Provides relative to electronic monitoring of certain offenders. (8/1/25) (EN SEE FISC NOTE GF EX)
SB 95 revises Louisiana law governing electronic monitoring for certain criminal defendants and other supervised persons. The bill directs state corrections, law enforcement, and criminal justice agencies to adopt written policies for electronic monitoring equipment and adds certification and registration standards for monitoring providers and manufacturers operating in the state. It also tightens reporting obligations, requiring providers to notify law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and bail agents quickly when a monitored person violates conditions, and to submit monthly reports on monitoring activity.
The bill also creates a new framework for electronic monitoring programs. Courts may impose conditions tied to rehabilitation, such as employment, school attendance, after-school activities, curfews, and compliance with inclusion and exclusion zones. Adults generally must pay the cost of monitoring, while courts may waive costs in juvenile or other cases. Monitored persons must keep equipment charged and cooperate with troubleshooting or repair efforts, including possible detention by law enforcement for that purpose. Providers must actively monitor compliance and send daily noncompliance reports to district attorneys.
SB 95 further authorizes courts to issue arrest warrants when noncompliance is found and to hold a person in custody pending a hearing on whether they can comply with monitoring restrictions. After a third finding of noncompliance, the court must terminate electronic monitoring and return the person to custody or, for juveniles, to the appropriate pretrial facility. The bill also creates the crime of violating electronic monitoring conditions, including entering an exclusion zone, failing to leave one immediately, or violating a curfew order, with penalties that increase if the violation occurs during a felony or after release on bail for a felony crime of violence.
The bill’s impact is to expand state regulation of electronic monitoring providers, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and create new criminal penalties for monitored persons who violate court-ordered restrictions. It affects defendants on pretrial release, post-conviction supervision, juveniles in monitoring programs, courts, prosecutors, bail agents, law enforcement, and private monitoring companies. It also exposes providers to fines, jail time, and a five-year prohibition on registering to provide services in Louisiana if they intentionally withhold or fail to timely report required information.
The overall sentiment appears strongly supportive and noncontroversial. The bill passed the Senate, House, and Senate concurrence unanimously, indicating broad bipartisan agreement on tightening oversight and enforcement of electronic monitoring. No committee transcript objections are available, and the voting record suggests the measure was viewed as a public-safety and compliance bill rather than a contested policy change. The main points of potential concern are the added burdens on providers, the costs imposed on adults being monitored, and the new criminal penalties and custody consequences for noncompliance, but no recorded opposition appears in the available history.
SB 95 amends Louisiana Revised Statutes Title 15 to add new requirements for electronic monitoring equipment, provider certification and registration, reporting duties, and enforcement procedures. It creates R.S. 15:571.37 and 15:571.38, establishing court authority over monitoring conditions, cost allocation, noncompliance consequences, and a new offense for violating electronic monitoring conditions. The bill directly affects electronic monitoring service providers, manufacturers, courts, prosecutors, law enforcement, bail agents, adults and juveniles subject to monitoring, and correctional/pretrial facilities.
The bill appears to have received broad, unanimous support in both chambers, with 36-0 Senate passage, 96-0 House passage, and 38-0 Senate concurrence. The available record suggests a generally favorable view of the bill as a public-safety and accountability measure aimed at improving compliance and oversight in electronic monitoring programs. No committee debate or recorded opposition is available in the provided materials.
The main areas of potential contention are the bill’s stricter enforcement tools and added obligations. Electronic monitoring providers face new certification, registration, reporting, and penalty requirements, including fines, possible imprisonment, and a five-year ban on registering after intentional nonreporting. Monitored individuals, especially adults, must bear program costs and comply with equipment-maintenance and cooperation requirements, while violations can lead to arrest, custody pending hearing, termination from monitoring after repeated noncompliance, and new criminal penalties for entering exclusion zones or violating curfews. Juvenile-related cost waivers and program conditions may also be a point of policy sensitivity, but no recorded opposition appears in the available history.