Does the criminal justice system have confidence in the electronic monitor to do what it is supposed to do? If not, why should the public feel any sense of security?
I have participated in discussions lately that involve probation/parole and pre-trial clients scoring tamper alarms while wearing or discarding electronic bracelets. These clients have become involved in high-profile crimes. There were 46 tamper alarms preceding the crimes committed by David Renz in Syracuse, NY. He had removed his bracelet prior to committing murder. The tamper alarm in the Evan Ebel multiple murder case in Colorado went five days before action was taken. There has been a huge outcry because of the perceived failure of the system to prevent these crimes.
A client who tampers with his or her electronic bracelet must be held accountable immediately.
BI Incorporated currently holds around a 50 percent market share of equipment utilized in the criminal justice industry. The BI ExacuTrack One is an ankle-mounted GPS capable unit. It can provide location information every 15 seconds, which is reported once every minute and can be queried for location at any time. It has multiple methods of tamper monitoring: lights and alarms for status notification, RF frequency link to an in-home, work, or other beacon (up to three). It has the ability to communicate with a client via pre-recorded voice messages requiring the client to respond. This hardware is matched up to officer-utilized software to create the restrictions for the client.
Manufacturers’ representatives must always believe and uphold that the equipment tamper alarms are accurate. Anything less means the equipment is defective. Any manufacturing rep who tells the world his product is defective should be unemployed. Any manufacturer who sells a product that doesn’t meet specs should room with Bernie Madoff.
I would suspend or fire any supervising officer who believed a “false tamper” can occur due to the vibrations of loud music or any other source. Policy or directives restricting the reporting of tampers is a showing of no confidence. The client’s nefarious behavior caused the alarm.
Clients/defendants must believe in the certainty of the tamper alarm or they will have no confidence in the device’s effectiveness, which can result in their escalating illicit behavior.
Judges must never show less than full confidence in the tamper alarms or risk supporting the defendant’s creative thinking, leading to serious criminal behavior. The court giving instructions to the supervising agency not to report all tampers is a showing of no confidence. It is also obstructing government administration.
All tamper alarms require a violation report, and if the court determines that a tamper is not purposeful, it must stop all use of all electronic monitors immediately. The finding is a judicial decision that the equipment is defective. Either the equipment goes, or the judge does.
In my opinion a tamper cannot be accidental. There is no such thing as a false tamper alarm.
