Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Location Monitoring Program in the Federal Courts

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Location Monitoring Program in the Federal Courts"— Presentation transcript:

1 Location Monitoring Program in the Federal Courts
National Update: Monograph 113 approved by CLC and is pending Judicial Conference approval; features new name change to Location Monitoring Program and emphasizes 24/7 role of supervising EM cases and responding to key alerts

2 Who Am I? Trent Cornish, Probation Administrator
Office of Probation and Pretrial Services Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (202) George – Innovator in the world of EM, and not just GPS but in his overall oversight of the program.

3 Principles of Location Monitoring Program
Manage or mitigate offender risks such as the risk an offender poses to a specific person or the community Technology provides capability to enforce and monitor offender’s compliance with one or more condition of supervision

4 Principles of Location Monitoring Program (cont.)
Verify approved offender locations at home or in the community; and/or provide information about the offender’s movement in the community Determine offender movement into prohibited areas Location monitoring mitigates risk by establishing 24/7 accountability

5 Types of Location Monitoring Technology in U.S. Courts
Voice Recognition Radio Frequency (RF) Passive GPS Active GPS Hybrid GPS Exclusion and Inclusion Zones to include Victim Mobile Zones Discuss some of the consistent finding at Program Reviews in the LM Program – some best practices and some policy but today we will primarily talk about best practices as it relates to program oversight. Discuss some of the common LM related finding at Program Reviews There have been some serious defendant / offender incidents in the EM program and it’s important to recognize that LM can’t prevent any “incident” but can mitigate / reduce risks. After an incident, the program is scrutinized and you want to be able to say we were doing everything we could to ensure that this would not happen. When it becomes a problem is when scrutinized, it appears there were some deficiencies in your program. Most important part of the overall program is the oversight itself. Ensuring that officers who supervise LM cases are consistently responding to alerts, documenting their efforts and that their work is being reviewed sufficiently. The purpose of this discussion is not to train or educate you on the program, but to identify ways to increaese program accountability and integrity and provide some tips to take back to your supervisors who are the key to a successful program.

6 Availability in U.S. Courts
Two national Location Monitoring Contracts (B.I. and G4S Justice) All technologies provided by both vendors Courts may order services from either vendor and de-centralized funding is provided in their law enforcement accounts Training provided by vendors Training is available through the EM contracts – yearly, refreshers, and training on new equipment – Most districts don’t take the contractors up on this. Any officer who handles an LM case, should be sufficiently trained. Often, we see that general line officers who handle 1-2 cases aren’t trained or knowledgeable in the technology. Back-ups: Make sure your backups are trained. Most incidents where a case has fallen through the cracks involves a breakdown during the back up coverage process. Make sure expectations of the back-up are clear and their role when they supervise is no different than the primary EM officer – not just clear alerts, but investigate and respond and document efforts. Again, program reviews show little documentation of back up efforts Supervisors must be trained and knowledgeable and it is recommended that they occasionally carry the pager or serve as back-up.

7 Role of Office of Probation and Pretrial Services (OPPS)
Develop national location monitoring policy (Monograph 113 – The Federal Location Monitoring Program for Defendants and Offenders) Program management and oversight Establish requirements for national program Amend contracts with new technologies after period of testing Vendor Mg. Reports are underutilized. These are reports that managers should be accessing on a daily basis to manage officer’s performance. Both statistical / administrative reports and activity reports are available through all contracts but rarely are they utilized. Vendors will also customize reports or establish various protocols via alerts to supervisors to notify them of a certain action. (e.g. installation complete, key alert that “times out” w/out a response. Request full list of reports and definitions, just give me a call or me. Review types of reports and benefit

8 How is Location Monitoring Technology Utilized?
Type of technology recommended and/or selected on a case by case basis Type of technology selected based on sentence and identified risk factors Type of technology may change during course of supervision from least to more restrictive or vice versa depending on offender’s supervision adjustment

9 Voice Verification Systems
Automated systems place and/or receive calls to verify offender’s presence Cost – approximately $1.88 per day No traditional electronic monitoring equipment required Must consider minimum standards of Monograph 113: monthly field contacts, 24/7 alert responses and for GPS cases, number of exclusion zones LMP Working Group recommendation: cases with maximum 10% GPS cases

10 Voice Verification Targets lower risk offenders by establishing random call-in times to verify presence in home Not continuous monitoring Primarily utilized for curfew monitoring Average cost – $1.65 per day

11 Radio Frequency (RF) Presence verified at authorized location (home) utilizing transmitter and receiver; monitored via land line Only monitors offender when in home (e.g. Martha Stewart) Approximately 5,500 defendants/offenders monitored via RF technology

12 Radio Frequency Technology
Ideal for continuous curfew monitoring in the home Cost-effective technology for monitoring offenders on “lock-down” status in home Average cost - $3.50 per day

13 Global Positioning Systems (GPS)
Records offender’s location from the time he/she leaves residence until return home Active GPS – continuous monitoring in “real-time” Passive GPS – Tracking / location information downloaded upon offender’s return home; not “real-time”

14 GPS Ideal for monitoring offender with condition that includes prohibited area in community (e.g. schools, victims, etc.) Ideal for monitoring offender who is required to be at specific location in community (e.g. place of employment, drug treatment, etc.) Can be used as supervision tool to look at “tracks” of movement to determine location patterns

15 GPS Approximately 400 defendants/offenders being monitored via GPS technology in Federal Courts Labor-intensive technology requiring considerable manpower – probation officer resources Average cost - $6-9 per day

16 Alert Notification System
Alerts are generated directly to probation officer in various ways Alerts received via notification, voice via cell phone and/or text or any combination

17 Types of Alerts Potential Violations
Unauthorized Leave Failure to Return Equipment Tamper Unit Failed to Report Exclusion Zone Violation Inclusion Zone Violation Bracelet Gone / Transmitter Out of Range

18 Alert Response Protocol
All “key” alerts must be investigated and responded to on a 24/7 basis Majority of alerts are innocuous and not indicative of a violation (e.g. no GPS signal, land-line out of service, etc.)

19 Location Monitoring Violations
Violations must be based on officer’s independent investigation and not solely based on information (alert) generated by location monitoring technology

20 Location Monitoring Technology as an Alternative to Incarceration
Technology provides officer with ability to mitigate risks that offenders pose in the community that could not otherwise be addressed Technology provides ability to enforce an offender’s structured schedule that can fulfill sentencing objectives Provides ability to verify offender location and add layer of structure to offender’s activities

21 Future Location Monitoring Technology
Real-time Transdermal Alcohol Testing – via Active GPS Tracking One-piece “Hybrid” Tracking – combines all technologies into one tracking unit (RF, GPS, etc.) AFLT Technology – Advanced Forward Link Trilateration Television Tracking Technology

22 Questions?

Download ppt "Location Monitoring Program in the Federal Courts"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google