U.S.S.G. §5F1.2

Home detention may be imposed as a condition of probation or supervised release, but only as a substitute for imprisonment.

Commentary

Application Notes:

1. “Home detention” means a program of confinement and supervision that restricts the defendant

to his place of residence continuously, except for authorized absences, enforced by appropriate

means of surveillance by the probation office. When an order of home detention is imposed, the

defendant is required to be in his place of residence at all times except for approved absences for

gainful employment, community service, religious services, medical care, educational or training

programs, and such other times as may be specifically authorized. Electronic monitoring is an

appropriate means of surveillance for home detention. However, alternative means of surveillance may be used if appropriate.

2. The court may impose other conditions of probation or supervised release appropriate to effectuate home detention. If the court concludes that the amenities available in the residence of a defendant would cause home detention not to be sufficiently punitive, the court may limit the amenities available.

3. The defendant’s place of residence, for purposes of home detention, need not be the place where

the defendant previously resided. It may be any place of residence, so long as the owner of the

residence (and any other person(s) from whom consent is necessary) agrees to any conditions that

may be imposed by the court, e.g., conditions that a monitoring system be installed, that there

will be no “call forwarding” or “call waiting” services, or that there will be no cordless telephones

or answering machines.

Background: The Commission has concluded that electronic monitoring is an appropriate means of

surveillance for home detention. However, in some cases home detention may effectively be enforced

without electronic monitoring, e.g., when the defendant is physically incapacitated, or where some

other effective means of surveillance is available. Accordingly, the Commission has not required that

electronic monitoring be a necessary condition for home detention. Nevertheless, before ordering home

detention without electronic monitoring, the court should be confident that an alternative form of surveillance is appropriate considering the facts and circumstances of the defendant’s case.

In the usual case, the Commission assumes that a condition requiring that the defendant seek

and maintain gainful employment will be imposed when home detention is ordered.