Defendant who agreed to be placed on an electronic monitoring program (EMP) in exchange for bail reduction was entitled to presentence custody credits under Penal Code section 2900.5. Defendant, who was awaiting trial, had insufficient funds to post his bail. In exchange for a reduction in bail, defendant agreed to be placed on home confinement on an EMP. After his plea of no contest to a charge of false imprisonment, defendant requested that he receive credit for his time in home detention (Pen. Code, § 2900.5), claiming his detention mirrored the detention described in Penal Code section 1203.018, which affords such credit. His request was denied because defendant’s home detention was a condition of reduced bail, not “in lieu of bail” (Pen. Code, § 1203.018). He appealed. Held: Reversed in part. Criminal defendants receive credit for days spent “in custody,” which includes time served in home detention under section 1203.018. (Pen. Code, § 2900.5, subd. (a).) Section 1203.018 allows in-custody inmates to participate in an EMP under specified terms, but it only applies to inmates being held in lieu of bail. There was no dispute that defendant was enrolled in the county’s EMP and there was no dispute that his confinement was subject to the conditions described in section 1203.018. Defendant’s home detention was “in lieu of” a higher amount of bail, which placed him in the same position as a defendant who is unable to post a bond in order to remain at liberty pending trial. Section 2900.5 was intended to eliminate disparate treatment of indigent defendants who are unable to post bond and who therefore may serve a longer period of confinement. The purpose of section 2900.5 is equally served by awarding credit to those who are placed on an EMP to obtain bail reduction.

The full opinion is on the court’s website here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B262978.PDF