No more credit for home confinement in Massachusetts

I have had several clients receive credit for time served in custody for the period during which they were confined to their homes on an electornic bracelet. Thise days are over. In Commonwealth v. Morasse, the Supreme Judicial court of Massachusetts has held that "being restircted to one's ohome is not the equivalent of being incarcerated." Sounds obvious when they put it that way. Of course, it depends upon the nature of the home to which one is confined. This decision removes an attractive aspect of home confinement as a pre-trial alternative to incarceration, though any alternative to incarceration is relatively attractive.

Electronic monitoring, or ELMO as we call it here in the Commonwealth, is ever more frequently imposed as either a pre-trial condition or as part of a sentence. The idea is that the defendant wears an electronic transmitter on a strap around his or her ankle. A receiver is hooked up to the home phone line, and if the transmitter goes beyond a certain radius (basically the yard around the house) the receiver will call a central location and report the transgression.

In the past, it has sometimes been effective to argue to a sentencing judge that the home confinement is the functional equivalent of incarceration, as it is a severe restriction of one's liberty. The SJC notes that their decision in Morasse brings Massachusetts in line with most other jurisdictions, which do not grant credit for home confinement. A notable exception is California, whose jail credit statute apparently specifically includes home confinement as credit-worthy.

I've seen some homes in California that I wouldn't mind being confined to. But apparently the California legislature feels that, on the average, being confined to one's home in Cali is the equvalent of jail.