Sentencing Guidelines » Chapter 5

U.S.S.G. § 5F1.2

Home Detention

Read at: USSCussc.gov CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

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.

Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective November 1, 1989 (amendments 271 and 302); November 1, 2018 (amendment 811).


 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1990–2024 · leading case: United States v. Joel Wright, 46 F.4th 938 (9th Cir. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Joel Wright, 46 F.4th 938 (9th Cir. 2022). · cites it 3× “” U.S.S.G. § 5F1.2; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (c).”
United States v. Kathleen Kremser Jones, 107 F.3d 1147 (6th Cir. 1997). · cites it 3× “U.S.S.G. § 5F1.2. Chapter 5, Part B (“Probation”) contains a similar proviso: Home detention may be imposed as a condition of probation or supervised release, but only as a substitute for imprisonment.”
United States v. William Gilchrist, 130 F.3d 1131 (3rd Cir. 1997). · cites it 4× “Therefore, the government maintains that when Appellant entered into a plea agreement providing for one month home detention, the imposition of a period of supervised release was, or should have been, within his reasonable expectations.”
United States v. T.M., 330 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2003). “” See U.S.S.G. § 5F1.2; U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(e)(2); see also United States v.”
United States v. Lopez-Pastrana, 889 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2018). “1(e)(3) (stating, under the heading "Schedule of Substitute Punishments": "[o]ne day of home detention for one day of imprisonment"); 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 .”
United States of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Jim Gee & William C. Norris, Defendants-Appellants/cross-Appellees, 226 F.3d 885 (7th Cir. 2000). “U.S.S.G. § 5F1.2 states that "Home detention may be imposed as a condition of probation or supervised release, but only as a substitute for imprisonment.”
United States of Am., Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Nancy Ruth Iversen, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee, 90 F.3d 1340 (8th Cir. 1996). “3 Further, the fact that home detention may be imposed “only as a substitute for imprisonment^]” see U.S.S.G. § 5F1.2 (emphasis added); see also 18 U.”
United States v. Brian Floss, 42 F.4th 854 (8th Cir. 2022). “” USSG § 5F1.2 (emphasis added). The plain meaning of these governing provisions makes clear what common sense teaches -- home detention may be a form of “confinement,” but it is not “imprisonment.”
United States of Am., Cross-Appellee v. Denny L. Goff, 6 F.3d 363 (6th Cir. 1993). “The guidelines plainly provide that home detention, established in U.S.S.G. § 5F1.2, is a sentencing option only available for sentences no longer than ten months.”
United States v. Omar Jahal Daggao, A.K.A. Omar Jahal Ali-Daggao, 28 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 1994). “…However, alternative means of surveillance may be used as long as they are as effective as electronic monitoring. U.S.S.G. § 5F1.2, Commentary (n. 1).”
United States v. Edward Bello, Also Known as Jason Hink, Also Known as Jerome Hink, Also Known as Joseph Fulano, 310 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2002). “” See U.S.S.G. § 5F1.2. The Guidelines suggest that the imposition of such conditions as part of a sentence of home detention might be appropriate where “the amenities available in the residence of a defendant would cause home detention not to be sufficiently puni tive.”
United States v. Patricia Robertson, 709 F.3d 741 (8th Cir. 2013). “Tribal law prohibits alcohol consumption by Indians within the Reservation boundaries. It is reasonable to require Robertson to comply with tribal law while confined to her home as a more lenient alternative to incarceration.”
Show all 40 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.