SB 23
Department of Legislative Services
Maryland General Assembly
2021 Session
FISCAL AND POLICY NOTE
Third Reader - Revised
Senate Bill 23 (Senator Hettleman)
Judicial Proceedings
Conditions of Pretrial Release - Home Detention Monitoring
This bill establishes that a pretrial defendant may not be required to pay a private home
detention monitoring agency’s (PHDMA) monitoring fee or pay for a home detention
monitoring device if the defendant (1) qualifies as indigent under § 16-210 of the Criminal
Procedure Article (eligibility for services of the Office of the Public Defender) or (2) is
provided a private home detention monitoring device or global positioning system device
by the State or a local jurisdiction. The bill requires the State to pay a PHDMA for any
costs or fees incurred by defendants who meet this criteria. The bill states the intention of
the General Assembly that, subject to the availability of federal funds, the implementation
of this requirement be funded in fiscal 2022 using federal funds. The bill also establishes
the Workgroup on Home Detention Monitoring. The bill takes effect July 1, 2021, and
generally remains effective until one year after the end of the Governor’s
proclamation of the COVID-19 Catastrophic Health Emergency/State of Emergency,
as discussed below. Provisions regarding the workgroup terminate June 30, 2022.
Fiscal Summary
State Effect: Federal/general fund expenditures increase in FY 2022 and general fund
expenditures increase annually thereafter for payments to PHDMAs and for potential
administrative costs. General fund expenditures may be at least partially offset to the extent
State incarceration costs decrease. Revenues are not materially affected.
Local Effect: Local incarceration expenditures may decrease, as discussed below.
Revenues are not materially affected.
Small Business Effect: Meaningful.
 Analysis
Bill Summary:
Workgroup on Home Detention Monitoring
The bill establishes the Workgroup on Home Detention Monitoring, to be staffed by the
Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS). The President of the
Senate and the Speaker of the House of Delegates must select two co-chairs from among
the workgroup’s members. A member of the workgroup may not receive compensation but
is entitled to reimbursement for expenses under the standard State travel regulations.
The workgroup must (1) study and make recommendations regarding the costs and
availability of both publicly and privately provided pretrial home detention monitoring
systems and (2) submit a report of its findings and recommendations to the Governor and
the General Assembly by December 31, 2021. The workgroup terminates June 30, 2022.
Duration of the Bill
The bill takes effect July 1, 2021. The bill’s monitoring payment provisions remain
effective for one year after the expiration or rescission of the Governor’s proclamation of
March 5, 2020 “Declaration of State of Emergency and Existence of Catastrophic Health
Emergency – COVID-19” or the expiration of any renewal of the state of emergency
declared by the Governor in the proclamation of March 5, 2020. The bill generally
terminates one year after the expiration of the state of emergency or any renewal of the
state of emergency; as noted above, provisions regarding the workgroup terminate
June 30, 2022.
Current Law:
Payment of Fees to Private Home Detention Monitoring Agencies
Under § 5-201 of the Criminal Procedure Article, in accordance with eligibility criteria,
conditions, and procedures required under the Maryland Rules, the court may require, as a
condition of a defendant’s pretrial release, that the defendant be monitored by a PHDMA
licensed under Title 20 of the Business Occupations and Professions Article. A defendant
placed in private home detention must pay the agency’s monitoring fee directly to the
PHDMA.
State/Local Expenditures: State (federal/general fund) expenditures increase in
fiscal 2022 for payments to PHDMAs; general fund expenditures continue in future
fiscal years until the termination of the bill, the timing of which cannot be reliably predicted
SB 23/ Page 2
at this time. State expenditures (federal/general funds in fiscal 2022 and general funds
annually thereafter) likely increase further for administrative costs. This estimate assumes
that in the absence of available federal funds in fiscal 2022, general funds are used to
implement the bill; however, to the extent that federal funds are available in fiscal 2022,
the impact on the general fund is mitigated. State and local incarceration expenditures
decrease to the extent that the bill results in pretrial defendants being monitored by
PHDMAs at the State’s expense instead of remaining in State or local detention facilities.
To the extent any federal funding that may be made available for the bill’s purpose in
fiscal 2022 would have been expended anyway, the bill may only affect the timing or
purpose of such expenditures.
Payments to Private Home Detention Monitoring Agencies
A PHDMA is a private business that provides monitoring services for a fee to individuals
who are under a court order that requires monitoring by a PHDMA. PHDMAs are licensed
by the Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services. Orders for electronic
monitoring of a pretrial defendant come from a judge at a judicial bail review;
District Court commissioners do not have this authority. According to DPSCS, the request
for placement under supervision by a PHDMA is typically made by the defendant and
granted by the judge. The judge has the ability to stipulate the terms of the supervision, and
the PDHMA selected has the right to refuse supervision. According to DPSCS,
three companies currently provide these services in Maryland; the companies charge fees
ranging from $10 to $18 per day.
The bill requires the State to pay PHDMAs for the monitoring fees or device-related costs
incurred by pretrial defendants who qualify as indigent. Information is not readily available
on (1) the number of individuals currently being monitored who qualify as indigent under
the bill and (2) the maximum monitoring capacity for these PHDMAs. However, this
analysis assumes that:
 most individuals currently being monitored by PHDMAs are not indigent due to
PHDMAs likely requiring a demonstrable ability to pay for services;
 PHDMAs will supplement, rather than supplant their clientele under the bill;
 the bill does not alter local pretrial services programs or the availability of
monitoring in local programs, and pretrial services programs that currently do not
charge fees for monitoring of participants (as discussed below) will continue that
practice; and
 judges will not alter the circumstances under which they order PHDMA monitoring.
