County could not be held liable for death of murder victim allegedly killed by detainee who removed an electronic home monitoring restraint and escaped home detention before committing the crime. The county and its agencies had no "special duty" to protect the victim from the crime, and an exception to statutory immunity for injury and death that occurs within the grounds of buildings used in performance of public functions did not apply. Kennerly v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Commissioners, 814 N.E.2d 1252 (Ohio App. 2d Dist. 2004). [N/R]
     Trial court's order prohibiting placing probationer on a home monitoring system improperly interfered with county sheriff's statutory authority under state law to regulate the manner in which she served jail time. State of Wisconsin v. Schell, No. 02-1394-CR, 661 N.W.2d 503 (Wis. App. 2003). [N/R]
     Removal of offender from home detention program for failure to obtain full-time employment was a deprivation of liberty, entitling him to due process, but county community corrections agency did not order him jailed, since only a court had the power to do so. The plaintiff was arrested under a warrant and spent 3 days in custody. A subsequent court hearing determined that he was mentally disabled, and therefore excused from the condition of obtaining full time employment. He was then reinstated in the home detention program. If there was any erroneous deprivation of due process, it was by the probation officer and the state court that issued the arrest warrant at the officer's request. No civil rights claim could be pursued against the community corrections agency for merely reporting to the probation officer a probable violation of a condition of probation. Paige v. Hudson, #02-4317, 341 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
         Prisoner on home release status had no constitutional liberty interest in continuation of such status. Asherman v. Meachum, 566 A.2d 663 (Conn. 1989).