Montgomery County (Ohio) has begun experimenting on a limited basis with house arrest and the electronic monitoring of those so restrained. Following a recent, controversial election, the police began a vigorous arrest campaign against drugs which filled two prisons. The dilemma for the county is the judicious use of a new technology to delay or eliminate the need for new construction, prison release, or the unprincipled and random use of the program which might lead to unacceptable political costs. Two different sets of political contexts with different attendant risks involved in electronically monitored house arrest (EMHA) are the pretrial and posttrial environments. The author concludes that the correct implementation of a pioneering criminal justice tool must include the management of political risk for all involved. The collection of accurate cost data, the selection of the pool of eligible participants, the establishment of a flexible quota for EMHA usage, and the creation of a value-neutral method of selection must be considered. An adequate implementation system can help to insure that a potentially useful technology will not lie unused because of the political risk involved in its implementation. 17 references.