention or incarceration, allowing defendants to remain free while awaiting trial or as a condition of their parole. By agreeing to wear an ankle monitor, defendants promise the court that they will stick to the set conditions and not flee. This can also help them obtain a lower bail amount or avoid jail time altogether.

The use of ankle monitors varies based on jurisdiction, crime severity, and the individual's criminal history. However, they are commonly used in serious crimes such as murder, sexual assault, and major drug offenses, and domestic violence. They are also used for repeat offenders, individuals charged with DUI or DWI, and those deemed a flight risk.

Ankle monitors work through GPS or radio frequency technology, allowing authorities to track the wearer's location at all times. They are locked onto the individual's ankle and can only be removed under police supervision. If the wearer attempts to remove the monitor or leaves the designated area, an alert is sent to the monitoring center and local law enforcement.

While ankle monitors can restrict movement and cause discomfort, they offer several benefits. They can help reduce the risk of bail bond forfeiture, make it easier to locate defendants if they flee, and increase the likelihood of their attendance at court proceedings. Additionally, ankle monitors can save time and money that would otherwise be spent on recovering collateral assets if a defendant absconds.

It is important to note that, in most states, time spent on electronic monitoring or house arrest does not count towards the defendant's sentence. However, time spent in pre-trial custody due to financial inability to post bond is typically credited towards the sentence.

Ankle monitors are often used as a condition of bond release

For instance, in cases of serious crimes such as murder, sexual assault, or major drug offenses, courts may require the defendant to wear an ankle monitor as a condition of bail or parole. Ankle monitors are also frequently used for repeat offenders or those who have previously violated bail or parole terms. By using ankle monitors, the court can ensure that individuals stay within the designated boundaries and do not pose a risk to the community.

Additionally, ankle monitors can be utilised in domestic violence cases to enforce a required distance between the offender and the victim. They can also be employed in DUI or DWI cases, where the monitor can detect alcohol consumption, ensuring compliance with court orders. In some instances, individuals involved in immigration proceedings may also be required to wear ankle monitors.

The integration of ankle monitors with bail bonds creates a more intertwined relationship between the defendant, the bail bond company, and the court system. Bail bond companies play a crucial role in ensuring their clients comply with all court-set conditions, including the proper use and maintenance of the ankle monitor. Failure to adhere to these conditions can result in the revocation of bail bond and potential re-arrest.

It is important to note that, in most states, time spent on electronic monitoring or house arrest is not typically credited towards a defendant's sentence. However, the use of ankle monitors offers several benefits, including the ability to live at home, continue working, and maintain public safety while awaiting trial.

Some companies providing ankle monitors resist giving credit for time served

In most states, defendants are not awarded credit for pre-trial or pre-sentence time spent under house arrest or on electronic monitoring. Federal case law does not consider time spent on home incarceration or electronic monitoring as "official detention", and therefore does not count as time served. Instead, it is seen as a form of pretrial release. However, judges do have the discretionary power to consider the time spent on home incarceration or electronic monitoring as a mitigating factor when sentencing.

In some cases, judges have reduced their intended sentences based on the time spent on home detention or an ankle bracelet. However, this is at the judge's discretion and is not a statutory right.

The use of electronic monitoring devices has been criticised by the ACLU as a form of "digital incarceration" that can lead to physical jails and prisons for minor technical violations, charging malfunctions, and false alarms. Furthermore, the fees associated with these devices can be costly, ranging from $3 to $35 per day, with initial setup charges ranging from $100 to $200. These costs can be burdensome for households already dealing with the financial implications of a loved one's incarceration.

The use of electronic monitoring devices has also been criticised for exacerbating systemic inequities along lines of race, class, and disability. For example, in Detroit, Black people are twice as likely as white people to be electronically monitored.

Frequently asked questions