SB 23/ Page 3
Without actual experience under the bill, it is unknown how the availability of State-funded
home detention monitoring will impact the number of defendants who request (and are
subsequently approved for) private home detention monitoring. However, it is assumed
that some defendants who would potentially be approved by a judge for private home
detention services are not currently requesting it due to an inability to pay and that more
indigent defendants will request home monitoring (and be approved) once it is available at
no cost. The average statewide processing time for criminal cases in fiscal 2018 was
85 days in the District Court and 114 days in the circuit courts. For illustrative purposes
only, for each indigent defendant who is monitored by a PHDMA for 100 days with a
monitoring fee of $15 per day and an equipment and installation charge of $250, State
expenditures increase by $1,750; State expenditures increase to $2,950 per defendant if the
defendant is monitored for the entire 180-day caseload time standard for criminal cases in
the trial courts.
Administrative Costs
The bill does not specify how State payments will be administered. While the bill requires
the State to pay PHDMAs for specified cost and fees, it is unclear how this payment
arrangement will operate. PHDMAs will likely want guaranteed payment in a timely
manner before agreeing or continuing to monitor defendants under the bill. It is likely that
the entity ultimately responsible for ensuring payment (e.g., potentially the Judiciary or
DPSCS) will incur at least minimal one-time administrative costs, such as computer
programming costs, to do so. However, without further specificity regarding how the
payments will be administered, a reliable estimate of any potential administrative costs
cannot be provided.
State and Local Incarceration Costs
Information is not readily available on the per diem variable costs for housing a pretrial
defendant in Baltimore City. Depending on how the costs of monitoring compare to the
costs to maintain a pretrial defendant in Baltimore City, general fund expenditures may be
partially offset. Likewise, to the extent that more defendants are placed on electronic
monitoring at the State’s expense instead of being detained in local detention facilities,
local incarceration costs decrease.
State and Local Pretrial Services Programs
If the State or a local jurisdiction provides a monitoring device to a pretrial defendant, it is
through the jurisdiction’s pretrial services program. As noted below, many of these
programs do not charge fees to participants.
SB 23/ Page 4
Based on information received by the Department of Legislative Services (DLS), as of
January 2021, all but four jurisdictions in the State (Allegany, Charles, Garrett, and
Howard counties) currently operate pretrial services programs. The programs vary in scope
and services offered. Many counties do not charge fees for participation in pretrial services
programs. For instance, Anne Arundel, Montgomery, and Prince George’s counties advise
that they do not charge any fees to pretrial defendants. Baltimore County advises that it
eliminated fees for participants in its home detention program in January 2021. DPSCS
operates the pretrial services program (PRSP) in Baltimore City. DPSCS advises that PRSP
participants are not electronically monitored and are supervised using other methods. PRSP
does not charge fees to participants.
This estimate assumes that the main source of costs for the State under the bill is requests by
indigent pretrial defendants for electronic monitoring that are granted by a court, as discussed
above. As noted above, several local jurisdictions do not charge fees or costs to pretrial
defendants for publicly provided electronic monitoring. Furthermore, based on information
previously provided to DLS, fees and costs from pretrial defendants do not appear to be a
significant source of local revenue. For example, Calvert County collected $2,436 in fees
from pretrial defendants during fiscal 2017; Carroll County collected $5,067 in pretrial
defendant fees during this time. Therefore, the bill’s provision exempting indigent
defendants from being charged fees for home detention monitoring devices provided by the
State or a local jurisdiction is not anticipated to have a material impact on State or local
finances.
Workgroup on Home Detention Monitoring
DPSCS can staff the workgroup using existing budgeted resources. Any expense
reimbursements for workgroup members are assumed to be minimal and absorbable within
existing budgeted resources.
Small Business Effect: The bill has a meaningful effect on PHDMAs to the extent that
State-funded electronic monitoring of indigent pretrial defendants increases business for
these agencies.
Additional Information
Prior Introductions: Similar bills regarding monitoring fees and costs have been
introduced during previous legislative sessions. HB 1377 of 2020 received a hearing in the
House Judiciary Committee, but no further action was taken. Its cross file, SB 513, received
a hearing in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, but no further action was taken.
SB 932 of 2019 received a hearing in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, but no
SB 23/ Page 5
further action was taken. Its cross file, HB 566, received a hearing in the House Judiciary
Committee, but no further action was taken.
Designated Cross File: HB 316 (Delegate Smith) - Judiciary.
Information Source(s): Allegany, Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Charles, Frederick, Garrett,
and Montgomery counties; Judiciary (Administrative Office of the Courts); Department of
Public Safety and Correctional Services; Baltimore Sun; ProPublica; Department of
Legislative Services
Fiscal Note History: First Reader - January 25, 2021
rh/jkb Revised - Clarification - February 2, 2021
Third Reader - April 9, 2021
Revised - Amendment(s) - April 9, 2021
Analysis by: Amy A. Devadas Direct Inquiries to:
(410) 946-5510
(301) 970-5510
SB 23/ Page 6


Statutes affected:
Text - First - Conditions of Pretrial Release - Home Detention Monitoring: 5-201 Public Safety, 41-102 Public Safety, 41-104 Public Safety, 41-102 Public Safety, 41-104 Public Safety
Text - Third - Conditions of Pretrial Release - Home Detention Monitoring: 5-201 Criminal Procedure, 41-102 Public Safety, 41-104 Public Safety, 41-102 Public Safety, 41-104 Public Safety